Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

Mongolia during Tang rule

Resolved
 – Kept, no consensus. -- Banjeboi 02:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is up for deletion, I feel it should be kept, please check it & see what we can do with it.Teeninvestor (talk)

I will see what I can do, the subject sounds very rich and wonderful, a typical article which is the reason wikipedia is so incredible, and unfortunately a common article put up for deletion. Did you add a {{rescue}} template to the article? That is the very best way to alert others that you want to save an article, so, if the article is worthy, they can come and rewrite the article, and add references to the article. Ikip (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


Dragons of Summer Flame

Resolved
 – Not at prod or AfD. -- Banjeboi 00:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Has had a PROD placed on it; can anyone help with referencing and whatnot to prove its notability? 71.194.32.252 (talk) 07:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It already has a link to the NYT bestseller list. I deprodded, that's silly. (I even found a kind of bad offhand reference in an encyclopedia of pop culture, here.)- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Tag line

Resolved
 – Tag line removed. -- Banjeboi 02:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Tvoz wrote: "Saving the project, one article at a time", I added this to a picture caption: Saving Wikipedia, one article at a time. Ikip (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Saving Wikipedia from what? The ARS is tagging probably as much articles that end up (rightfully) deleted as articles that get kept: perhaps we can add "trying to make Wikipedia more useless, one article at a time" as well, to honour all the incorrect taggings? Every good-faith editor is trying to help Wikipedia, be it through creating, improving, merging, or deleting articles. To act as if the ARS "saves" Wikipedia is not the most cooperative or realistic attitude. Fram (talk) 11:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
How many articles examples would that the ARS saved from deletion? I sense from your general tone, that no number would be enough to satisfy you of the utility of this project.
"trying to make Wikipedia more useless, one article at a time"
How would you feel if someone said:
"Bob Van Reeth an article you created[1] is a useless article"?
(refactored) With such a tone to me it is no wonder that editors contributions have plummeted.
Ikip (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Plummeted? "Slightly declined" is the term you are looking for.Wikipedia:Size_of_Wikipedia#Annual_growth_rateWikipedia:Editing_frequency. As for my creations: I don't really care what other people think about them, you have the right to your own opinion. But in my opinion, there are many articles where Wikipedia serves as the secondary source, not the tertiary source it should be: letting these articles exist makes Wikipedia more useless as an encyclopedia. They may be useful for people interested in that information, just like a how-to guide is useful for many readers and would still make Wikipedia more useless.
Anyway, I have not stated or implied that this project can't be useful, but the self-righteous tone of the picture caption portrays this project as some holy brigade, not as a bunch of fallible editors with the same overall goal as every good-faith editor, i.e. a better Wikipedia, but with a particular opinion of how to reach that goal. Fram (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks you sincerely for your opinion. I removed the tag line if that helps. Ikip (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Fram (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Any other suggestions? We have this free daily newspaper in the area that I live in. It really turn me off, because it is so partisan. I think that you can get an effective message out better by being less partisan. Please feel free to edit this page, and/or give me any suggestions. I want editors to feel like ARS is trying to improve wikipedia, not that we are pushing a partisan message. Ikip (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Rescue tag

Resolved
 – Anyone can add remove, re-add etc any project template. -- Banjeboi 02:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

An editor, who utterly failed to get the {{rescue}} tag marked as canvasing, has now began to remove rescue tags from articles. Is this an issue which should be brought up to a third party? Ikip (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Unless they are part of the Article Rescue Squadron, I don't think its right for them to go around removing rescue tags. I fully support this. (You can't remove a rescue tag...thats...thats just wrong...I'm not here long enough to find the policy, but I'm sure it interferes with the afd process). He shouldn't be taking preemptive actions before a consensus is reached.Smallman12q (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think he's got a point - this is a procedural nomination really, which hinges only on the question "is the article redundant to List of the verified oldest people"? The article doesn't need "rescuing" as such. Black Kite 22:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought any article up for deletion could be tagged for rescuing based on an editor's discression?Smallman12q (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely, but the idea of rescuing is surely improving an article so it isn't deleted. This article doesn't need improving, the AfD is only deciding whether it's needed (because most of it is a copy of another article). Black Kite 22:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, if an article is up for deletion...than it certainly can be improved.Smallman12q (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Articles can always be improved, but in this AfD that isn't the important thing. Anyway, it looks like it'll be kept, so it doesn't really matter. Black Kite
That's good. Perhaps Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Removing a rescue tag should be expanded?Smallman12q (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The template is for articles which are poorly referenced or poorly written. The article in question isn't either and nobody is saying it is; the debate is entirely centered on whether the article is redundant or unnecessary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
AfDs are not the place to create policy. Maybe the AfD should be closed. I agree with Smallman12q that any article up for Afd, at the discretion of the editor can be tagged with Rescue. He also removed the rescue tag again. Ikip (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
They aren't the place to write budget legislature, either. They are, however, the place to debate the utility or necessity or practicality of an article; the practice of deleting redundant content is older than VFD.
In any case, speculate as to what I think elsewhere; WT:CANVASS is linked at least three times from this talk page alone. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
One thing I see interwoven in the comments above which probably should be clarified: one need not be a member of a particular project to add or remove tags from any page.
And further, per WP:BOLD/WP:BRD, if someone Boldly makes an edit (adds a tag), and someone else Reverts (removes the tag), the next step is Discuss, not "re-add". WP:3RR applies keenly.
Belief that someone else is "right" or "wrong", or has such-n-such motivations, or anyone's past actions, all needn't be discussed here. Perhaps just focus on whether it's appropriate to place this specific tag on this specific page? The "why" or "why not" in particular... - jc37 07:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Eh, I see a {{rescue}} is more similar to a {{db-band}} or other speedy criteria: Removal by an involved person is itself a coi (small letters) edit. That is, the person AfDing an article should never remove a rescue tag. Rather, s/he should explain on the talk page why s/he believes a rescue isn't appropriate. On the other hand, if there's a merge being contemplated, when a rescue may not be at all appropriate, then an AfD is generally not needed. I think AfD scope creep ("I want this merged and to make it stick...") is responsible for the confusion over which articles are rescuable. Simple rule: if it's up for deletion, it should be eligible for rescue. Jclemens (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Bottom line being that tagging it for rescue can result in the article being improved for the betterment of wiki... just as does tagging one for sources or cleanup. Not wanting an article to be improved is a dis-service to all of wiki. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Rescue is not a speedy deletion template (or any kind of deletion template), so no, it falls under BOLD/BRD, just like any other project template. - jc37 22:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the message, but I am left with the question, how does this help us? You should rewrite your invitation to address that question more thoroughly, you will probably get a better response as a result. Ikip (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest that User_talk:Benjiboi represent ARS, but he has left since left the project, after an edit war and a bad block which was reversed. Ikip (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Basically, it's a way to get the official and unofficial coordinators of different projects together to discuss improvements to WikiProjects in general. Although it will probably be geared more towards topical projects rather than the "universal" projects like this one, it would be nice to have a representative. Discussions will probably include things like assessment variations, making projects into task forces or merging them together, and helping out projects that need assistance. It would be nice to have at least one person from each project "representing", in a way, their project in discussions which can potentially change WikiProject organization and setup. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Who would want to represent ARS

Who would want to represent ARS ? Ikip (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I know that you are pretty active with it, if you'd be interested. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
i think User:MichaelQSchmidt would be better. Ikip (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Not inclusionists ?

ok I get that you don't have to be an inclusionist to join the ARS, but is it really necessary to publicly declare that you're NOT? Machete97 (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to swear it in front of a justice of the peace, with a penalty of a $50,000 fine or up to five years in prison for violation.
Okay not really. It doesn't really matter what you think about that sort of thing, as long as you want to improve articles on the brink. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Actually, you have a good point, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion has no such caveats. In fact they mention deletionist by name. (I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion is so weak because editors who delete have policy pages like WP:AfD to congregate at) Ikip (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
In that case I'm in. another userbox! >yay<! Machete97 (talk) 12:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Use NOINDEX?

An editor at Wikipedia:Help desk#How long would it take for google search to NOT list a deleted wikipedia biography article? is upset that Google indexes a deleted article name here (currently the second Google hit for the person in the title). The editor personally removed it in [2] but Google has not updated their index yet. Should {{NOINDEX}} be added to Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Current articles in order to prevent search engine indexing? Articles are only listed here for a limited time so it doesn't seem a big issue, but some contributors are sensitive about their deleted (or about to be deleted) Wikipedia work being high in Google. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised that any non article page pops in google. This also makes me curious as to what was such a big deal? -- Banjeboi 00:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron accused of canvassing

Resolved
 – No action. -- Banjeboi 16:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Canvassing#WP:ARS_and_Template:ARS.2FTagged. Ikip (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Warning, discussion already at 33 kilobytes, it may be time to split the article! LOL!. -- Banjeboi 23:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron User_talk invitations

I just received an invitation to join this WikiProject on my talk page, something I see many users seem to have received. I'm glad I did (thanks Ikip for the invitation) as I'd not been aware of the project and it certainly seems of interest, but I'm just wondering whether this (invitation posting) is an ongoing thing, or is it part of a recent drive to get more users involved in this for some reason? Are we planning some campaign, or just recruiting for the sake of increasing activity in general? ɹəəpıɔnı 23:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not even pretend to represent the diverse 200 plus membership of the Article Rescue Squadron. I don't speak for anyone but myself. No one ask me to ask other editors to join this project, I did it completely on my own. I simply want to rescue articles that deserve to be rescued, and make wikipedia a better encyclopedia, I truly believe in the vision of Jimmy Wales:
"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."
I hope that answered your question. I hope you joined, and you can help us make recently nominated for deletion articles worthy of wikipedia. Thanks for the question. Ikip (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome

I just welcomed all of the new ARS members with this:

WELCOME from a Article Rescue Squad member

Welcome to Article Rescue Squadron {{PAGENAME}}, a dynamic list of articles needing to be rescued, which changes with new updates, can be found here:

I look forward to working with you in the future. ~~~~

Coding: 


==Welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! ==
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
|-
! rowspan="3" valign="top" |
! align="left" | WELCOME
| align="right" | <small>from a <font color="black">[[WP:ARS|Article Rescue Squad]] member</font></small>
|-
| colspan="2" valign="top" align="left" style="background:#99CC00; padding:5px; margin: 5px; border: 1px dotted black;" | 
[[Image:Balloons-aj.svg|left|50px]]

Welcome to [[WP:ARS|Article Rescue Squadron]] {{PAGENAME}},  a dynamic list of articles needing to be rescued, which changes with new updates, can be found here:  
{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"
!align="left" width="700"|Articles tagged for deletion and rescue
|-
|
<categorytree mode=pages showcount=on>Articles tagged for deletion and rescue</categorytree>
|}

I look forward to working with you in the future.   ~~~~ 

|}

Ikip (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Tagged articles

First Robotech War,
Battle of Saturn's Rings,
Battle of Mars,
Second Robotech War, and
Third Robotech War

Resolved
 – Redirected. -- Banjeboi 05:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

J.P. Sloane

Resolved
 – Deleted. -- Banjeboi 05:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wayfarers (role-playing game)

Resolved
 – Deleted. -- Banjeboi 05:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

AFC Walton

Resolved
 – Deleted. -- Banjeboi 05:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Abbey gates primary school

Resolved
 – Redirected. -- Banjeboi 05:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Campus Crusade for Cthulhu

Resolved
 – Deleted. -- Banjeboi 05:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Down and Above

Greatest Hits (Jennifer Lopez album)

Resolved
 – Deleted. -- Banjeboi 05:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Infarvision

Resolved
 – Deleted. -- Banjeboi 05:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Starfucker (band)

Resolved
 – Deleted. -- Banjeboi 05:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Vanilla Mood

Resolved
 – Kept. -- Banjeboi 12:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Villa Enterprises

Resolved
 – Kept. -- Banjeboi 12:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Bucketheadland

Resolved
 – Redirected. -- Banjeboi 12:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


The Ballad of Buckethead

Resolved
 – Redirected. -- Banjeboi 13:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Three Fingers

Resolved
 – Redirected. -- Banjeboi 12:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


Road course ringer

Resolved
 – No consensus keep. -- Banjeboi 13:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Star Wars: The Power of the Force

Resolved
 – Redirected. -- Banjeboi 13:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


List of people known as The Great

Resolved
 – Kept. -- Banjeboi 13:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

London Buses route N7

Resolved
 – Merged. -- Banjeboi 13:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The Final Quest

Resolved
 – Merged. -- Banjeboi 13:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Epidemiology of suicide

Resolved
 – Kept. -- Banjeboi 13:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Archive_22&oldid=1088740619"