Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 8 |
Archive 9


Proposal to discuss a merger between WICU and ARS

Prior discussion leading up to the below can be found at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 8

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The old Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit and ARS have many things in common, and judging by the comments above, some people do feel they should be merged. Others might oppose, and some are uncertain. Let's have the sort of merge discussion we'd have if the merge had just been proposed rather than already executed. If there's consensus to keep the merge, keep it, if not, revert it. We appreciate the work User:Inclusionist put into executing the merge, and should not revert it if it turns out it was the right thing to do, even if the process wasn't ideal. Vickser (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update Naming was changed in the archive shuffle. This is a discussion/vote on how to make sense of this merger kerfluffle. If you think that we should throw a merger tag up on the two projects and start talking about how (and if) to integrate them, say yes. If you think that the two are somehow incompatible and that we would be better served by not discussing the merger, say no. This may get meta, but don't worry. It isn't immediate or binding. We are just trying to get our bearings and trying to determine how best to proceed. Protonk (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it is at all appropriate to change this into a merger discussion. People already commented and voted and it's discussing something entirely else. If people want to have a merger discussion, they can have it, but I don't think it's appropriate to write one over on a discussion that has an opening statement that talks about something different and had !votes already cast. <-- forgot to sign, but Vickser (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Vickser (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Protonk (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, the creator is a self proclaimed deletionist. Inclusionist (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So what if he is? Protonk (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, however it should be noted that I am a member of neither project. While it is true that the two projects have slightly different focus this is simply in that ARS have a narrower focus than WICU. Editors that wish to concentrate solely on improving articles that are immediately threatened can do so just as well under the auspice of a project whose focus is improvement of borderline articles in general. Taemyr (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. I know this was my proposal, but after reading the AN/I report, it seems there's more significant opposition to the WICU merge than it initially seemed. I wrote this proposal reading the comments here, where the sentiment seemed to be that a WICU merge was probably common sense and would happen anyway. On the basis of strong objections by members involved in both project pages as demonstrated by reverts and the AN/I, this seems controversial enough that we shouldn't try glossing over process. Vickser (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong oppose. ARS is specifically for article within the AfD process whereas WICU does more general work sometimes preventative to help keep an article out of the AfD process. Members here focus just on the few days from when an article if tagged for deletion and subsequently tagged for rescue to evaluate and then rescue worthy articles - that is, those that do seem to be on notable subjects. We generally don't have the luxury of time and we are the last stop before an article is removed. WICU and many related projects focus on a variety of clean-up issues but it's more preventative and, IMHO, collaborative as they do have more time. By the nature of our work we have, often, only a few days to rescue an article and demonstrate this turnaround to the satisfaction of those in that article's AfD arena. Each case is unique with some only requiring a note pointing to sources in the AfD discussion while many involve a complete overhaul. In addition to this demarcation, is has been suggested and discussed, but not approved to tag articles at DRV and those with {{prod}}. Neither of these ideas, both of which would expand our reach and workload, has yet to gain much support. I also see this merger as problematic as ARS is already overburdened, again IMHO, and we'd be starting from scratch in many respects to reinvent who we are and what we do. The ARS project in its present form has weathered quite a few "delete this project" storms and I find that a bit harassing. Editors here are saving articles to the point they survive the AfD process and I've never understood why that is considered anything but a positive benefit for Wikipedia. We improve articles enough or they are deleted. WICU and other projects improve articles so deletion isn't a consideration. These are two mutually compatible but distinct projects. Both with a lot of work to do. Banjeboi 22:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  1. As the founder of WICU, I can see why some think a merger might be helpful, and others see that the two projects have slightly different missions. I think the actions of Inclusionist have frayed some nerves (particularly my own), but let's all take a deep breath and see how it goes. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This section has been incorrectly renamed. It was not a proposal to merge the two, it was a discussion about how we should react to the merge that had just happened. It's a bit confusing with the archiving and renaming that just went on, but if you read the substance of the proposal you'll see that it is not discussing whether or not a merger is appropriate, but merely the most appropriate way to react to the unilateral merge that happened earlier today. Vickser (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just change the name back. I see this as something akin to Cloture. Protonk (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the thoughts but a discussion about the reaction? Let's just have the merger discussion that should have been the first step before all the merger and changes swept through four project pages. This has been, for me at least a colossal time suck to mop this up so let's have a real community discussion so we don't compound problems and misunderstandings. Banjeboi 22:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And no, I wasn't trying to bring a debate to an end but was tired of reading about whether Dark Night or Batman was a better movie et al. This entire episode has interrupted the ARS project so would appreciate if we could stay on point. Banjeboi 22:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We were having a discussion about how we should react to the merger here while you guys had one at WP:AN/I. It would be clearer if all the previous comments hadn't been archived. I say we archive this, and if someone wants to propose a merger, they may do so following the guidelines laid out at WP:Merge. Vickser (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

If anyone wants to propose a merger, they may do so in a new topic. Vickser (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

minor changes

I reverted to minor changes I made before the merge tag was added. [1]. I hope I am wrong, but I know how even these minor changes will now be received.Inclusionist (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent deletions

The following was deleted from the page. I didn't personally remove these items, and am indifferent to their removal:

An article should not be deleted just because it's ill-formed. Some writer worked hard on that article. Some reader can use that article. Those writers and readers, if reached out to, can help us man the barricades against the true threats.

I don't get the Colbert report link joke, so I am indifferent to its removal.

Also:

  • Alexa Rankings - Alexa is an internet service that measures website traffic. Alexa rankings that indicate low traffic are frequently used by deletionists to erase entries that are connected to a website in some way. What deletionists don't tell you is that Alexa can only measure traffic generated by people who use both Windows and Internet Explorer to view websites. Firefox does not include the Alexa spyware (called a toolbar) that is necessary to count traffic (verify here). Websites with high numbers of Firefox users will therefore generate lower Alexa rankings. As Firefox becomes more popular, Alexa rankings will become even more unreliable.

Reason: rmv, this is pointy and if it's unreliable, shouldn't be included as a source

Also:

One person can't easily sway a dozen. But the Rescue Squadron isn't about writing on talk pages. It's about editing article pages.

Also:

==How to save an article from deletion==


===What the Rescue template is for===

  • Articles going through AfD that:

Inclusionist (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three new templates in the article

I just templated in three of the most important articles for the rescue squadron:

These templates will make the page much more easier to use and it will be much easier for editors to help and get involved.

Hopefully the merger fiasco yesterday can be forgotten, and we can all work together. I apologize again for any hurt feelings. :) Inclusionist (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The category of flagged articles is somewhat helpful but I've removed the members list as it was also pulling from those who have the tag rather than actual members who've signed up. I also don't feel that's helping much to list as those who are interested can simply follow the link that is plainly evident there to see the list. I'm on the fence about having the examples page transcluded for a couple of reasons. We have it linked already, it has it's own separate page that will hopefully expand - ergo it's already large and growing and finally our project, by its nature is a bit more focussed on articles in danger. When we have experienced admins who feel AfD is perfect for clean-up our work doesn't look to be slowing anytime soon. Again this isn't a huge problem for me but I'd like to hear what others think. Banjeboi 00:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess "somewhat helpful" is a really promising start. Lets keep my minor changes for a bit and see how others feel. Thanks. Inclusionist (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually these are problematic changes and make this project look bad. I'm removing the list of members as it isn't accurate, it's also duplicative and adds volume to the page. I'm reverting the grammatical errors you simply reverted - those aren't helping any. And I'm restoring the link to WICU which you seem determined to remove, instead you've suggested that people can get help for an article at a category - which is wholly unhelpful. Banjeboi 01:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"You are being quite disruptive at this point" so you no longer think my changes are "somewhat helpful"? How about this, I will restore all of your edits, except the category template. I can see your point. Inclusionist (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ICU procedure to list articles adapted here?

I personally like the way the ICU has procedures to rescue articles. I am the wrong person to suggest it, because if I suggested correcting spelling errors on this page I would probably be viciously argued with, but I think maybe the ICU procedures should be considered, albeit less complex.Inclusionist (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

link to these instructions? Also I do like how they have each article listed but our timeframe may not lend itself to much more than a list. Banjeboi 17:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added to this page, before the revert: [2]
After:
  1. the comments on the ICU page which says there is no activity on the ICU,
  2. the comments here which say the ICU is inactive and the few number of members (less than 20 if I recall),
  3. my nasty experience with the ICU self-proclaimed deletionist,
I figure the ICU has about flat lined, so we can scavenge what is scavangeable from the project and leave it to rot.
I will copy the good points of ICU here:


==To rescue an article==



If you need help with these complex instructions, please Rescue Squadron&action=edit&section=new type a message here. When finished, scroll down and click "Save Page".

1. Place a {{Rescue}} tag on the article page by cutting and pasting this: {{Rescue}}

2. Place a {{Template:Rescuetalk}} on the article's talk page by cutting and pasting this: {{tl|Template:Rescuetalk| }}

3. Type in the issues inside of {{tl|Template:Rescuetalk| }}, which need to be fixed after: {{tlx|Template:Rescuetalk| but before }}
For example:

{{Template:Rescuetalk|Additional sources needed; removal of promotional language; general cleanup; lead paragraph needs rewrite to conform to WP style.}}



4. Create a Rescue page named Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Article name, and place the following at the top of that page (specifying the appropriate article name):

{{subst:Article Rescue Squadron |Article name}}[1]



5. List the article as having been admitted by inserting a line similar to the following into the appropriate section of this page below, specifying the appropriate article name:

{{Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Article name}}
Also I do like how they have each article listed but our timeframe may not lend itself to much more than a list:
The beauty of this system is that the person wanting to put the article up for deletion does all of the work.
What I don't like is how complex these instructions are: four steps. I think we/I could streamline these instructions.
Arbitration has a streamlined system which we can adopt, where most of what is done, is done automatically.
Again, I apologize for making so many radical changes without extensive consultation with you Benjiboi, you seem like the heart and soul of this beautiful project.
Inclusionist (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. That seems like it's adding extra layers of complexity where simplicity is warranted. We have a single (simple) template that is not only easy to remember but is only used for a few days at a time on about a dozen articles at a time. Also I'm just the one currently doing much of the cleaning work on these pages. Once all this has cleared up a bit I think some new phases of the project can develop. Banjeboi 20:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also this seems to suggest they are just in a lull. Banjeboi 20:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we are in a bit of a lull, and that is partly my fault - busy spring sports season at my newspaper, followed by busy summer doing other things. Thanks for the compliments about the formatting/templates/etc. for ICU. It may be a bit of overkill, but it seems to work. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is overly complex. I will troll wikipedia and look for something easier but just as effective. I am impressed with the work you have done.Inclusionist (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restored inactive projects

I restored the deletion of inactive projects:

Inactive projects

These are failed attempts to do what we are doing successful now, and members can learn a lot from these projects. Inclusionist (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are being quite disruptive at this point and I hope you rethink if your goal is really to come here and rework every aspect in hopes of merging it with the inclusionist wikiproject. It won't work, we are not inclusionists here - there is a wikiproject for that as you are aware because you just started a talk to merge them with ARS. Please revert your latest set of changes. As to the above - we cannot say that they are failed only active or not, and it's difficult - and likely a waste of energy - to sort out why they are inactive, if they are. WikiProject Trivia and Popular Culture, by the way is active and are called WikiProject Popular Culture. Banjeboi 01:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am deleting nothing Benjiboi, you are. It is painfully, sadly ironic, that the most active member of Article Rescue Squadron is so determined to delete other peoples work and contributions.
You seem to cherry pick what aspects you like and what you don't, those you dislike are deleted, with no discussion. Inclusionist (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusionist, I will ignore your accusations and simply state that your extremely bold attempted reworking of seemingly every aspect of this project - without any prior discussion - has netted some positive aspects and I welcome those. For the moment I may be the most active member although we really don't track such things and instead usually focus our energies on rescuing articles. Instead I have spent the better part of my time here over the past 1.5 days reverting some of the more problematic edits and then re-doing that same work as you edit-war. I suppose I could again go to ANI but I don't really want to. And consensus is not only arrived at by editing but also through talkpage discussion, above I gave reasons for the last round of concerns. Please take my words to heart - this is not an inclusionist project, we are neutral. Banjeboi 02:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would not encourage Inclusionist to try to reform the main page of this project single-handedly. In BRD, I think there was been plenty of Bold just now and it is time to Discuss. How about waiting for a consensus on this page before anyone makes further changes? EdJohnston (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually found their last version to be acceptable and helpful to the project, seen here and would support it being updated to that version. Any objections? Banjeboi 22:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Hi, Inclusionist (talk · contribs) has again had themselves blocked thus ending all the recent bold changes here, could you please either unprotect the main page or amend it to the last version at 01:46, 28 July 2008? That was acceptable and had the least problems to be fixed. Banjeboi 07:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is he gonna be cool with this? I really don't want to see this go straight back to edit war when he's back. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We may never know, they were headed for a block, I believe, between this and another thread on ANI. They pretty much stopped action on both by having themself and one of their socks blocked. I really have no idea if or when they might return. Regardless it was their last version so on that basis alone shouldn't be too problematic. Also you can see their filling up the talk page in archives 8 & 9; this all started because they surprise merged ARS, the Inclusionist Project, the Commons Inclusionist project and the Wikipedia Intensive Care Unit (WICU), that was Saturday and everything has been reverted; they apologized and then tried to merge WICU with ARS, that too was reverted; then they tried reworking all of ARS, templates, messaging etc. Really this has been enlightening but we'd like to move on in any way possible. Banjeboi 08:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kay. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

I'm not rightly sure what's going on here, but I know an edit war when I see one. So, I picked a random wrong version out of the last 50 and protected it.

Hopefully this can be resolved without reverting back and forth for a bit. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusionist had themselves blocked so this may be over for a while. Banjeboi 22:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blood fetish

Resolved
 – Article kept. Banjeboi 08:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bit (character)
Master Control Program (Tron)
Sark (Tron)

What Happened on the Moon

Astro empires

  1. ^ *This may be cut directly from here and pasted at the top of your new article's Article Rescue Squadron page.
    • Note that whitespace must not be placed between the | character and the article name.
    • The article's Article Rescue Squadron page should be named Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Article name, using the article's actual name.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Archive_9&oldid=1136063097"