Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron: Difference between revisions
| Line 99: | Line 99: | ||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Conduct_in_deletion_discussion See here].<br> |
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Conduct_in_deletion_discussion See here].<br> |
||
I am not a party there. But it is worth remembering that there have been ten (10!) attempts to delete this project and this page. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:7&6=thirteen|<b style="color:#060">7&6=thirteen</b>]] ([[User talk:7&6=thirteen|<b style="color:#000">☎</b>]])</span> 17:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC) |
I am not a party there. But it is worth remembering that there have been ten (10!) attempts to delete this project and this page. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:7&6=thirteen|<b style="color:#060">7&6=thirteen</b>]] ([[User talk:7&6=thirteen|<b style="color:#000">☎</b>]])</span> 17:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC) |
||
:AfD needs more formal checks and balances. The system is too anarchic, eating itself in an attempt to self-regulate. A perpetual [[French_Revolution#Reign_of_Terror|Reign of Terror]] ("degenerated into the settlement of personal grievances"). --[[User:GreenC|<span style="color: #006A4E;">'''Green'''</span>]][[User talk:GreenC|<span style="color: #093;">'''C'''</span>]] 19:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 19:04, 16 June 2022
| Main page | Rescue list | Current articles | Article Rescue guide | Newsletter | Members | Hall of Fame | Discussion page |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Article Rescue Squadron page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61Auto-archiving period: 91 days  |
 | Article Rescue Squadron | |||
| ||||
Frequently asked questions  To view the response to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question.Article help Q: Can the Article rescue squadron (ARS) save my article from deletion?
A: Not exactly. First off, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and articles can be changed by anyone and no individual exclusively controls any specific article. Secondly, if an article meets Wikipedia's policies on notability and reliable sourcing it likely will not be deleted. There are also alternatives to deletion which may be appropriate. The project members will do what they can as time allows. We suggest that you reference Tips to help rescue articles and the Article Rescue Squadron Guide to saving articles Q: Will ARS help fix the rest of article problems after the deletion discussion?
A: In theory, No. Often, however, individual members will assist after the discussion has closed. You may want to contact a related WikiProject to see if someone there can assist. Sometimes project members completely overhaul an article but in practice most changes are incremental, and you should take initiative to add sourcing and improve the article yourself. Many times other editors will post sources to the deletion discussion; if they meet our sourcing standards then feel free to apply them to the article. Scope Q: Does ARS work to rescue other content on Wikipedia (other than articles)?
A: While articles remain our main focus, poorly-formed encyclopedia content can be found in other namespaces. If content up for deletion, such as a template or image, is poorly-formed and you feel it can be fixed, go ahead and add it to the Rescue list, to request the ARS' consideration. Please be aware that unlike articles, templates and categories often change and are renamed to serve our readers. Q: Does ARS contribute to guideline and policy discussions?
A: Similar to articles, policies and content are not exclusively controlled by any individual(s). If you think ARS should know about a policy discussion you can post a neutral notification, such as, "There is a discussion about topic at _____." on the ARS Talk page. Avoid even the appearance of telling anyone how to think or vote in the discussion— it's very important to keep the message neutral when inviting people to participate. See WP:Canvassing for clarification regarding appropriate discussion notifications. Q: What if I object to what the ARS is doing?
A: ARS is no different from any of the hundreds of Wikiprojects in that we collaborate to improve Wikipedia. We are a maintenance Wikiproject, and as such our scope is not subject-focused (like a WikiProject focused on a specific sport, country or profession), as much as policy-focused to determine if content adheres to Wikipedia's policies on sourcing and notability. We try to determine if an article meets Wikipedia's notability guidleines as well as is it verifiable to reliable sources. We're also apt to suggest merging, listifying, redirecting and deleting as appropriate. Notifying the Article Rescue Squadron is essentially a means to request assistance with an article or content that one feels meets notability guidelines, or should be retained for other reasons. The goal is to improve articles and other content, to benefit our readers. All are welcome to help ARS improve the encyclopedia, just as at any of the other WikiProjects, which encompass a variety of views and interests. No canvassing Q: Does this project canvass editors to keep articles?
A: No. The goal of the Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) is to clean up content that would otherwise be deleted. By necessity, this involves examining the deletion discussion to see what the problems with the article are, and then remedying them. If done correctly, this article cleanup improves the encyclopedia. If an article nominated for deletion is improved and retained on Wikipedia by this process, vis-à-vis addressing a nominator's concerns, the nominator hasn't "lost". Rather, the encyclopedia has won. Using this talk page Q:What about identifying and pointing out specific users who are nominating a lot of articles for deletion without apparent due cause?
This talk page is for co-ordinating matters related to this project's purpose, which is rescuing content on notable topics from deletion. This is not a forum for dispute resolution. If there are issues with an individual user, talk to them personally or make a report or request at an appropriate noticeboard. |
 | This page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
 | This project page was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used
Advisory note at AFDs
I happened to notice this at a pending AFD:
Not a vote If you came here because of the ARS listing, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC) at the end.
Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts or canvassed users may be tagged using: — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. or — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that username (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
I've never observed other projects being singled out for such recognition. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- For once I agree with you, its completely unnecessary. You guys always make a point of noting when articles are listed here and that big notice is something of a red letter. AFD regulars know what is going on and whether you see this as canvassing of helpful, ymmv, its going to raise the temperature in discussions and that isn’t helpful. In fact, I think I will remove it. Spartaz Humbug! 20:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- It is kind of an advertisement.
- I think it is new. At least it is new to me.
- Having been a participant in a few AFDs, it only states what we all know. And I've seen my share of closures that involved arithmetically challenged closers who just do a super vote, irrespective of the numbers and the merits. Stuff happens.
- A heads up seemed in order. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Good advice
Wikipedia:Catch Once and Leave. AFD discussions are way too prolonged, and that leads to extraneous and hostile interactions. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Deletion report
User:JPxG What we lost, what we gained" Report from the Signpost 29 November 2021 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- WP:OFD is amazing, so is that report, JPxG did great work. The timing of the OFD release coincided with the largest AfD in Wikipedia history. -- GreenC 20:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Mass deletion misnamed
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Abkhazia-related articles, what a misleading name for a full purge of hundreds of other-topic index pages. Is this type of mass deletion of scores of unrelated and perfectly good and maintained articles allowed under such a name, and is this a record-setting deletion request? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
- John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
and turns it into something like
- John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
And the beat goes on
Discussion here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- You should mention what the discussion is about. The ARS was mentioned in it at places. Dream Focus 23:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- It was neutrally stated. Anything said would be too much.
- This determination was knowingly made. Any elucidation would have been subject to speculation, characterization, mischaracterization and recrimination.
- These edits are an open book.
- And the Quislings will be quick, misinformed and misguided. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Nobody was called a "Nazi" even if they share only pretended shared interest in this project. Metaphors are like that. Misinterpretation will happen; and accusations will be made. I've never suggested they be banned from participating here. It is an open forum, and we are all presumably equal. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
A fitting award
Some might think someone deserves WP:DTQ. An award for the race from the bottom. I'd never heard of it; but it has uses.
I personally have not earned those, but I took many from AFD to being on the front page as a WP:DYK.
Such awards are clearly among the goals of WP:ARS members. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Nominate yourself for what you've done. I agree it should be known--and sought after--more widely than it is. There might even ought to be a DTQ triple crown at some point... Jclemens (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion about AFDs
See here.
I am not a party there. But it is worth remembering that there have been ten (10!) attempts to delete this project and this page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- AfD needs more formal checks and balances. The system is too anarchic, eating itself in an attempt to self-regulate. A perpetual Reign of Terror ("degenerated into the settlement of personal grievances"). --GreenC 19:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)