Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron

 Main page Article rescue list Articles & content News Awards Members Talk Page 

Welcome to the talkpage of the Article Rescue Squadron. If you are looking for assistance to rescue an article, please follow these instructions.

 Main page Article rescue list Articles & content News Awards Members Talk Page 

Welcome to the talkpage of the Article Rescue Squadron. If you are looking for assistance to rescue an article, please follow these instructions.

Why a deletionist is joining ARS

I put my username in the member list and I will help out. I am a deletionist, but I notice that most articles that are tagged for rescue are indeed notable. I also notice massive deletionists. There is two types of deletionists in my opinion. Deletionists follows guidelines strictly while massive deletionists follow it so strictly that they completely twist them around in the process. There is someone that I'm dealing with that went from inclusionist to massive deletionist in one day (I will not give the username). I never feel anger towards inclusionists viewpoints on notability because I respect their viewpoints even though I usually debate my point. Massive deletionists, on the other hand, make me so angry. Nominators that don't follow WP:BEFORE also make me angry. I am hoping to help save articles from these two groups. SL93 (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As I've said before, I don't think the ARS should be seen as an inclusionist effort, and I dislike that partisans on both sides have tried to portray it as such. Every article that can be made encyclopedic should be kept. Every article that cannot, but has worthwhile content should be merged appropriately. Deletion is the correct outcome for stuff that has no value, or causes actual harm, to the encyclopedia. Thus, rescuing encyclopedic content can and should be the obligation of every editor. Jclemens (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

ARS isn't an inclusionist cabal. A few people have tried to make it that, especially with the canvassing incident a couple years ago. But I think this RFA speaks for how things have toned down from the peak of the conflict. We need to learn how to communicate with each other better. I've seen both sides inflame the discussion, and I've seen the more "precise" Wikipedians go on a deletion spree to spite the inclusionists, as much as I've seen the more "precise" inclusionists go on a "keep" spree to spite the deletionists. In reality if we follow the general notability guideline and WP:NOT we would agree on 90% of all AFDs. Most people don't want to delete entire topic areas any more than people want to keep entire topic areas (regardless of quality). Shooterwalker (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

@Shooterwalker - We vote keep as we want to save interesting and useful article, as well as to respect the work of the folks who built them up. Its nothing to do with wanting to "spite" deletionists. Please dont project deletionist mentality onto members of this squad! @SL93 , welcome to our Squadron. I only wish you could have joined us in happier times. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Although I am clearly an inclusionist, sometimes I agree with an AfD and say delete, or say merge, depending on the subject. Sometimes I look at a rescue tagged article and just go on to the next one, because I don't care one way or the other. However, the massive deletionists do make me angry, but having spent a lot of time early in 2011 on a massive deletionist situation, I now avoid getting involved in those situations. Too much time and too little accomplished. ARS is an important project, and every editor who takes a reasoned, careful approach to an article tagged for rescue should be welcomed here. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

@FeydHuxtable, I find it odd that's what you gleaned from my comment. Read it again. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I might have misunderstood. I have heard so many members calling the group just a bunch of inclusionists. Those comments and others in the ANI topic about ARS members canvassing is odd. I commented that even if it used for a canvassing, AfD is not a head count. SL93 (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rescue

Template:Rescue has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• See also: Wikipedia: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents– Article Rescue Squadron on AfD.
  

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The rescue template

The following is an excerpt from a post I made at the current deletion discussion regarding the rescue template, for the perusal of Article rescue squadron members and any users interested in the topic.

Excerpted text

• Comment– People have varying views about how the rescue template should be used. I simply use it in accordance with its instructions for use located at WP:RESCUETAG. A significant part of use of the template is to involve other Article rescue squadron WikiProject (ARS) members to share in the work of improving articles with topics that are perceived to actually be notable per WP:GNG by the tag-placer. People have continuously extrapolated their own views regarding these instructions in various manners, adding on additional instruction paramaters that are not a part of the template's actual instruction set.

• Some state that use of the template amounts to canvassing other ARS members to vote in Article for deletion discussions. This is a flawed argument, because the use of many tags could be portrayed in this manner. For example, adding a refimprove tag to an article could be misstated as “canvassing” users to add more references to articles. Adding a Wikiproject template to an article talk page could be misstated as “canvassing” a Wikiproject to participate in an article. Adding a template to an article does not amount to canvassing or vote stacking. Wikipedia templates are neutrally-worded. See WP:CANVASS for the actual guidelines regarding canvassing.

When a template is placed on an article, it is very unreasonable, overly-assumptive and unfair to state that the tag-placer is somehow psychically knowledgeable in advance about what any other Wikipedia users may hypothetically type on their computers. It's also unreasonable to state that those who respond to rescue tags are obligated to respond in whatever various specific manners. A user who places a tag on an article has no control over the actions of other users on Wikipedia.

• Another matter is instruction extrapolations and instruction creep regarding use of the template, which are not included in the template's actual use instructions.

• Some have stated that a rescue template should be removed once sources have been added to an article. This goes against the current instructions for use of the tag, in which removal of the tag is forbidden once it has been placed.

• Some say that adding a rescue template to an article without making a certain number of improvements to an article is misuse of the template, or disqualifies use of the template. There are no parameters in the instructions that specifically state how many improvements should be made to an article to qualify the use of a rescue tag.

• Some have extrapolated arguments that edits either have to be performed prior to adding a rescue template, or conversely, that a rescue template cannot be used once editing improvements have been made to an article being considered for deletion.

• Some have extrapolated that once a rescue template has been placed, the placer is somehow obligated to continue to make improvements to the article.

• Some have synthseized canvass arguments based upon some of the various extrapolations above, stating that use of the tag amounts to canvassing, unless various extrapolated rules (that are not part of the actual instructions) are adhered to.
  

None of these extrapolations are included in the template's actual instruction set. These types of instruction creep don't serve to change the actual instructions for the template.

If the template is kept after this discussion ends, users who continue to extrapolate instruction uses for the template not based upon the actual instructions should focus on obtaining consensus to change the instruction set.

—(Signature and timestamp for this addition here on the ARS talk page) Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for ARS Project page redesign

See {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Sidebar}} at right:

In emmulating other Wikipedia projject pages, I propose a modification to the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron project page, adding a sidebar just as is used in other projects.

Can someone please create a Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Sidebar for the ARS?

I propose ARS emmulate examples such as the Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Sidebar and have its own delsort page similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film... creating the page "Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Article Rescue Squadron".

And similar also to other projects, and to address concerns that the Rescue Template should not be on mainspace artcles...

and as just as with {{subst:delsort|Film|~~~~}}...

this would entail creation of {{subst:delsort|Article Rescue Squadron|~~~~}} delsort to tag (hopefully) rescuable articles thusly:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Article Rescue Squadron-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

allowing articles considered improvable when listed at AFD to be IN the newly created sidebar-linked ARS delsort for ARS members to easily check. Who will help? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments and suggestions:

Ideas anyone?

New discussion occurring: add the Find sources parameter to the AfD template

• I've started a discussion to add the {{Find sources}} parameter to the AfD template: Located Here.
  

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review

The disruptive editor Bali ultimate added the rescue tag to Wikipedia Review. It's a trick to get us to vote keep on an attack site that has targeted our prominent members. They keep adding it. I used my 3rr already. Please assist. CallawayRox (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

If you think that's what the rescue tag is for, then you shouldn't be here. And don't canvass for edit warriors. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Bali ultimate is a known ARS critic who hasn't improved the article at all. This is an attempt to distract and waste our resources. CallawayRox (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The point of tagging is that you don't know how to fix the article, but you think someone else might. If you can fix it yourself, you don't need to tag it. How is that a waste of resources? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

"couldn't help myself" indicates bad faith. CallawayRox (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

So does saying "I used my 3rr already". And if it's not bad faith, it shows a significant lack of understanding of what WP:3RR is for. --Conti|✉ 20:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• That editor has gone after the ARS before, although its been awhile. He once tagged a hopeless article for rescue that was about people who are vegetarians and had sex with animals just to mess with us. Anyway, it doesn't matter now since the evil hordes of deletionists seemed to have finally done us in. Dream Focus 07:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Obviously youre using the word 'evil' in a humourous way, but yesterday was certainly a sad day. At least dozens of voters came out in support of the squad, with some non members recognising that we do the best work in the entire encyclopaedia. If one ignores the deletionist nonsense, the TfD is a fitting memorial to mark the passing of the old ARS into legend. Deletionists may have won this time, but the values we represent - inclusiveness, friendliness and respect for others work –will never be destroyed and will find new and even better forms to express themselves. In the end, good always prevails over evil. It is inevitable. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

New Discussion occurring about at Village Pump (Policy) regarding ARS

User:MichaelQSchmidt has began a discussion at Wikipedia: Village pump (policy)– Proposal regarding Article Rescue Squad.
—Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, my proposal was begun in a different discussion amd was moved to the villiage pump by another. I asked for input up above as well. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Why a deletionist is joining ARS

I put my username in the member list and I will help out. I am a deletionist, but I notice that most articles that are tagged for rescue are indeed notable. I also notice massive deletionists. There is two types of deletionists in my opinion. Deletionists follows guidelines strictly while massive deletionists follow it so strictly that they completely twist them around in the process. There is someone that I'm dealing with that went from inclusionist to massive deletionist in one day (I will not give the username). I never feel anger towards inclusionists viewpoints on notability because I respect their viewpoints even though I usually debate my point. Massive deletionists, on the other hand, make me so angry. Nominators that don't follow WP:BEFORE also make me angry. I am hoping to help save articles from these two groups. SL93 (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As I've said before, I don't think the ARS should be seen as an inclusionist effort, and I dislike that partisans on both sides have tried to portray it as such. Every article that can be made encyclopedic should be kept. Every article that cannot, but has worthwhile content should be merged appropriately. Deletion is the correct outcome for stuff that has no value, or causes actual harm, to the encyclopedia. Thus, rescuing encyclopedic content can and should be the obligation of every editor. Jclemens (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

ARS isn't an inclusionist cabal. A few people have tried to make it that, especially with the canvassing incident a couple years ago. But I think this RFA speaks for how things have toned down from the peak of the conflict. We need to learn how to communicate with each other better. I've seen both sides inflame the discussion, and I've seen the more "precise" Wikipedians go on a deletion spree to spite the inclusionists, as much as I've seen the more "precise" inclusionists go on a "keep" spree to spite the deletionists. In reality if we follow the general notability guideline and WP:NOT we would agree on 90% of all AFDs. Most people don't want to delete entire topic areas any more than people want to keep entire topic areas (regardless of quality). Shooterwalker (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

@Shooterwalker - We vote keep as we want to save interesting and useful article, as well as to respect the work of the folks who built them up. Its nothing to do with wanting to "spite" deletionists. Please dont project deletionist mentality onto members of this squad! @SL93 , welcome to our Squadron. I only wish you could have joined us in happier times. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Although I am clearly an inclusionist, sometimes I agree with an AfD and say delete, or say merge, depending on the subject. Sometimes I look at a rescue tagged article and just go on to the next one, because I don't care one way or the other. However, the massive deletionists do make me angry, but having spent a lot of time early in 2011 on a massive deletionist situation, I now avoid getting involved in those situations. Too much time and too little accomplished. ARS is an important project, and every editor who takes a reasoned, careful approach to an article tagged for rescue should be welcomed here. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

@FeydHuxtable, I find it odd that's what you gleaned from my comment. Read it again. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I might have misunderstood. I have heard so many members calling the group just a bunch of inclusionists. Those comments and others in the ANI topic about ARS members canvassing is odd. I commented that even if it used for a canvassing, AfD is not a head count. SL93 (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rescue

Template:Rescue has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• See also: Wikipedia: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents– Article Rescue Squadron on AfD.
  

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The rescue template

The following is an excerpt from a post I made at the current deletion discussion regarding the rescue template, for the perusal of Article rescue squadron members and any users interested in the topic.

Excerpted text

• Comment– People have varying views about how the rescue template should be used. I simply use it in accordance with its instructions for use located at WP:RESCUETAG. A significant part of use of the template is to involve other Article rescue squadron WikiProject (ARS) members to share in the work of improving articles with topics that are perceived to actually be notable per WP:GNG by the tag-placer. People have continuously extrapolated their own views regarding these instructions in various manners, adding on additional instruction paramaters that are not a part of the template's actual instruction set.

• Some state that use of the template amounts to canvassing other ARS members to vote in Article for deletion discussions. This is a flawed argument, because the use of many tags could be portrayed in this manner. For example, adding a refimprove tag to an article could be misstated as “canvassing” users to add more references to articles. Adding a Wikiproject template to an article talk page could be misstated as “canvassing” a Wikiproject to participate in an article. Adding a template to an article does not amount to canvassing or vote stacking. Wikipedia templates are neutrally-worded. See WP:CANVASS for the actual guidelines regarding canvassing.

When a template is placed on an article, it is very unreasonable, overly-assumptive and unfair to state that the tag-placer is somehow psychically knowledgeable in advance about what any other Wikipedia users may hypothetically type on their computers. It's also unreasonable to state that those who respond to rescue tags are obligated to respond in whatever various specific manners. A user who places a tag on an article has no control over the actions of other users on Wikipedia.

• Another matter is instruction extrapolations and instruction creep regarding use of the template, which are not included in the template's actual use instructions.

• Some have stated that a rescue template should be removed once sources have been added to an article. This goes against the current instructions for use of the tag, in which removal of the tag is forbidden once it has been placed.

• Some say that adding a rescue template to an article without making a certain number of improvements to an article is misuse of the template, or disqualifies use of the template. There are no parameters in the instructions that specifically state how many improvements should be made to an article to qualify the use of a rescue tag.

• Some have extrapolated arguments that edits either have to be performed prior to adding a rescue template, or conversely, that a rescue template cannot be used once editing improvements have been made to an article being considered for deletion.

• Some have extrapolated that once a rescue template has been placed, the placer is somehow obligated to continue to make improvements to the article.

• Some have synthseized canvass arguments based upon some of the various extrapolations above, stating that use of the tag amounts to canvassing, unless various extrapolated rules (that are not part of the actual instructions) are adhered to.
  

None of these extrapolations are included in the template's actual instruction set. These types of instruction creep don't serve to change the actual instructions for the template.

If the template is kept after this discussion ends, users who continue to extrapolate instruction uses for the template not based upon the actual instructions should focus on obtaining consensus to change the instruction set.

—(Signature and timestamp for this addition here on the ARS talk page) Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for ARS Project page redesign

See {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Sidebar}} at right:

In emmulating other Wikipedia projject pages, I propose a modification to the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron project page, adding a sidebar just as is used in other projects.

Can someone please create a Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Sidebar for the ARS?

I propose ARS emmulate examples such as the Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Sidebar and have its own delsort page similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film... creating the page "Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Article Rescue Squadron".

And similar also to other projects, and to address concerns that the Rescue Template should not be on mainspace artcles...

and as just as with {{subst:delsort|Film|~~~~}}...

this would entail creation of {{subst:delsort|Article Rescue Squadron|~~~~}} delsort to tag (hopefully) rescuable articles thusly:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Article Rescue Squadron-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

allowing articles considered improvable when listed at AFD to be IN the newly created sidebar-linked ARS delsort for ARS members to easily check. Who will help? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments and suggestions:

Ideas anyone?

New discussion occurring: add the Find sources parameter to the AfD template

• I've started a discussion to add the {{Find sources}} parameter to the AfD template: Located Here.
  

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review

The disruptive editor Bali ultimate added the rescue tag to Wikipedia Review. It's a trick to get us to vote keep on an attack site that has targeted our prominent members. They keep adding it. I used my 3rr already. Please assist. CallawayRox (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

If you think that's what the rescue tag is for, then you shouldn't be here. And don't canvass for edit warriors. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Bali ultimate is a known ARS critic who hasn't improved the article at all. This is an attempt to distract and waste our resources. CallawayRox (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The point of tagging is that you don't know how to fix the article, but you think someone else might. If you can fix it yourself, you don't need to tag it. How is that a waste of resources? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

"couldn't help myself" indicates bad faith. CallawayRox (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

So does saying "I used my 3rr already". And if it's not bad faith, it shows a significant lack of understanding of what WP:3RR is for. --Conti|✉ 20:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• That editor has gone after the ARS before, although its been awhile. He once tagged a hopeless article for rescue that was about people who are vegetarians and had sex with animals just to mess with us. Anyway, it doesn't matter now since the evil hordes of deletionists seemed to have finally done us in. Dream Focus 07:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Obviously youre using the word 'evil' in a humourous way, but yesterday was certainly a sad day. At least dozens of voters came out in support of the squad, with some non members recognising that we do the best work in the entire encyclopaedia. If one ignores the deletionist nonsense, the TfD is a fitting memorial to mark the passing of the old ARS into legend. Deletionists may have won this time, but the values we represent - inclusiveness, friendliness and respect for others work –will never be destroyed and will find new and even better forms to express themselves. In the end, good always prevails over evil. It is inevitable. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

New Discussion occurring about at Village Pump (Policy) regarding ARS

User:MichaelQSchmidt has began a discussion at Wikipedia: Village pump (policy)– Proposal regarding Article Rescue Squad.
—Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, my proposal was begun in a different discussion amd was moved to the villiage pump by another. I asked for input up above as well. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)