This is an old revision of this page, as edited by A Nobody (talk | contribs) at 15:41, 25 October 2007 (→Right-wing politics: idea). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:41, 25 October 2007 by A Nobody (talk | contribs) (→Right-wing politics: idea)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}. |
|
Rename
Now that the previous rename discussion (to drop "squadron") has been closed, I think I'd like to propose renaming to Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squad. 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 WP:RM, as I'd like to find out opinions here first. - jc37 14:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squid 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). Ronabop 05:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- You've been touched by His Noodly Appendage, haven't you? --Victor falk 10:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ramen Fosnez 11:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree - I like Squad better than Squadron. Away with you, foppish ron! Neil ム 17:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ramen Fosnez 11:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- You've been touched by His Noodly Appendage, haven't you? --Victor falk 10:12, 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. SamBC(talk) 20:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- We still don't have a mascot... --Kizor 21:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- A squid for the squad? : ) - jc37 07:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Think about it. --Kizor 14:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- A squid for the squad? : ) - jc37 07:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- We still don't have a mascot... --Kizor 21:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squid 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). Ronabop 05:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Can't say I have a problem with the current name. Ichormosquito 12:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment on user:Fosnez's post-TFD question
Hi, Fosnez,
I thought I'd reply on template issues here. I have two comments.
In a way, what I wouldn't mind is some discussion on Talk:AFD 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 WT:AFD would buy it, but it could make enough sense to maybe discuss and seek views upon.
As for the actual template you're working on, can I suggest a rough draft something like this:
The Article Squad
Attention! This topic might be poorly written rather than unencyclopedic.
Deletion policy aims for improvement, for genuinely notable and encyclopedic topics. If you think this article could be improved to pass AFD, please consider researching the topic, and adding high quality verifiable content and citations so it gets the best chance.
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. FT2 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 WP:SNOW; 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 creating a disruption.
- 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. -- llywrch 19:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- One way round that might be {{Rescue | }}
The Article Squad
Attention! This topic might be poorly written rather than unencyclopedic.
Deletion policy aims for improvement, for genuinely notable and encyclopedic 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 verifiable content and citations so it gets the best chance.
Certified by: sample user #1, sample user #2.
- 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. FT2 11:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well that smells like vote stacking. Benjiboi 13:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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. FT2 11:55, 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? FT2 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. Benjiboi 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. Homosexual recruitment was one such, so (it turned out) was the borderline-notable medical researcher I myself nominated for deletion, Kevin Eggan. 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..... FT2 16:06, 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. Benjiboi 14:13, 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? FT2 13:49, 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 {{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"DGG (talk) 10:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Proportional approval voting
Tagged for rescue by User:Bearian. --Phirazo 17:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Ivo Heuberger
Tagged for rescue by User:Bearian. This biography does seem to pass WP:BIO (a competitor who has "played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports.") --Phirazo 17:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Requested move to Article Rescue Team
Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron → Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Team — Military terminology might be exciting, but it's probably a bad idea in the broader picture —Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 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
*'''Support'''or*'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Misplaced Pages's naming conventions.
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. Dekimasuよ! 04:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)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. Dekimasuよ! 03:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)- Oppose. Team is military terminology. Making this a Project, or even a WikiProject, would make sense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- No Opinion - what we do is more important than what we are called... see suggestions below Exit2DOS2000 07:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, unless this becomes a Wikiproject. "Article Rescue Team" sounds flat. Ichormosquito 20:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support move to Misplaced Pages:Articles for Deletion First Responders. Ewlyahoocom 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'--Thespian 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 : ) - jc37 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. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 05:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Discussion
- Any additional comments:
This blog post has convinced me that military terminology might be bad. Does anyone have a problem with moving to "Article Rescue Team"? Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 20:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I certainly agree in principle. Not sure about the specific suggestion, though. Don't have a better one right now either, mind. SamBC(talk) 21:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe: Article Rescue Project DGG (talk) 04:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Article Rescue Project is the best suggestion I have seen. --Orlady 04:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe: Article Rescue Project DGG (talk) 04:43, 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)? Exit2DOS2000 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. --Phirazo 17:51, 22 October 2007 (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. Benjiboi 20:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- If it's the project template, that makes it even more firm that it be on the talk page, not the article page. SamBC(talk) 20:12, 23 October 2007 (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. Benjiboi 20:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- If it's the project template, that makes it even more firm that it be on the talk page, not the article page. SamBC(talk) 20:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster defines
- squad "2: a small group engaged in a common effort or occupation"
- squadron as "2: a large group of people or things";
- team as "4: a number of persons associated together in work or activity". Ewlyahoocom 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?) --Zeborah 05:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Talk page clean-up
Could someone clean off old threads to archives as appropriate? I'll do it if no one else wants to. Benjiboi 20:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done. I also cleaned up the top headers with a table. Complicated, but it works.--Phirazo 03:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, I updated a few others and moved them as well. Benjiboi 03:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Wooster School
- Wooster School 19 October 2007 by User:Bearian (AfD
- Update, Wooster School survived AfD. Benjiboi 04:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Christian vela
- Christian vela 22 October 2007 by User:Bearian (AfD)
Philippa Hanna
- Philippa Hanna 22 October 2007 by User:Bearian (AfD)
Shinnok's amulet
- Shinnok's amulet 22 October 2007 by User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles (AfD)
Assassinations in fiction
- Assassinations in fiction 23 October 2007 by User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles (AfD)
--Phirazo 18:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Saabs in popular culture
- Saabs in popular culture 24 October 2007 by User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles (AfD)
Right-wing politics
- Right-wing politics 24 October 2007, by User:Burntsauce. I removed the tag since the article is not up for deletion.
--Phirazo 18:09, 24 October 2007 (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, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 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. Benjiboi 18:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for the reply! :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- There doesn't seem to be a consensus for where the tag goes for the time being. --Phirazo 22:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, then I'll continue to go with the talk page as I did for Soviet war in Afghanistan in popular culture. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 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 Misplaced Pages:Intensive Care Unit but I wasn't sure about a consensus on the issue. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 05:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- I did find a bunch of reliable sources for the Afghanistan article, which I recently added and I made a couple improvements to the Saab article, so hopefully these efforts will help rescue these article. Also, we successfully rescued an article! :) So, I removed the rescue tag from that article's talk page. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 06:19, 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 Misplaced Pages:Intensive Care Unit but I wasn't sure about a consensus on the issue. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 05:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, then I'll continue to go with the talk page as I did for Soviet war in Afghanistan in popular culture. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 05:37, 25 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. Benjiboi 18:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar proposal
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, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 15:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)