Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

Save an article on scientific theory book from deletion; re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myopia Myth

Resolved
 – Deleted. -- Banjeboi 22:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is Myopia Myth and I already spent over 10 hours trying to improve it. One edittor has being picking out "problems" on the article from the very beginning and he really doesn't want to help. When I asked him to support me in making it better, he just decided to "delete" the page. --Junsun (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup is needed. Most sourcing here is synthesis since the sources you use fail to talk directly about the book. Taemyr (talk) 06:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I've tagged the article and commented at the AfD. Make it about the book and get more advice if and where the myth part may work. -- Banjeboi 11:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Tagged articles

S Gundam

Resolved
 – Kept. -- Banjeboi 23:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ignatz Lichtenstein

Resolved
 – Kept. -- Banjeboi 23:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sundance Head

Resolved
 – Redirected. -- Banjeboi 23:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Miscarriage of justice cases

Resolved
 – Kept. -- Banjeboi 23:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


Ultramarines

Resolved
 – Delete with redirect. Banjeboi 01:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Christian Lyrics

Resolved
 – Deleted. -- Banjeboi 23:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

H E L P H E L P What happened to the site a Rat came and was very viscous PlEasE H E L P H E l P Its gone No one Came to help Can You Guys do something...User talk:Intelligentlove 9:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? What articles are you talking about? Ikip (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh you are talking about, Christian Lyrics I will help you on your talk page. Ikip (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The edit links for each subsection are gone now. Ikip (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I isolated the problem, it is in Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Current articles Ikip (talk) 10:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed __NOEDITSECTION__ and the problem seemed to be fixed in Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Current articles. Ikip (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Indonesian rock bands

Resolved
 – Nomination withdrawn, article issues addressed. -- Banjeboi 23:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, there is a bit of a tooth-and-nail battle going on over at the AfD for the List of Indonesian rock bands. DHowell and I have been working on the article to bring it up to speed, and I would really appreciate it if other people could help out. The list has been completely redone and expanded. Also, I've been trying to develop some text on the history of rock music in Indonesia (which there seems to be a fair amount of news coverage of), but I'm afraid that I might not be able to finish it fast enough for the AfD (especially since I'm driving all day tomorrow, womp womp). Thanks! SMSpivey (talk) 07:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I commented in the Afd. I hope it helped. Ikip (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Looney Tunes Golden Collection articles at 2nd AfD

Resolved
 – All kept. -- Banjeboi 23:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, ARS. All of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection articles have been put up for deletion. I took the time to add sourcing/reviews from mainstream media to all of the articles. I had more sources to check-- print media in particular-- but the nominator of the articles has instigated some kind of attack against me. I don't follow Wiki-legal-drama enough to know what it is all about, but will avoid further editing to these articles for my own safety-- perhaps the goal of the action? Anyway, a beginning of sourcing and commentary is there at the articles now, if anyone else wants to pick it up. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The Wikiquette alert, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Dekkappai is actually a nice way to try to dial down drama all around. Just like other calls for more eyes on a situation everyone involved is looked at. I would encourage you to take the suggestions at face value knowing that sometimes what we think we're writing comes off a bit harsher than intended. It's better to try to mend a working relationship and move on than take any of it personally, even if it is meant so. Someone calls you booger breath, so what? The best response is simply excellence in your work. Get back to those articles and improve them! -- Banjeboi 23:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, Benjiboi, but actually I didn't call anyone anything, nor am I complaining about being called anything. I complained about an AfD I felt, and still do feel was a waste of other editors' time. And I was in the process of sourcing and expanding the articles when the nominator turned me over to this review process. I noticed another similar editor-review going on at the discussion board at the same time-- is this typical behavior at AfDs nowadays? If someone complains about the AfD and starts working on the articles, send them off to waste editing time at comment boards? And when I began adding external links/newspaper articles reviewing the individual releases, my work was denigrated by another editor. (I have no intention of hauling that editor off to a tribunal, which I think is childish. I am here to improve articles, not to play this kind of schoolyard "gotcha" game.) The nominator apparently made no attempt to check sourcing on these articles, because there is sourcing galore available on each one. At least two have won "Best release" awards-- one from the Parents' Choice Awards. I further feel that the Wikiquette alert was another attempt to waste editors' time, and have responded only briefly there, because, again, I personally attacked no one. As a matter of fact, I feel that I was the one attacked by that completely unnecessary alert. It seemed a needless provocation intended to divert my attention from working on the articles. Anyway, I've done some minimal work on the articles today-- they are really outside of my areas interest/expertise, I just joined in because I thought they were such absurd nominations. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I used to feel similar to this but then, after seeing way too many AfDs, realized that the community patience for repeat AfDs does grow thin and - despite an effort to remove the material - articles actually improve as a result of the attention. I also suggest being extra civil so that those who aren't stick out more. Sensible editors still abound so baseless accusations will be easily seen as such. If an editor is causing problems it will catch up to them, maybe not soon enough, but it will. Be cautious not to let someone else's issues overshadow your goals and work here. The AfD is going along fine and likely will be a no consensus or keep. The nominator, well, just stay clear and if provoked asked for other eyes. Hopefully this will be a learning lesson for them. -- Banjeboi 01:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Benji. Yeah, it just kind of took me by surprise-- I've been far more outspoken at other AfDs and this is the first kind of comment I've ever had on my behavior. Anyway, you're right, it seems to be going along fine. I'll try to chip in a little more on the articles tomorrow. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
No problem, when in doubt take a breather and call in support! -- Banjeboi 11:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent_Article_for_deletion_debates

I solicited stories on village pump. I would love to hear your story... travb (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

New idea!

After a discussion with A Man In Black in a recent AfD, I wonder if we can have one of those small script "This article has been tagged for rescue" kind of comments like the wikiprojects use for deletion sorting? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Give me an example A Nobody. Ikip (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
If you look at some of the AfDs on the left, notice the little notes in the discussions. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to be more specific, this?: 

For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion

Steps to list an article for deletion:

   1. {{subst:afd}}
   2. {{subst:afd2|pg=Mr. Skullhead|cat=|text=}} ~~~~ (categories)
   3. {{subst:afd3|pg=Mr. Skullhead}} (add to top of list)
   4. Please consider notifying the author(s) by placing {{subst:adw|Mr. Skullhead}} ~~~~ on their talk page(s).

Ikip (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about this kind of thing but for ARS. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the need actually as our template on the article is about as clear as one would expect. Potentially we could get a bot to do it though. -- Banjeboi 03:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
To put a fine point on it, there's nothing saying that the AFD is being advertised to partisans. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I am indifferent either way.Ikip (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Category rename proposal

Our current category, Category:Articles that have been proposed for deletion but that may concern encyclopedic topics is overly cumbersome and not very hip. I propose renaming it to Category:Articles tagged for deletion and rescue which I believe remains NPOV and concise. The only way an item should be added is by our {{rescue}} template doing so. If we expand the template use to include DRV we can simply amend the category page lede to reflect that.

In asking about the technical aspects, I was encouraged to sort out any timing of a change-over with our Arsbot operator and add a redirect to the new category page. Given this information please add support, oppose, comment etc. so we can look for consensus on what to do:

Why not get together and change policy at its source?

Instead of waiting for articles to be nominated for deletion, and rushing to save them, why not get together, and change the policy that allows them to be so unjustly removed so easily? It only takes a handful of people over there, to have the majority consensus and change anything you don't like. Lets start with something simple. If a book has been on the bestsellers list, should it be counted as notable, even if no one is reviewing it? I started a discussion about that on the notability policy pages awhile back. If an article is deemed too long, can should someone be able to just create an wiki on the www.wikia.com(owned by the founder of wikipedia), copy it over to preserve it, and link to it in order to preserve it? Should articles dedicated to a list of weapons, equipment, or other information be preserved? At the moment, some are, while others who have fewer editors around to protest their deletion, are deleted. Should we not have a set rule for everything? All policy pages seem to have just a small number of people around to discuss them and edit or revert things at any given day. Would you save more articles you think should be kept, by changing policy? Seems it would be far less work in the long run. Dream Focus (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No, we should absolutely not have a "set rule for everything." Wikipedia has a framework of rules that encompass the whole project, and it's too much for any one editor to claim to know and understand all of it already. Personally, I am a firm believer in taking things on a case-by-case basis, and "Wikipedia does not have firm rules" is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Yes, some articles get deleted when maybe they shouldn't, and some get kept because some lazy administrators count heads instead of actually weighing the strength of the arguments. The system isn't perfect, but the last thing we need is more rules to learn. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The best thing we can do is support the abolition of "notability" as a guideline or its replacement with Wikipedia:Inclusion criteria or Wikipedia:Inclusion guideline. AfD also needs serious reform as well. If you would like to help, try to revive Wikipedia:Deletion reform, Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Non-notability, and Wikipedia:Pure wiki deletion system. Remember though that the purpose of this wikiproject is to rescue articles. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 05:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Dream Focus and A Nobody. I am troubled at how we, rescue squad members, are focusing so much on the symptoms of the disease, but not the cure. It is all about organization, and getting the word out.
As I have told to A Nobody, and I will tell to you Dream Focus, arguing on these policy pages is pointless, those who support these policies tend to congregate there and create an echo chamber. Ikip (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
And you get your army together and we'll (supporters of the notability criteria) will get ours together and we can all talk shit past each other for thousands of posts. But thanks for the heads-up. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh damn everyone! We are caught! I thought this page was only seen by WP:ARS members! Run for the hills! ....
Talking about changing things, look what happened today: Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation‎ Ikip (talk) 02:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I would tend to side very strongly with Beeblebrox about maintaining looseness and dealing with things case-by-case. I wouldn't support the abolition of notability, although certainly it's definition does require constant re-assessment. Personally I believe the solution is public access to deleted pages and their preservation, at least for a relatively long period of time. I know the servers have been having a little trouble lately, and Jimbo may be reconsidering his statement that "hard drives are cheap", but I think this is the only thing that would make a big positive difference with this. The argument that deleted pages "contain defamatory or other legally suspect material" (from Wikipedia:Deletion Policy#Access_to_deleted_pages) seems a little weak when we have access to all reverted vandalism and deleted sections on existing pages. When I first came to Wikipedia and learned of the wonderful "History" button at the top of each page, this lack of an equivalent for deleted pages surprised me more than anything. ɹəəpıɔnı 22:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

DRV rescue template?

I think a DRV rescue template should be made as well for such articles as Alien and Predator timeline. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Problematic. ARS is about improving articles up to a state where they will pass. For DRV the articles are deleted, so can not be accessed. Taemyr (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Not always as some DRVs are for articles that were kept. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, DRV is suppose to be about the AfD itself not the article per se. If there is a DRV in process, however, I'm not opposed to improving an article during DRV so those looking can see improvements in process. Banjeboi 02:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
On second thought I agree that a modified template for DRV is appropriate as DRV is also used to discuss an article's merit so continuing to improve it to address concerns raised in both AFD and DRV would make sense. Maybe {{Rescue-DRV}}? Banjeboi 00:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The template is redlinked? best, --A NobodyMy talk 05:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we should simply modify the current template so we can point to a DRV instead of a AfD. The template has to be tweaked and explanation for use added to the template page and then we can sort out how to update the project page to reflect this. -- Banjeboi 22:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


Speedy/Afd rampage

User Vistro is doing a bunch of speedy and AfDing, with about a 50% accuracy, I would say. Anyone know how to deal with this? If not, could someone else take a look at his contributions and help remove tags? I did went through his latest 10 or so articles, but there may be a lot more. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


Second Deletion nomination linking glitch on rescue template

Illegal number has been nominated for deletion a second time. The link on the Rescue template is linking to the first deletion discussion from two years ago. Does anyone know how to fix it - and please, don't just do it, post how to do it here.

Thanks. Radiopathy (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

We are changing the {{rescue}} template, here :

Template:Rescue says:

Linking to a second nomination

If the AfD name is different than the name of the article the {{Rescue|page}} parameter should be used, for example {{Rescue|page=Example (2nd nomination)}} if the article [[Example]] is being nominated for the second time at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Example (2nd nomination)]].

Pages that have been tagged with this template may be found in Category:Articles tagged for deletion and rescue.

Complex way:
       
Ikip (talk) 05:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Done. Thank you. Radiopathy (talk) 06:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Man, that is 45 minutes of my life I will never get back, what a pain the ass. ;) Your welcome. :) Ikip (talk) 06:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
This is the third time today, I have felt like a complete ass. I didn't bother to look on the template:rescue page first, there is a simple coding explanation, that I cut and pasted above. Ikip (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
That's a kind way of saying that I should learn my way around here better! But it's a big little universe around here and I can't know everything, and I do appreciate your time. Radiopathy (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
No not at all, I should have known beter, I have been here since Sept 2005 for god sakes. Your welcome. Ikip (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Archive_21&oldid=942505927"