Misplaced Pages

talk:Article Rescue Squadron: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:41, 25 October 2007 editA Nobody (talk | contribs)53,000 edits →Right-wing politics: idea← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:00, 1 January 2025 edit undoCullen328 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators112,594 edits →÷the truth about Misplaced Pages =: DenyTag: Manual revert 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron/Tabbed header|This=8}}
{|border=0
|-
|{{move|Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Team|}}
|{{archive box|
]</br>
]</br>
]</br>}}
<br> <br>
<div class="center">{{resize|1.3em|'''Welcome to the talk page of the Article Rescue Squadron.'''}}</div>

<div class="center">{{resize|1.1em|'''If you are looking for assistance to rescue an article, please see ] and ].'''}}</div>
{{multidel
{{talk header}}
|list=
{{FAQ|collapsed=yes|quickedit=no}}
* '''Nomination withdrawn''', 19 September 2007, ]
{{Press
* '''Speedy Keep''', 23 September 2007, ]
|small=yes | collapsed = yes
| author=James Gleick | date=8 August 2008 | url=http://www.wsj.com/article/SB121815517776622597.html?mod=psp | title=Wikipedians Leave Cyberspace, Meet in Egypt: In Alexandria, 650 Devotees Bemoan Vandals, Debate Rules; Deletionists vs. Inclusionists
| author2=Nicholson Baker | date2=20 March 2008 | url2=http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21131 | title2=The Charms of Misplaced Pages
| author3=Jennifer Schuessler | date3=8 March 2008 | url3=http://papercuts.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/gone-to-deletopedia/ | title3=Gone to Deletopedia
| author4=Adversus Misplaced Pages | date4=17 September 2008 | url4=http://www.pc-actual.com/actualidad/noticia/2008/09/17/Adversus-Misplaced Pages | title4=Adversus Misplaced Pages
| author5=John Broughton | url5=http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=h37N0BvkVSUC | title5=Ch.19 - Deleting Existing Articles | date5=2008
}} }}
{{Old XfD multi
|}
|result1='''Nomination withdrawn'''|date1=19 September 2007|link1={{canonicalurl:Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron}}

|result2='''Speedy Keep'''|date2=23 September 2007|link2={{canonicalurl:Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (2nd nomination)}}
__TOC__
|result3='''Speedy Keep'''|date3=12 July 2008|link3={{canonicalurl:Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (3rd nomination)}}
== Rename ==
*'''Rename''' ] to ] |result4='''Keep'''|date4=18 May 2009|link4={{canonicalurl:Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron (4th nomination)}}
|result5='''Speedy Keep'''|date5=10 February 2012|link5={{canonicalurl:Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list}}
Now that the previous rename discussion (to drop "squadron") has been closed, I think I'd like to propose renaming to ]. There were several interesting suggestions in the discussion to replace "squadron". I think "squad" might be the best compromise. I haven't listed this on ], as I'd like to find out opinions here first. - ] 14:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
|result6='''No Consensus'''|date6=8 December 2012|link6={{canonicalurl:Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list (2nd nomination)}}

|result7='''Snow Keep'''|date7=23 June 2019|link7={{canonicalurl:Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list}}
::] has a slightly more jocular attitude towards it, along with the idea of a many tentacled creature that at times looks unruly and ungainly, but when prompted into action, produces both a cloud of ink (article improvement), as well as high-speed motion (rapid improvement). ] 05:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
|result8='''Keep'''|date8=19 November 2019|link8={{canonicalurl:Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list (2nd nomination)}}
:::You've been touched by His ], haven't you? --] 10:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
|result9='''Nomination withdrawn'''|date9=25 Oct 2021|link9={{canonicalurl:Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (5th nomination)}}
::::Ramen ] 11:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
|result10='''Snow Opposed'''|date10=18 May 2022|link10={{canonicalurl:Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_173#AfD_alerts}}
:::::{{pro}} - I like Squad better than Squadron. Away with you, foppish ron! ]&nbsp;] 17:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
}}
::I do think that squadron sounds wrong somehow... slightly more milataristic than I like. Squad is better. Squid is actually cool for a number of reasons, but might seem a little too... trivialistic. Shame, really. ](]) 20:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
{{WikiProject banner shell|
:::We still don't have a mascot... --] 21:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron}}
::::A ] for the squad? : ) - ] 07:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
}}
:::::Think about it. --] 14:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
{{User:MiszaBot/config
:Can't say I have a problem with the current name. ] 12:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}

|maxarchivesize = 95K
== Comment on ]'s post-TFD question ==
|counter = 61

|minthreadsleft = 5
Hi, Fosnez,
|minthreadstoarchive=2

|algo = old(91d)
I thought I'd reply on template issues here. I have two comments.
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive %(counter)d

}}
In a way, what I wouldn't mind is some discussion on ] about an update to the template, that would take a flag "improve=1", which would add the text to the AFD notice "An editor believes this topic is valid but poorly described. If you are able to improve it please do so." I don't know if ] would buy it, but it could make enough sense to maybe discuss and seek views upon.
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2014-03-05/WikiProject report|writer=]||day=5|month=March|year=2014}}

<!-- Please Note: Articles tagged for rescue are automatically added to this list.-->__TOC__
As for the actual template you're working on, can I suggest a rough draft something like this:

::{| style="border:black solid 1px" width="75%"
| <p align="center">''The Article Squad''</p>

Attention! This topic might be poorly written rather than unencyclopedic.

<small>] aims for improvement, for genuinely ] and ] topics. If you think this article could be improved to pass AFD, please consider researching the topic, and adding high quality ] content and ] so it gets the best chance.</small>
|}

I'm not saying this is "the best way to say it", and it might even be exactly what you don't wan..., but it might give ideas. It's the best I can think of on the spot. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 13:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
: FT2 must have been using mind control on me, because I had the same thought while reading about the template being deleted. However, my take on it is a little different: there would be two values, one to flag the article for attention from the ARS, & the other for the username of an editor who will make it an immediate priority to rescue. Hopefully if an editor adopts an article to rescue, no Admin will prematurely close the AfD citing ]; on the other hand, if an editor abuses these flags, & either tags articles that the editor never works on or tags articles that clearly are not salvagable, then the editor could be penalized for ].
: In any case, the idea is to alert interested editors that an article of potential notability needs to be rescued. How this is done -- a separate template, changes to the AfD template, or someone simply compiling a list by hand or bot -- isn't important. While people will object to this because "this can be abused", what needs to be pointed out is that every process, policy & tool in Misplaced Pages can be abused; we're just trying to offer a means that is not as acrimonious as many DRV debates have been. -- ] 19:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

:: One way round that might be '''<nowiki>{{Rescue | }}</nowiki>

::{| style="border:black solid 1px" width="75%"
| <p align="center">''The Article Squad''</p>

Attention! This topic might be poorly written rather than unencyclopedic.

<small>] aims for improvement, for genuinely ] and ] topics, but deletion is usually appropriate so long as articles lack viable content of reasonable quality. If you think this substandard article could be improved to pass AFD, please consider researching the topic, and adding high quality ] content and ] so it gets the best chance.

Certified by: ], ].</small>
|}

:: The point being that anyone who agreed, can add their name to the template. You can then gauge seriousness by looking at the names list. If it's certified by people whose input you don't take seriously, for example debate trolls,... or just by the creator and his sidekick... or people from the Squad who always use the tag responsibly... or by 3 respected AFD 'well known editors' whose opinions you usually respect... etc. This would cause the "abuse" problem to be self fixing, because each editor can quickly assess the credibility as they see it of the tag. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 11:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Well that smells like vote stacking. ] 13:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

:::: Hmm.. Shouldn't be. I'm thinking about it as an experienced AFD closer, I think it'd probably be okay. It's not hyping up the issue, and its noting both sides of policy. I think it's probably safe. Deletion policy is pretty clear about the difference between "encyclopedic but bad article - improve it" and "unencyclopedic - delete it". As someone who's just closed the TFD with requirements for compliance and an eye to usage, it seems fair to give some pointers and input on those issues. What'd help is if you could explain more, the stacking concern you'd have? ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 13:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::Well, ''Deletion policy'' and AfD realities are two different things. ''Before'' an article is even considered for AfD it's to be improved with regular editing and if it can be improved then it's not a good candidate for AfD. Ignoring that policy has kept this group pretty busy as many of the articles we've looked at were certainly improved. Regardless, even if the spirit of certified editors was completely neutral I bet that plenty of folks would not see it that way. I also want to roll back all the complexity of all this - part of the beauty was the simplicity of a simply article tag that was added when needed then removed when it wasn't. I'm generally opposed to layers of process all of which serves to keep us from editing. If it's not simple to understand and execute then I don't think it will work. Every step of our eventual processes need to be simple and clean whether we have 50 or 5000 folks helping. ] 14:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::: That's a matter for the folks on this page; my input is to help them, if they so decide, to decide with some outside input. But as for AFD reality, I like to practice what policy recommends. My own experience of this is that indeed, if I come across an AFD which is perhaps encyclopedic but poor standard, I will specifically improve it during AFD. ] was one such, so (it turned out) was the borderline-notable medical researcher I myself nominated for deletion, ]. There iwll regularly be some articles that can be fixed rather than deleted, and should be. Whether this is a project that will help I don't know, but it's certainly a sensible agenda (unlike some). I don't know that despairing of people's willingness to help in practice, is a good basis for declining to make them aware they ''could'' help..... ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 16:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
*I'd love to have something like the second version, maybe simplified--let me think about a version. I wish there were some way for a person to say, I've looked at this, and I like it. I like it signed--assuming it goes on the article talk page, of course--Obviously those who disagree with my standards will want to ignore my approval & it should be plain flat-out from the first that its a personal view. Consider something the reverse of {{tl|prod2}} for format. What i do now is simply make an edit and leave a summary saying something like "some spam removed since the topic is notable, more to go." or "Reference added to demonstrate notability--additional ones would help"''']''' (]) 10:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

Tagged for rescue by ]. --] 17:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

Tagged for rescue by ]. This biography does seem to pass ] (a competitor who has "played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports.") --] 17:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)



==Requested move to ''Article Rescue Team''==
] → ] — Military terminology might be exciting, but it's probably a bad idea in the broader picture —] <small>'''(''' ] '''/''' ] ''')'''</small> 20:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

===Survey===
:''Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with'' <code><nowiki>*'''Support'''</nowiki></code> ''or'' <code><nowiki>*'''Oppose'''</nowiki></code>'', then sign your comment with'' <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>''. Since ], please explain your reasons, taking into account ].''

*<s>Support. This doesn't seem very important to me, but it's clear that the current name bothers some people, and in contrast to the previous request, the proposed title here doesn't really change the meaning. ]<font color="darkgreen"><small>]</small></font> 04:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)</s> Striking support. It now seems better to me to leave the naming of this page in the hands of the people who actually participate here. ]<font color="darkgreen"><small>]</small></font> 03:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. ''Team'' '''is''' military terminology. Making this a Project, or even a WikiProject, would make sense. ] <small>]</small> 05:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''No Opinion''' - what we do is more important than what we are called... see suggestions below <font style="background-color:#ddcef2;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]</font><small><small><sup>•]•]•</sup></small></small> 07:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', unless this becomes a Wikiproject. "Article Rescue Team" sounds flat. ] 20:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support''' move to ]. ] 20:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' what happened to 'Squad', as proposed at the beginning of the month and which seemed to have some consensus? Where did 'Team' come from? If we have to change, I'd rather use 'Squad' or 'Project'--] 22:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - And (as I proposed it), I agree with Article Rescue Squad. "Squad" also gave the semantics of "squad car", and "rescue squad", which "I think" is the point of the picture on the main page : ) - ] 04:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I still haven't seen an outcome of the change from Squadron to Squad and now we're talking about Team?? No thanks. -- ] ] 05:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


{{old move|date=3 November 2024|destination=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron|result=Not moved|link=Special:Permalink/1256800930#Requested move 3 November 2024}}
===Discussion===
:''Any additional comments:''


==]==
has convinced me that military terminology might be bad. Does anyone have a problem with moving to "Article Rescue Team"? ] <small>'''(''' ] '''/''' ] ''')'''</small> 20:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
This article has great references and is one of the biggest music licensing and stock footage companies in the world. In addition, they are an Israeli startup. I think the article is being attacked in AFD and would like some help. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== ] ==
:I certainly agree in principle. Not sure about the specific suggestion, though. Don't have a better one right now either, mind. ](]) 21:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Maybe: '''Article Rescue Project''' ''']''' (]) 04:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
::::'''Article Rescue Project''' is the best suggestion I have seen. --] 04:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
:'''ARG''' Article Rescue Group or...
:'''TGTFA''' ''Them Goofs That Fix Articles'' ... it makes no difference. We do, what we do ... let them imagine us in camo ''if they need to'', does their opinion matter (whoever ''they'' are)? <font style="background-color:#ddcef2;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]</font><small><small><sup>•]•]•</sup></small></small> 07:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Article Rescue Project (or Article Rescue Wikiproject) would be a good name, IMHO. I'm not sure if this group is considered a Wikiproject, though. --] 17:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


Deceased Wikipedian and member of ARS: ]. -- ]] 11:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
: I feel that we should consider being a wikiproject, cute names be damned (although I love ARG!) let's focus on improving articles and I think, help improve the AfD process to set up more checks and balances so that articles that are on notable, etc subjects aren't sent to AfD which, to me, drains the wp community of resources spent better elsewhere. I would support ''Article Rescue Wikiproject'' and this might solve the issue of separatng us from the template if that would be the project template. ] 20:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
: during the earliest days of ARS. His first contribution was in ] and ]. -- ]] 11:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
::If it's the project template, that makes it even more firm that it be on the talk page, not the article page. ](]) 20:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
::I didn't know him, but RIP.] (]) 18:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
:::There's a difference between "this article is a part of blah-de-blah wikiproject" and a wikiproject relying on a set of maintenance templates. To me the rescue template is something (just like now) anyone uses on an AfD article; . If we formalize as a project we might also strongly advocate for other tags for notability, references, etc which are also mainpage tags that assist in articles needs being highlighted in hopes that other editors or experts can address them. ] 20:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
:::"You got to worry about deletionists," . -- ]] 00:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster defines
* "2: a small group engaged in a common effort or occupation"
* as "2: a large group of people or things";
* as "4: a number of persons associated together in work or activity". ] 20:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
:There seem to be several possibilities - squad, team, project, various other rephrasings - so I wonder if this sort of binary "Should we move to X or not" is maybe not the best approach. It seems to be getting us bogged down in "But what about this idea?" Would it make more sense to do it in two phases: 1) list all the alternatives and tally the votes for them, then 2) for whichever gets the most votes, ask whether or not we want to move to that? (Or alternatively 1) do we want to move to something else, then 2) what should we move to?) --] 05:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


I only just saw the sad news and came here to share but find that {{u|GreenC}} has taken care of it. I met David when he came to London for the Wikimania in 2014 and was impressed by his enthusiasm and good nature. He gave me one of his trademark Misplaced Pages Editor caps which I wore to many editathons but it went astray at a WikiData event in Cambridge and so I need a replacement. Perhaps we should get some ARS merchandise made now? ]🐉(]) 21:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
== Talk page clean-up ==


== Warning, it looks like the page moving of ] broke subscription may have broken subscription to the page ==
Could someone clean off old threads to archives as appropriate? I'll do it if no one else wants to. ] 20:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
{{tracked|T373543}}
*Done. I also cleaned up the top headers with a table. Complicated, but it works.--] 03:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
Just a word of warning as I just noticed that I suddenly wasn't subscribed to the rescue list at ] anymore after the recent move by @] and @].
I'm not sure if there is anything an admin could do to bulk restore the subscriptions since the users deleted the original page? ] (]) 15:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)


:Hi @], the original page wasn't deleted par se, it's now a redirect, see {{-r|Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list}}. I think the Topic subscription is supposed to work with page moves. – ] (]) 15:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
*Thank you, I updated a few others and moved them as well. ] 03:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
::It might for talk pages, but the rescue list is a project page and hence my warning that my action bar suddenly had "Subscribe" instead of "Unsubscribe" when I navigated to it this morning. ] (]) 15:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Oh and actually, I can see that I am still subscribed to the page that is now a redirect at ] - so yeah I don't quite know what happened there, but I think it might be that project page subscriptions don't move over in a page move but are hard linked to the page title? ] (]) 15:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Raladic|Ammarpad|CFA}} I filed {{phab|T373543}}. <span class="nowrap">--] (])</span> 16:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::Thank you @]. – ] (]) 18:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)


== Tentative ARS candidates from ] backlog ==
== ] ==


These 12 pages were culled from yesterday's ]; from the moment of this writing, they may not be long for Misplaced Pages in the next how many weeks unless some action is taken. After I spent countless days ] hundreds and hundreds of articles in an ambitious, thankless one-man task--a few of which were never attended to since the early 2010s--it's time we finally discussed their chances for a change before it's too soon.
*] 19 October 2007 by ] (]


At press time, two in the backlog--] and ], both ]s--are under scrutiny at AFD; no further comments on those. Anyway, on with the chaff we found within the wheat--listed alphabetically. (All have been tagged for {{tl|notability}} unless otherwise noted; tag dates, and source-hunting links, are provided next to their titles.)
:Update, ] survived AfD. ] 04:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


{{div col}}
==]==
* ] (April 2023) / {{Find sources|2023 World Seniors Darts Champion of Champions}}
*] 22 October 2007 by ] (])
* ] (June 2024; per ]--but this might survive nonetheless) / {{Find sources|Abki Baar 400 Paar}}
* ] (September 2023) / {{Find sources|Alsace20}}
* ] (January 2019) / {{Find sources|The Dream Wanderer}}
* ] (November 2021) / {{Find sources|Nanjing Week}}
* ] (November 2022) / {{Find sources|National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program}}
* ] (February 2019) / {{Find sources|Rountree, Springfield}}
* ] (September 2016) / {{Find sources|ShipSpace}}
* ] (November 2020) / {{Find sources|Society of Classical Poets}}
* ] ({{tl|local}}, April 2018) / {{Find sources|Soroush Cinema}}
* ] (February 2023) / {{Find sources|WDC UK Matchplay}}
* ] (October 2023) / {{Find sources|John T. Wilson (born 1861)}}
{{div end}}


As an ]/], I may be a bit sorry if they end up delisted. But these topics, diverse as they may be, ''do'' matter to someone, somewhere. So as it stands, wishing those willing to save those topics good luck--and thanks to the AFC reviewers/participants alike for all your hard work. (Feel free to leave me talk-page feedback.)
==]==
*] 22 October 2007 by ] (])


Maybe it's time I, an AFC drafter myself, took brief breaks from WP as other off-site commitments compete for my time and attention. All that grading was already overwhelming to begin with...
==]==
----
*] 22 October 2007 by ] (])
''(XPosted from ].)''


--] <small>(] ])</small> 13:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
==]==
*] 23 October 2007 by ] (])
--] 18:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


== Requested move 3 November 2024 ==
==]==
*] 24 October 2007 by ] (])


<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, inherit); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"><!-- Template:RM top -->
==]==
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color: var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''
*] 24 October 2007, by ]. I removed the tag since the article is not up for deletion.
--] 18:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


The result of the move request was: '''Not moved.''' ]&nbsp;] 23:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:By the way, am I correct to still be placing the tags on the talk pages, or have we decided to go back to placing them on the main page? Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 18:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
----
::I honestly believe that's where the tag belongs and so that's where i put it, if another editor places or moves to talk page then so be it until this project's name, status and implications for the tag are resolved. ] 18:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Okay, thanks for the reply! :) Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 19:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
::There doesn't seem to be a consensus for where the tag goes for the time being. --] 22:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Okay, then I'll continue to go with the talk page as I did for ]. Regards, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 05:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
::::I put it on the article page because that's first landing for most people and most people don't do talk pages. If it's on the talk page, how do those "most people" know to "rescue" the article? Also, did I miss the consensus that rescue can only be put on AFD articles? I dont have a problem with that since there is ] but I wasn't sure about a consensus on the issue. -- ] ] 05:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::I did find a bunch of reliable sources for the Afghanistan article, which I recently and I made a improvements to the Saab article, so hopefully these efforts will help rescue these article. Also, we successfully an article! :) So, I removed the rescue tag from that article's talk page. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 06:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


] → {{no redirect|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron}} – It's a WikiProject. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 15:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
==Barnstar proposal==
# <code><nowiki>{{Short description|WikiProject}}</nowiki></code>
I personally have no skill making barnstar templates, but I think it would be a good idea if we did somehow have an Article Rescue Squadron barnstar (unless we do have one and I just don't see it) for editors who making considerable contributions to articles that result in their rescue. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 15:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
# <code><nowiki>{{WikiProject status|active|sc1=WP:RESCUE|sc2=WP:ARS}}</nowiki></code>
# "{{tq|Welcome to '''WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron'''. This WikiProject works toward }}"
# {{tl|WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron}}
# ]
# "{{tq|Wikiproject Article rescue squadron's main focus is}}"
# "{{tq|The Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject is about}}"
&nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 23:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', ] is a wikiproject without wikiproject in the name, and it doesn't need to be changed. Just because it's a wikiproject doesn't mean its name has to say it's one. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
*<s>'''Support'''</s> '''Neutral''' - Given our general naming of WikiProjects with the prefix, makes sense for consistency. Given the long standing time at the previous title though, we probably do need to have the redirect so old links don't break. ] (]) 15:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
*:small addendum - the page ] needs to stay where it is, due to a bug regarding subscriptions (see invisible note at the top of that page for details), until that bug gets fixed. (so this note is mainly for the page mover that may close this RM). ] (]) 17:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
*:ammending my vote to neutral per the below opposes, which make sense, in line with the possible technical challenges that I aleady pointed out above. ] (]) 23:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Mild oppose'''. Typically, WikiProjects are focused on a topic area, rather than on a task. (I realize the Guild of Copyeditors is an exception.) This project has had such a long history under its present name, that it feels "off" to me to change it just for the sake of some sort of consistency. (Consistency is more important in mainspace, whereas project space isn't really more efficient if we insist on it everywhere.) However, I don't feel strongly about this. --] (]) 23:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Not organized as a Wikiproject. ] has been around since 2001 and ARS since 2007, and in 17 years of existence overlap, this wasn't previously enacted. Why might that be? ] (]) 23:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
*:Was wondering the same thing. Our ARS page says "WikiProject" in various places, and is in the category. Some of that was done in the past couple years. I thought maybe this was a clever attempt to delete the project by putting it under WikiProject rules and regs, but actually it looks like deleting a WikiProject is not commonly done. Stale and abandoned projects are supposedly kept around. Possibly a WikiProject would give it more protection, possibly not. WikiProjects I don't know much about. -- ]] 23:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
*:Quoting ]: "{{tq|Welcome to '''WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron'''. This WikiProject works toward }}". &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 11:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
*::Looks like the WikiProject wording may have been added in 2012 by ]. ] .. maybe they can recall why it was done? -- ]] 21:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::NA1k was with the WikiProject around that time, taking up more than a full history page's worth of contributions. {{tl|WikiProject status}} was added by them in . &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 22:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::Still, that was the view of a single editor, and the edits were not so conspicuous that others would necessarily see them as needing reversion. Editors can have different opinions now, more than a decade later, without being bound by the opinion of that one editor. --] (]) 22:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Per ]. Its current name makes it sound like an official Misplaced Pages process like ], when it is more of a group of like-minded editors. ] (]) 00:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
*:It's actually not a group of like minded editors. It's more like a noticeboard to bring attention to certain cases, with noticeboard members independently making their own decisions. The people who participate here run the gamit from inclusionists to deletionists. -- ]] 00:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''': It's a wikiproject and has always carried itself as such. ] (]) 12:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
*:Always? I checked the history, I could be missing something but it seems like only recently the wording "Project" was added, and not sure under what consensus even that was done. Why in so many years has no one ever brought it into Project namespace until now? And it's being done via this RM and not a general discussion. It's never been discussed before. Seems odd. -- ]] 21:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' As a long time "member" I have concerns, per my comments above. If other members want to do it, let's all agree and just do it, no RM required. Otherwise it feels forced. -- ]] 21:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per ]. The proposal would also be ungrammatical with two competing nouns -- Wikiproject and Squadron. The title doesn't have the same format as a thematic project like ]. It's more like ] or ] which have a different style of title. ]🐉(]) 22:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. The proposed name is both boring and esoteric when compared to the current one. Names are important, and this is an excellent one, and well chosen by the participants. To impose a different name on them has justification neither in policy nor in improving Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 08:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per the above argument presented by Andrew Davidson. I see no benefit to this proposal, and if anything will likely cause the technical issues as seen previously. Not broke, don't fix. ''<span style="color:Black">]</span>esonant]'' 09:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: var(--color-error, red);">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>

Latest revision as of 09:00, 1 January 2025

 Main page Rescue list Current articles Article Rescue guide Newsletter Members Discussion page 


Welcome to the talk page of the Article Rescue Squadron. If you are looking for assistance to rescue an article, please see Tips to help rescue articles and ARS Guide to saving articles.
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: 3 months 
? faq page Frequently asked questions To view the response to a question, click the 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, Misplaced Pages is a 💕 and articles can be changed by anyone and no individual exclusively controls any specific article. Secondly, if an article meets Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages's policies on sourcing and notability. We try to determine if an article meets Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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.
Media mentionThis page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
Articles for deletionThis project page was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconArticle Rescue Squadron
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject, a collaborative effort to rescue items from deletion when they can be improved through regular editing. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can help improve Misplaced Pages articles considered by others to be based upon notable topics.Article Rescue SquadronWikipedia:Article Rescue SquadronTemplate:WikiProject Article Rescue SquadronArticle Rescue Squadron

Article Rescue Squadron was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 5 March 2014.
On 3 November 2024, it was proposed that this page be moved to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron. The result of the discussion was Not moved.

Artlist

This article has great references and is one of the biggest music licensing and stock footage companies in the world. In addition, they are an Israeli startup. I think the article is being attacked in AFD and would like some help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.153.142.52 (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Dthomsen8

Deceased Wikipedian and member of ARS: Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2023-07-17/Obituary. -- GreenC 11:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

He was active during the earliest days of ARS. His first contribution was in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cope Truss and Misplaced Pages:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list/Archive_1#Cope_Truss. -- GreenC 11:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I didn't know him, but RIP.★Trekker (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
"You got to worry about deletionists," he warned. -- GreenC 00:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I only just saw the sad news and came here to share but find that GreenC has taken care of it. I met David when he came to London for the Wikimania in 2014 and was impressed by his enthusiasm and good nature. He gave me one of his trademark Misplaced Pages Editor caps which I wore to many editathons but it went astray at a WikiData event in Cambridge and so I need a replacement. Perhaps we should get some ARS merchandise made now? Andrew🐉(talk) 21:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Warning, it looks like the page moving of Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list broke subscription may have broken subscription to the page

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T373543

Hi, Just a word of warning as I just noticed that I suddenly wasn't subscribed to the rescue list at Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list anymore after the recent move by @Ammarpad and @Fram. I'm not sure if there is anything an admin could do to bulk restore the subscriptions since the users deleted the original page? Raladic (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Raladic, the original page wasn't deleted par se, it's now a redirect, see Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list. I think the Topic subscription is supposed to work with page moves. – Ammarpad (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
It might for talk pages, but the rescue list is a project page and hence my warning that my action bar suddenly had "Subscribe" instead of "Unsubscribe" when I navigated to it this morning. Raladic (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Oh and actually, I can see that I am still subscribed to the page that is now a redirect at Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list - so yeah I don't quite know what happened there, but I think it might be that project page subscriptions don't move over in a page move but are hard linked to the page title? Raladic (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
@Raladic, Ammarpad, and CFA: I filed T373543. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you @Ahecht. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Tentative ARS candidates from AFC backlog

These 12 pages were culled from yesterday's unassessed AFC backlog; from the moment of this writing, they may not be long for Misplaced Pages in the next how many weeks unless some action is taken. After I spent countless days grading hundreds and hundreds of articles in an ambitious, thankless one-man task--a few of which were never attended to since the early 2010s--it's time we finally discussed their chances for a change before it's too soon.

At press time, two in the backlog--Nathaniel Jenkins and Prateek Raj, both BLPs--are under scrutiny at AFD; no further comments on those. Anyway, on with the chaff we found within the wheat--listed alphabetically. (All have been tagged for {{notability}} unless otherwise noted; tag dates, and source-hunting links, are provided next to their titles.)

As an eventualist/incrementalist, I may be a bit sorry if they end up delisted. But these topics, diverse as they may be, do matter to someone, somewhere. So as it stands, wishing those willing to save those topics good luck--and thanks to the AFC reviewers/participants alike for all your hard work. (Feel free to leave me talk-page feedback.)

Maybe it's time I, an AFC drafter myself, took brief breaks from WP as other off-site commitments compete for my time and attention. All that grading was already overwhelming to begin with...

(XPosted from WT:AFC.)

--Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 13:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 3 November 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. SilverLocust 💬 23:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron → Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron – It's a WikiProject.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  1. {{Short description|WikiProject}}
  2. {{WikiProject status|active|sc1=WP:RESCUE|sc2=WP:ARS}}
  3. "Welcome to WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron. This WikiProject works toward "
  4. {{WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron}}
  5. Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron#WikiProject Invitation
  6. "Wikiproject Article rescue squadron's main focus is"
  7. "The Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject is about"

  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Oppose, WP:CVU is a wikiproject without wikiproject in the name, and it doesn't need to be changed. Just because it's a wikiproject doesn't mean its name has to say it's one. TheWikipede 18:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Support Neutral - Given our general naming of WikiProjects with the prefix, makes sense for consistency. Given the long standing time at the previous title though, we probably do need to have the redirect so old links don't break. Raladic (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
    small addendum - the page Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list needs to stay where it is, due to a bug regarding subscriptions (see invisible note at the top of that page for details), until that bug gets fixed. (so this note is mainly for the page mover that may close this RM). Raladic (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
    ammending my vote to neutral per the below opposes, which make sense, in line with the possible technical challenges that I aleady pointed out above. Raladic (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Mild oppose. Typically, WikiProjects are focused on a topic area, rather than on a task. (I realize the Guild of Copyeditors is an exception.) This project has had such a long history under its present name, that it feels "off" to me to change it just for the sake of some sort of consistency. (Consistency is more important in mainspace, whereas project space isn't really more efficient if we insist on it everywhere.) However, I don't feel strongly about this. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not organized as a Wikiproject. WP:Wikiproject has been around since 2001 and ARS since 2007, and in 17 years of existence overlap, this wasn't previously enacted. Why might that be? Jclemens (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
    Was wondering the same thing. Our ARS page says "WikiProject" in various places, and is in the category. Some of that was done in the past couple years. I thought maybe this was a clever attempt to delete the project by putting it under WikiProject rules and regs, but actually it looks like deleting a WikiProject is not commonly done. Stale and abandoned projects are supposedly kept around. Possibly a WikiProject would give it more protection, possibly not. WikiProjects I don't know much about. -- GreenC 23:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
    Quoting Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron: "Welcome to WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron. This WikiProject works toward ".   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
    Looks like the WikiProject wording may have been added in 2012 by User:Northamerica1000. Special:Diff/472425951/472426031 .. maybe they can recall why it was done? -- GreenC 21:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
    NA1k was heavily involved with the WikiProject around that time, taking up more than a full history page's worth of contributions. {{WikiProject status}} was added by them in 2011.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
    Still, that was the view of a single editor, and the edits were not so conspicuous that others would necessarily see them as needing reversion. Editors can have different opinions now, more than a decade later, without being bound by the opinion of that one editor. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Support Per WP:SPADE. Its current name makes it sound like an official Misplaced Pages process like Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion, when it is more of a group of like-minded editors. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
    It's actually not a group of like minded editors. It's more like a noticeboard to bring attention to certain cases, with noticeboard members independently making their own decisions. The people who participate here run the gamit from inclusionists to deletionists. -- GreenC 00:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Support: It's a wikiproject and has always carried itself as such. BusterD (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
    Always? I checked the history, I could be missing something but it seems like only recently the wording "Project" was added, and not sure under what consensus even that was done. Why in so many years has no one ever brought it into Project namespace until now? And it's being done via this RM and not a general discussion. It's never been discussed before. Seems odd. -- GreenC 21:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose As a long time "member" I have concerns, per my comments above. If other members want to do it, let's all agree and just do it, no RM required. Otherwise it feels forced. -- GreenC 21:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Categories: