Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 52

Archive 45

←

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Avanu once again tries to change something without consensus.

Avanu has once again tried to add something in which others have objected to. Two different editors have reverted him again. [1] Five different editors have reverted his changes on the other Rescue page previously.[2] There have been constant arguments with this one editor over this, it stretched out so far as to have sections of it archived a few times already. This exact wording he added, was rejected previously in discussions. He has been reverted by SarekOfVulcan, Dream Focus, Skomorokh, Colonel Warden, and Jclemens thus far. Others have spoken against the change during the many discussions. If you want to make a change, please write it out here, and get a strawpoll going, to see if anyone supports it, and how many are against it, and follow consensus! Dream Focus 10:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with User:Dream Focus that this latest change by User:Avanu is way out of line, especially when user's previous behavior is already subject for comment. Avanu's hasty and overbold behaviors are undermining the very arguments and assertions the user is making. I think a 24 hour block may be necessary to prevent further page disruption. BusterD (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I think an RfC was what we needed. Funny thing is that you agreed (at one point that change was needed), and you even said that these guys ran you off. Yet I'm staying persistent in asking for change and you're now against it. We're not even talking about major changes, or even *my* changes or wording. This is actually mostly a proposal you put forward initially. So when you make up your mind what you want, let me know. I love that we have an RfC because we're getting editors who have a less partisan perspective. And even editors like Pablo, who essentially agree with leaving things be, but are at least willing to talk about it reasonably instead of namecalling or accusing opponents of disruptive behavior. This is the kind of debate I wish the regulars could engage in, but as you *well* know, they aren't good at that. Running people off for wanting to improve things is uncool. That completely goes against what ARS purports to be about. Blind partisan support isn't what ARS needs, but a willingness to expand and seek more members by addressing their own issues reasonably. Look at the pages here, many haven't seen a change in 2 years. Several people at the AN/I suggested I ask for a deletion of the Rescue Tag or a deletion of this entire Wikiproject. Yet my 'disruptive' self ONLY asked for an RfC. And we're seeing people involved that haven't been before. You guys label it what you like. I call it a good thing for the tag AND a good thing for the project. If you want to throw stones while the visitors are here, keep doing that. If you want to show them the spirit and reason ARS exists, that's probably better. -- Avanu (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Presumed consensus

Regarding the statement that, "why this item should be rescued and how that could happen", I think this statement presumes that all members of this community will concur that each article tagged with AFD should and can be rescued. As I've found from personal experience, this isn't always the case. I think a slightly more neutral wording would be, "whether this item should be rescued and how that could happen". Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The use of the rescue tag assumes that 1) the article has serious deficits that could legitimately lead to its being deleted, and 2) the tagger believes that to be a non-encylopedia-building outcome. Thus, if the belief is that the article is not suitable for encyclopedia inclusion, the tag cannot be applied in good faith, can it? Jclemens (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

So, to clarify then, this wording only applies to the person who added the tag? At present that is not clear. RJH (talk)

That is the general expectation, yes. Everyone providing input at an AfD is expected to give relevant, policy-supported arguments, regardless of whether the rescue tag is applied. Another relevant discussion is at Template talk:Rescue. Jclemens (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, my interpretation of the statement was that it was intended to apply to everybody who is a member of this project. Hence I think the text needs to be clarified. I don't think it will require a major change in wording to do this. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

...Except that one doesn't have to be a member of any Wikiproject to use the tag or be engaged in the process of improving articles at AfD, better known as Article Rescue. Jclemens (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we're unintentionally talking past each other here. I just want the text to clarify that we want the person who adds the tag to also be the one who posts the ARS clarification. Rather than saying,

"As part of this tag's use, please comment at the deletion discussion on why this item should be rescued and how that could happen."

I would like it to say something like:

"After posting this tag, please comment at the deletion discussion on why this item should be rescued and how that could happen."

Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

May I post your suggestion to the Talk page for the Rescue Tag? -- Avanu (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

My issue concerns the main ARS page, so I'm not clear why that is needed. But feel free. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The text you are discussing is *also* present in the Rescue Tag itself, in its documentation. (link to wording discussion) -- Avanu (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. RJH (talk)

Stop making changes till consensus is reached. This is edit warring.

There is not yet an established consensus at Template talk:Rescue. Till the time that the discussion is closed and consensus is reached, do not persist in edit warring with each other here over preferred versions. Keep the arguments for talk pages, not edit summaries. I'm going to fully protect the page for a short period because now even more users are jumping in. If the protection expires before the discussion is resolved, do not continue arguments via edit summaries. It's still an edit war if you aren't breaking 3RR remember. Regards, --Taelus (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit for tone/style

I'm made a few changes to the tone and style of the lead and first few sections, both to conform to the Manuel of style and to ensure that it remains neutral in tone. None of these changes should be in any way controversial. - 180.149.192.133 (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Log in to show who you really are. Don't hide behind an IP address. I reverted your edits[3]. "removed from reader's view"? And the "as punishment" bit needs to be in there, since many do go in there saying its the fault of who created the article to not have it the way they want it, and don't even bother following WP:BEFORE and looking for reliable sources themselves before trying to delete it. Dream Focus 05:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

As long as it's not an attempt at sockpuppetry, editing through an IP is perfectly acceptable, and IPs should still be treated with respect.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

While I would normally agree with User: Yaksar, I have to side with User:Dream Focus here. There's been a content struggle for some time in the Template:Rescue and Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron namespaces. Dream Focus and I have rarely seen eye-to-eye on the merits of that struggle, yet I think we both believe the same basic things as wikipedians. I have no reason to doubt good faith. Some of the users in this discussion have been overbold in talk, and occasionally defending edit warring or other disapproved behaviors. I'm referring to editors on both sides here. And then this apparently Australian pair of ips comes out of nowhere (with 12 edits between them) to make a rather specific set of edits on a really obscure process page. Now all of this doesn't make a fish, but something smells like one to me. BusterD (talk) 06:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Why does it matter who made the changes? This revert seems very vindictive, and accusing someone of "hiding behind an IP address" is probably the definition of assuming bad faith. You've all but accused this editor of being an "enemy" of the ARS who is trying to covertly infiltrate the organization by editing anonymously. Why can't you judge the changes on the changes themselves, not your imaginary conception of the person who made the changes? Besides, they were extremely minor wording changes which don't change the meaning of the message, but make the tone more neutral and less wildly emotional. I think the changes are quite reasonable, and I have reverted to put them back in. You can pretend that I made the changes if that makes you feel better. —SW— ^squeal 14:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a given that Dream Focus will react stridently to any attempt to change anything about or related to ARS. Fishy edit or not, it didn't look particularly bad or evil. So a much better response than "Log in to show who you really are. Don't hide behind an IP address." might have been "This page has been contentious lately, would you please offer some additional explanation for your edits?" I think it might be better to just strike all the edits in this section since the IP user posted and start over with a new tone. -- Avanu (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I commented on the specific changes and why I was against them. Lets keep the argument on that please. I notice that yet again, Avanu makes his bad faith accusations against me, claiming that I am against all change itself, when in fact I am against specific changes. Dream Focus 14:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Dream you went whole hog lambasting the IP editor and I suggested we restart and I'm the one you choose to say is acting in bad faith? Time for some new glasses. -- Avanu (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You stated "It's a given that Dream Focus will react stridently to any attempt to change anything about or related to ARS". You have constantly insisted upon this, although its obviously not true. Kindly keep your ridiculous accusation to yourself. I'm tired of seeing the same exact argument repeating itself. Dream Focus 14:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Me too, Dream. Me too. :) -- Avanu (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Jeez, I didn't know I was adding to the fire of such a kerfuffle of a discussion, whoops.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Some folks are very heavily emotionally invested in the ARS. I, for one, am not. Its a great project and mission, but I don't think anyone should live and die by the words on this project. I think I am starting to agree with Snottywong (i think it was), who said Dream just comes in and sidetracks a conversation. Many of the editors in ARS, when you filter out the noise, are actually pretty willing to discuss stuff. -- Avanu (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Assume good faith and stop attacking. You have never participated in any of the AFDs tagged for Rescue other than a single one in which you first tried to replace the article to a redirect twice, and got reverted, and then tried four times to remove the Rescue tag. You have since then been determined to come here and argue nonstop to get your way, to such an extend that the discussions just keep feeling up one archive page after another.(note: past discussions were at Template_talk:Rescue and fill the current page there and all four archived pages.) You repeat the same accusations time and again. How many months are we going to have to go through this? You managed to bring over some others from outside the project last time I submitted a strawpoll, many of which have argued against the ARS in the past and tried to get rid of it. The people who actually want to help work on articles, don't like having to go through this conflict time and again. Just list each specific change you think should be done, and gain consensus to see what people agree with, and leave all the other nonsense out of this. Dream Focus 15:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• As a reminder, please keep the discussion here rather than in the edit summaries of the project page history. Form consensus, then edit. Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Hello to the regular debate club crew. Now, the only change Mr. IP did that is worth me commenting on in disagreement is "removed from readers' view." When articles are deleted, they are gone from the world except for a very very small cadre of people, i.e., wikipedia admins. Even established editors who are not admins can't see the stuff without going through these gatekeepers. I'd love to have access to deleted edits, but would hate having to deal with the bullcrap of being an admin (like I'd ever a shot of becoming one, haha, so sour grapes, yadda yadda). Once something is deleted, the chance of someone coming along to find the content and improving it is lost.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• I don't quite agree, in that I have had good success in marginal cases getting an article moved to user space for additional work, and, as far as I know, there's no prohibition on retaining a copy of an article in your user space so long as you can show that it is a work in progress, rather than moribund. And there's certainly no way to prevent anyone from making a copy on their own computer. So I think we're really somewhere in the middle between the poles....--Nuujinn (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the wrong venue for discussing user concerns. Discussions here should be based on content, not contributors. If you are concerned with a users behaviour, take it to RFC/U or ANI rather than bogging down this already controversial debate.

Dream Focus' behavior If anything, this exercise has only further magnified the ownership issues that Dream Focus has with anything related to the ARS. Any changes made to an ARS project page or template which don't push an extreme inclusionist agenda get immediately reverted by DF followed by a long drawn-out argument with ad hominem attacks, numerous assumptions of bad faith, and countless tangents; which eventually ends with the original editor giving up because they're just sick of the bullshit and have much better things to do. Even extremely minor wording changes which don't even change the meaning of the passage will be argued about for weeks until the original editor capitulates out of exhaustion. It amounts to an outright abuse of WP:BRD, since an editor who constantly reverts but never compromises is not collaborative. This is neither a welcoming nor a collaborative environment; and it's an unacceptable, hostile attitude to have in general on Wikipedia. I'm not far from proposing a topic ban on DF to prevent him from participating in anything related to ARS, because things are getting out of control and this is not the way Wikipedia works. —SW— chat 19:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC) This won't go anywhere. I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I can't see any resolution to this where there'd be any agreement among the major parties involved.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC) I do not believe this is an appropriate venue to discuss an individual editor's conduct, and concur with Yaksar that it won't go anywhere here in any case, for a variety of reasons. My suggestion would be to take such discussion elsewhere, and in this particular case, keep an eye out for boomerangs. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC) If we're going to ban anyone from ARS related things how about those who do nothing ARS related at all but come here and argue nonstop. And as I said before, if you want to make a change, write out each change, and let people comment on it, and form proper consensus. Dream Focus 19:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Yeah, so that's not how progress works. Opposing every minutiae that has not yet been discussed and beaten to death is not the way to improve anything, especially if it's just being used to try to impede a change.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Imagine if every article and/or project page was written in this way. Every tiny change has to be discussed amongst multiple editors beforehand and agreed upon before it can make its way into the article. Wikipedia would consist of about 50 articles if that were the way it worked. I understand and agree that this is not the ideal venue for a discussion on DF's behavior, but since I'm not currently willing to submit myself to the drama pit of ANI with this complaint, it's as good a place as any to at least point it out and make my opinions known. —SW— confess 20:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC) You certainly are willing to turn this discussion into a drama pit. If someone disagrees with an edit, they can revert it, and discuss it on the talk page. It will not take time to write out what changes you want made, and let everyone comment. Dream Focus 21:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC) I'm not going to play your games. You and I both know that no one wants to spend hours arguing with you about whether the word "just" should be included in a particular sentence. You need to lighten up and give other editors some latitude to make minor changes without huge arguments. If you can't handle that, then my complaints will escalate. —SW— confer 21:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC) We were arguing about a variety of things. There were many things made in the edit all at once. Those people disagree with are being discussed now. And your complaints always escalate. I doubt it'll take too long to get through this though, if we focus on the specific edits, and don't go off on long rants about other things. Dream Focus 21:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC) That's very patient of you Dream, but to be fair they've already took up enough of our valuable time. For me there's not one part of the recent change Id be happy with. @Snotty: This is a stable project page that doesnt need minor improvements. The most excellent and inspirational editor DreamFocus has every right to revert unhelpful changes, even minor ones. Im sure you mean well, but this is a project for people that like to rescue articles. On a policy or AfD page its different, but on our own project page, we don't have to compromise with those who like to delete other peoples works. If I encountered a someone strongly pushing a Marxist or feminist POV on a main space political article, Id naturally expect them to compromise. But no way would I waltz onto the Marxist or Feminist project and try to force my POV on them in their own project space. That would be appallingly bad manners. @ all you non ARS members who are trying to force changes on the project: We've been patiently debating with you for weeks but no consensus has been established for change. So can you please have the good manners to leave us alone for a few months? No disrespect to those who enjoy pointless arguments, but youre starting to become disruptive! FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Well, that's not really how WikiProjects work. One on conservatism, for example, is not a place for users who have conservative views to gather, nor is it a place to promote a conservative viewpoint. Instead it is a project that helps editors organize, discuss, and improve pages that relate to conservative topics. Same with feminism, Buddhism, or whatever. A project whose purpose was to push a POV would be entirely unnacceptable. Since the ARS is a WikiProject, the same applies here. There's no "this is for ARS members who think this way," it's a collaborative effort.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC) A project like Conservatism would be there to help neutrally improve the coverage of Conservative topics. But if would be jolly poor form for a small group of editors who thinks we already have too much conservative coverage to aggressively try to change the project page to their liking - especially if the the debates has already been going on for weeks, taking up valueable editing time! FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Oy vey, I've stirred up the hornet's nest now. Yes Feyd, please explain to me how Wikipedia works. If I add my name to Category:Wikipedians in the Article Rescue Squadron, does that give me the right to make changes with being hassled? This is a textbook WP:TAGTEAM. —SW— yak 22:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Your views would have more weight here is you put some effort in improving and saving valueable content. There's been one or two deletionists in the past who have added themselves to the list - but unless they undergoe a genuine change of heart all it does is make them look manipulative and insincere. If you are ready to genuinely come over to Light side, we would of course be delighted to have someone with your skills as a member. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC) SW, we all already know your opinions about Dream Focus. Now, go enjoy your Stroopwafels!--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep the discussions to content, not attacking other editors.

Snottywong's intentions in his own words Before being put up for deletion, this was what snotty's user box said: This user attempts to counteract the implicit canvassing by the Article Rescue Squadron by regularly reviewing articles tagged for rescue, and voting to delete most of them. original [4] modified after deletion !vote.[5] Snotty is attempting to "counteract the implicit canvassing by the Article Rescue Squadron by regularly reviewing articles tagged for rescue, and voting to delete most of them." Someone who regularly monitors ARS to delete articles which are tagged by ARS for rescue is here making continued suggestions on how the squadron should be ran? "Either that, or you are trying to stealthily tag articles for rescue and hope that !voters don't notice. In any case, your trolling is not going to get the reaction out of me that you're looking for."[6] "And the notable absence of such notifications despite my request here and your own rules goes a long way to silencing those who say the ARS is not about canvassing and stuffing votes."[7] Okip 02:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Note that he's since deleted that userbox. Your argument, Okip, consists entirely of ad hominem--while I often don't agree with SW on specific notability, arguing points, not personalities is the appropriate way forward. Your actions here seem nothing more than an attempt to poison the well, Okip. Jclemens (talk) 02:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Is Snottywong here to help the project, or try to hurt it? I think its valid. He did go around every single article tagged for Rescue insulting the ARS constantly, as well as its members for quite some time. If the well is poisoned, its not Okip that has done it. Dream Focus 03:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC) What the hell are you getting at with all this? Clearly you have some sort of background with SnottyWong; I wasn't around for it, and quite frankly I couldn't care less. For some reason you're trying to bring personal attacks into a discussion in an attempt to stop basically neutral changes. I don't know why you're doing this, but stop it. Let's get something productive done, then you can get back to your stupid squabbles.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Discuss specific changes

I'll discuss the changes.

1. "perfectly notable" - no need for the superlative
2. "Every time an article is deleted" is somewhat ambiguous, and could be taken as meaning the same article deleted multiple times.
3. Perhaps we could find a better way of wording "removed from reader's view" but it's nearer the truth than "lost".
4. Link removed from header - I think this is per MOS
5. "deleted as punishment" is a bit hysterical.
6. The ARS has not grown exponentially.

So all in all, an improvement. While we're at it, I've never liked the hyperbole about wounded and bleeding articles, perhaps that could be worded a little more accurately.  pablo 14:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Some articles are in fact deleted multiple times. I don't see as how anyone would be confused to think that though. Perhaps "Every time any article is deleted.."? Dream Focus 14:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Well yes, some articles are deleted multiple times. But "When an article is deleted ..." is a simpler sentence, and covers all cases. pablo 14:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• "An article should not be deleted just because it is ill-formed" should not be changed to "An article about a notable topic should not be deleted because it is ill-formed." No need for this. Opinions on what is a notable topic are considerably different. If the article is deemed not notable, it won't be kept no matter how it is formed. But don't delete something just because of its current state, of course. AFD is not cleanup. Dream Focus 14:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about each individual change

Ok, then let's discuss each minute change in detail, if only to highlight the absurd hoops that Dream Focus wants to put editors through in order to make infinitesimally small changes to this project page. Please indicate below whether you endorse the change or would prefer to keep the original sentence. —SW— ^soliloquize 22:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm fine with all of the changes except the one for which I proposed alternative language. Jclemens (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me also. In agreement with Jclemens. Incidentally, I think our discussions for improvement will bring more editor involvement and possibly more life to the Article Rescue Squadron. From what I can tell, many of the pages for this project have languished for a while, so getting more people thinking about Rescue is only a good thing. -- Avanu (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• It is not absurd to see which parts people agree with and which ones they do not. And once more, you are being very uncivil towards me. Dream Focus 00:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• I'm going to close the discussions below, since there has been no activity on them in over two weeks, and since the consensus on each one is unambiguous. I will also make the changes to the page which have been endorsed. I'm glad we went through this exercise, if only to show Dream Focus that his opinion is almost always the opposite of everyone else's, even fellow ARS members. —SW— ^comment 23:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was Endorsed change. —SW— ^comment 23:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Removal of "perfectly"

All too often, an article about a perfectly notable topic lies wounded, badly written, unsourced...

• Endorse change - "Perfectly" adds nothing to the sentence apart from an inappropriate injection of emotion and lays the groundwork for a non-neutral POV tone. Removing the word doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. —SW— ^soliloquize 22:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Against change It is a perfectly notable topic, not an potentially notable one, or an arguably notable topic. Dream Focus 00:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse change - no need for the superlative here. pablo 10:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Are we really doing this?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Apparently we are, to save another futile revert-war. pablo 16:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse change BusterD (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was Delete. —SW— ^comment 23:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Addition of "For these articles,"

Improvement is the opposite of deletion. → For these articles, improvement is the opposite of deletion.

• Endorse change Delete entire sentence - The original sentence doesn't make sense if you apply it generally to all articles. It makes minimally more sense if you qualify that it is only referring to articles that have been nominated for deletion. Ideally, I would prefer to delete the sentence entirely as it doesn't make much sense in either case. —SW— ^soliloquize 22:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I've never liked this sentence anyway, and don't think it is needed at all. Improvement has its opposites, but deletion isn't really one of them, and creation is more like the opposite of deletion. I don't think it adds anything to the sentence No! Only articles about non-encyclopedic topics should be deleted, not articles that need improvement. apart from putting the idea of there being opposing "sides" in the reader's head right at the top of the page. pablo 14:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete entire sentence BusterD (talk) 01:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was Change to Jclemens' version. —SW— ^comment 23:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Addition of "about a notable topic"

An article should not be deleted just because it is ill-formed. → An article about a notable topic should not be deleted because it is ill-formed.

• Endorse change - Qualifying the types of articles that we're talking about here makes the sentence more clear. Articles about non-notable topics should be deleted regardless of whether or not they are ill-formed.
• Eh I'm not sure that's the right way to go. I'd prefer to go a different direction, along the lines of "the poor current state of an article is not a sufficient reason for deletion". If we start adding qualifiers like notability, we have to deal with things like V, NOT, etc. Jclemens (talk) 23:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose this change. No qualifiers needed, as Jclemens said. Dream Focus 00:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• I like Jclemens' suggestion for this one, it makes it clear that an article's state alone is not a good enough reason for deletion if the subject is good, without being too wordy.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Also in agreement here with Jclemens on this one. Really I don't see most of these changes as big deals, but I think Jclemens has good reasons for an alternative. -- Avanu (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Prefer JClemens' wording. pablo 10:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• I'm ok with Jclemens' version if that's what the consensus ends up being. —SW— ^speak 15:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• ok with jclemens proposal.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse User:Jclemens suggestion BusterD (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was Endorse change. —SW— ^comment 23:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Removal of wikilink from heading

==Why is it important to read '''[[Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion]]'''?== → ==Why is it important to read Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion?==

• Endorse change per WP:MOSHEAD. —SW— ^soliloquize 22:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse change Doubt this one is controversial.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Yes. pablo 10:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Obviously yes BusterD (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was Keep original sentence. —SW— ^comment 23:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Change "Every time" to "When"

Every time an article is deleted, the contributions that were made to it are lost. → When an article is deleted, the contributions that were made to it are removed from reader's view.

• Keep original sentence - I don't see a need for this change. —SW— ^soliloquize 22:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep original I agree with you on that. Dream Focus 00:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep original - this is the only proposed change i have a strong opinion on.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was Endorsed change. —SW— ^comment 23:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Remove "as punishment"

...articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet.

• Strongly endorse change - Characterizing deletion in this way is an enormous assumption of bad faith on the nominator of an article. No one nominates an article for deletion with the intention of "punishing" the article's creator for doing a bad job. —SW— ^soliloquize 22:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Against change. Yes some people do delete articles for this reason. They insult the nominator, they go around nominating things one editor they don't like created, they get mad the person didn't check for sources before creating it and want it deleted without bothering to follow WP:BEFORE and check themselves. Dream Focus 00:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Change reasons given outside this section make it clear that it could be phrased less adversarially. -- Avanu (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse change - I see no evidence that anybody deletes an article for this reason. Insulting the nominator is a problem however. pablo 10:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• won't oppose - its certainly true, but unnecessarily drama-inducing.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse change BusterD (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was Endorsed change. —SW— ^comment 23:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Remove "eventually"

If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted.

• Endorse change - Content in an article must be sourceable now if it is to be kept. Note that I'm not saying that it needs to be sourced now, but that it needs to be sourceable now. If it is not sourceable now, then it fails WP:V and should be deleted if challenged. Any claim that it will eventually become sourceable is invalid per WP:CRYSTAL. —SW— ^soliloquize 22:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse In total agreement with you there.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose change. Crystal ball is for future films without real coverage, etc. I believe the wording means if sources can be added, then leave it be. Perhaps it could say "If sources currently exists and can eventually be added..." If there are university textbooks covering the topic, then obviously it can be sourced eventually, once someone with one quotes from their book. That's a problem with a current AFD for Engineering psychology. I have proven many universities do teach a course called that, but Google book search shows 26,100 results, so its hard to find the university level textbooks to prove its notable. If there is no doubt that sources do exist which would prove the topic notable, then do not delete. Dream Focus 00:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse pretty much per SnottyWong. pablo 10:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse change. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse change BusterD (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was Endorsed change. —SW— ^comment 23:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Remove "exponentially"

The Article Rescue Squadron was highlighted in a July 2007 Wikipedia Signpost, and has grown exponentially with many processes to tag, track, and list tagged articles.

• Endorse change - To say that the ARS has grown exponentially is a common, but major misnomer. Describing something's growth as "exponential" is very specific and refers to growth that is proportional to its current value. Read exponential growth and tell me in which way the ARS has grown exponentially. If the ARS has been growing exponentially since 2007, then you would probably have billions of members by now (assuming the exponential growth is referring to membership). —SW— ^soliloquize 22:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse change, and I would drop the 2007 reference, as those laurels are a bit old to sit upon. Many processes, I'm not sure about--if we have many, we should list them explicitly. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse change, blatant lie. pablo 10:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• ok with change - this statement had some basis in truth when drafted, but a Moore's law type growth rarely lasts for long for any wikigroup.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse change BusterD (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

More off-topic text

Discussion about this section Snotty, I find it incredibly hypocritical that you are attempting to write what the ARS page should say, the majority of what you do on wikipedia revolves around deleting good faith editors contributions and undermining ARS. For that reason I have collapsed the section above on what should and should not be on this groups page. Okip 23:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Yaksar reverted my collapsing this section, and posted on my talk page. As Feyd wrote: all you non ARS members who are trying to force changes on the project: We've been patiently debating with you for weeks but no consensus has been established for change. So can you please have the good manners to leave us alone for a few months? No disrespect to those who enjoy pointless arguments, but youre starting to become disruptive! Which Yaksar disagreed with.[8] The title of this project is Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron yet we have editors who have never rescued an article, who consistently put other good faith editors contributions up for deletion, always attempting to make more restrictive editing rules, trying to dictate what this project is, doing everything in their power to undermine it. That is the very definition of hypocrisy. We are a group of rescuers, we should not be dictated too or held hostage by editors who have completely opposite and contradictory viewpoints. Okip 00:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC) We've finally moved onto productive discussion, and now you're trying to stop it for petty personal reasons. People want to be able to read and edit this discussion.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Yaksar you escalated the discussion to my talk page. Then gave me a 3RR warning (even though I revert twice). So it is clear you are a veteran editor who has learned how wikipedia really works in a disagreement, talking civility and cooperation on the talk page, yet templating editors, and escalating arguments to other pages. How could you possibly blame me for the strife here? As if I never edited on this talk page, suddenly these extremely hostile editors would accept this groups existence? Please, if you truly are interested in a dialogue, keep the discussion here, no more warnings or templates. Okip 00:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC) And he continue to post on my talk page, subtly bring up the threat of being blocked, [9] Okip 00:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Ok, so I'm going to try to get a few things clear hear. First of all, for anyone confused, Okip collapsed the discussion above about specific edits and made his comment about editors not being wanted. I undid that so discussion could continue, he undid that, and so on and so forth. Wanting to stay on topic here, I gave him a friendly comment on his talk page, and eventually gave him an edit war warning when it looked like he was going to continue being disruptive. Evidently we're not going to stay on topic, so I hope someone will collapse this section of the discussion, but Okip, you are being ridiculously petty and impeding actual progress, to the benefit of no one on either "side." Looking at your edits over the past year or so it looks like this is a recurring theme with you. Mostly drama, very little substance. I see you've retired; maybe you should try harder to keep it that way.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Please don't talk peace and compromise when you attack me in the same paragraph. Isn't escalating a discussion to a person's talk page, "templating the regulars" with a 3RR after only 2 reversions,[10] (subtly) threatening someone of being blocked,[11] and calling someone "ridiculously petty" "caus[ing] more drama"? Calling someone "ridiculously petty" as you did above, "wouldn't do much but cause more drama, and came awfully close to uncivil personal attacks."[12] The attacks on Dreamfocus were collapsed "off topic" just above, yet you couldn't resist bringing up my edit history. Maybe someone should collapse your comments too? Now the main point: You have roughly two groups of editors, those who want to rescue articles, and those who want this group to cease to exist. It is extremely hypocritical to have these editors dictating the way the project should be, as their POV is completely opposite the spirit of this group. That is the bottom line That is the reason many of these editors ideas are so hostility treated, they have destroyed any chance of good faith long ago. Any change, no matter how small, after months of attacks on the project and its members, is seen as just another way to destroy the project. That is why I personally agree, "I can't see any resolution to this where there'd be any agreement among the major parties involved"[13] Thus far you have not made one comment today about this underlying reason. Your focus has been threats of blocking and "awfully close... uncivil personal attacks." In every major edit dispute the most sophisticated veteran editors act like peacemakers and diplomats, even though they usually have clear bias and a strong agenda. Okip 01:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC) And Avanu escalates this discussion to Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Civility_Issues_with_Editor. Talk peace and compromise in the discussion, while aggressively escalating outside of the discussion. It is the wikipedia playbook and we all know it well. Okip 01:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Okip, I don't know you, and I don't know why you seem so angry. I see several editors here trying to have a civil discussion. This ranty stuff that several of us have done doesn't help them to focus or get things done. Now, if you'd just like to rant and lay into me, or talk about how your vision of Article Rescue Squadron is different, you can use my Talk page to do that to your heart's content. But we need to be civil while we're here on this page. I don't see just 2 groups here, vying for control in an epic battle for the future of Rescue Squadron. That might make a better movie, but hey, I alienated Buster by my boldness, and Snotty offended me a bit right off the bat on the Rescue Tag page. Point is, we're all different, and grouping us into "US VERSUS THEM" just isn't helping. -- Avanu (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC) (ec) You are making up an argument where there isn't one. This is NOT another one of those "delete vs. keep" or "is the ARS bad" discussions, or some huge rift between two groups. We're all just trying to discuss and implement some small changes, and for some reason you're insisting on turning it into a personal battle. Just drop it. --Yaksar (let's chat) 01:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC) "Talk peace and compromise in the discussion, while aggressively escalating outside of the discussion." Yaksar how about asking Avanu to drop his Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Civility_Issues_with_Editor posting, that would be a good first step. Yes, we are all friends, we all want peace and comprimise, etc. I think calling someone "ridiculously petty" is pretty personal, wouldn't you agree? Okip 01:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Just a reminder, Wikiquette Alerts is not discipline or aggression. "Remember the aim is to move the dispute towards resolution" Okip, you tell me, how can we get this conversation back to a reasonable place? I'll try whatever can be done. -- Avanu (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Use of the word 'punishment' may seem uncivil

I'm not sure how to feel about the use of word 'punishment' in the sentence, "articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet". It seems to be personalizing the AfD process somewhat and doesn't quite fit the spirit of WP:Civility. My preference would be to use "just" or "merely" instead of "as punishment". Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• If we sanitize everything in life, there is no joy. That being said, the words "as punishment" don't need to be in there. Alternatively, we could say "articles should not be deleted by evil deletionists on a power trip who have never added a source to an article ever, because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet". That wouldn't be constructive, except in drawing a response from Snotty or Avanu.  :-) --Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Please, I'm far from an advocate of sterility, but let's focus on the issues, snark is not a good additive for discussion. I think RJHall has a good point, how about: " Wikipedia is a work in progress, and articles should not be deleted simply because they do not yet meet criteria for inclusion. Wikipedia has no deadline, and developing good sourceable content in a article is preferable to deletion of an article." We might also consider putting a bit in there about alternatives to deletion in cases where development may take some time, such as userification and incubation. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That language is great language.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we have to be careful there. "Wikipedia is a work in progress, and articles should not be deleted simply because they do not 'yet' meet criteria for inclusion," makes it sound as though articles with unacceptable subjects should be crystallballed instead of deleted. Something more like "articles on notable subjects should not be deleted simply because (something about the state of the article)" would be more accurate.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair criticism. How about, "Wikipedia is a work in progress, and articles should not be deleted simply because they do not yet demonstrate criteria for inclusion. Wikipedia has no deadline, and developing good sourceable content in a article is preferable to deletion of an article." I think that it makes it clear that "yet" is not an excuse for waiting for things to become notable, but rather solely for allowing articles to develop the coverage that already exists. Jclemens (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Works for me.

But now I am afraid, very afraid, as it seems we might make a little progress, and I fear that the sky will rend itself in twain and kittens will rain down in a torrent of wikilove. Please, someone make a snarky comment or poke another editor to stop this horror show of reasonable discourse. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Bog off, Nuujinn - your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries. pablo 01:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

If your intent is to attract other editors to this project, you will usually have more success through diplomacy. But if you only want to recruit fringe elements, then by all means continue to be defensive. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

On the changes above...

Does it appear there is consensus yet, or should we wait until after the holiday or even add a week for further review? -- Avanu (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we do have consensus regarding JClemen's wording, let's start with that and leave the rest for a while yet, we've got time. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I would add that the removal of the wikilink from the section header should be done too - this is a Manual of Style issue and local consensus is irrelevant. pablo 15:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. I was bold, and am comfortable being reverted. Seems to me we don't need the link in the heading since there's a link in the text. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind when gauging consensus that Jclemens endorsed all changes at the top (except the one he specifically commented on), so be sure to add another endorse to each change. —SW— ^gossip 00:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and go through with the removal of exponentially, since there seemed to be pretty strong agreement there.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

New Wikiproject

I have just finished creating WP:Wikiproject Abandoned Drafts. It's still in the early stages, but i'm hoping it will grow. It involves saving abandoned userspace drafts of articles from eventually deletion, along with getting other users to adopt the drafts so that they will eventually make their way into the mainspace. If any of you would like to join, that would be great. Furthermore, if any of you know of any userspace article drafts that are sitting around in the subpage of a retired user, i'd be glad to be informed about them. Also, if any of you have article drafts that you'd like to donate to the Wikiproject, that would be great as well. Silverseren^C 05:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't they have a page to request a new article on something be made? Then they get started and link to it from there. Just link to existing drafts for those things already started. Dream Focus 06:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean. You're referring to WP:Articles for Creation, I assume, but I don't understand your last two sentences and how they apply to that. Silverseren^C 06:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't you just move them from user space to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pending_AfC_submissions and it'd be the same thing? Dream Focus 03:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If I'm understanding this correctly, the goal of this WikiProject will also be to edit these drafts up to par before just moving them to the mainspace. AfC is more about submitting articles, where they'll either be rejected or accepted.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the goal of the Wikiproject is to get other active users to adopt the drafts and complete them themselves, not for the people in the Wikiproject to do it (though they can if they want to.) But you're correct about the differences from AfC. Silverseren^C 04:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

While it's an appealing idea, there are just so many Wikipedia articles that are poorly developed and sourced that it can be a full-time task just working on those. Even the list of vital articles is sadly lacking in GA-level entries (perhaps in part because they become an attractive dumping ground for everybody's unsourced opinions). Regards, RJH (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

template addition - Androphilia and gynephilia

Androphilia_and_gynephilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi - is this article in need of rescue from the rescue squadron? The article seems to be clearly being kept at AFD and there are on the discussion page half a dozen interested users some of which are experts - in what way does the article rescue squadron intend to be rescuing this article. Does the addition of the template on this article comply with the Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Instructions? - thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Vertott has today dropped two drive-by rescue tags (2nd: Deborah Regal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) without making clear specific assertion or page improvement. BusterD (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, can a rescue squadron regular please have a word with him and clarify the reasons and situations that adding a rescue template would be beneficial to the squadrons aim and ambitions. Off2riorob (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• They obviously want help finding references and/or rewriting it. What else could they want? Dream Focus 19:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of references presented, if there are rescue squadron users topic specific in this area and wanting to rewite I will support the template continuing. Off2riorob (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

"if there are rescue squadron users topic specific in this area and wanting to rewite"? You don't know who wills how up and what their skills are. If someone wishes help fixing an article, they can tag it. Dream Focus 20:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• If you believe that the rescue tag has been inappropriately applied to an article, just remove it. It's no different than any other maintenance tag. If there doesn't appear to be an obvious, rational reason for why the rescue tag has been applied, and the tagger didn't explain their actions at the AfD (per the ARS instructions), then just remove it. No need to ask for permission here. —SW— ^speak 22:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, if you believe anything SW does is inappropriate, revert that. No need to ask for permission, he really deserves it.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, Snotty has removed both of them - if Dream wants to go rewrite them he can - Androphilia_and_gynephilia was clearly templated for rescue inappropriately as I can see from the guidelines. While I am here - because I don't come here often - I want to thank the hard working members of the rescue squadron for their fantastic work in improving and saving for readers many many articles, thank you all for that. Off2riorob (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I put it back on the article Deborah Regal and have found adequate sources to prove she is notable. Dream Focus 17:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Notice that, since SnottyWong removed the rescue tag, a delete !vote has been added. The idea that this is a sure thing seems mistaken as some admins close against the consensus of the discussion. This topic seems a reasonable one to rescue and there's nothing in the ARS instructions which suggests otherwise. Warden (talk) 06:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Editor BitterGrey expressed it best I think: "James Cantor is strongly opposed to the conjunction, 'and'. Everyone else (initially myself also) seems to have thought this had something to do with a substantial content matter, such as the notability of the two terms. No, it always was all about 'and'." The one editor who is currently !voting Delete actually makes a case that this is a neologism and ought to be sourced with that in mind. Editor VERTott really doesn't do much in the debate except add the Rescue Tag and say 'plenty of sources' exist, but doesn't apparently feel much justification for that statement is needed. If there are in fact 'plenty of sources', then what specific sort of Rescue is needed, and why couldn't VERTott just say so? -- Avanu (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

James Cantor right off the bat in the AfD said "The combination of the terms, however, is WP:OR, and the content is 'sexual orientation.' By analogy, Acid and Base are pages, but Acid and Base is a redirect to Ph. The cites Jokestress added are examples of uses of the individual words, which is not the issue. ('Acid' and 'base' are used by experts, but do not establish 'acid and base' as a topic independent of Ph.)" Pretty much clear as a bell what the AfD debate is about, and what would 'rescue' it. P.S. -Looks like James posted before I could add this bit (edit conflict). -- Avanu (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if this comment is better on this page or back at the AfD (and I am not exactly clear on what Avanu is saying above), but I wanted to note that my opposition is not to the word "and". Rather, it is the use of the neologism "androphilia and gynephilia" (sexual attraction towards men and sexual attraction towards women) instead of the obvious redirect to sexual orientation. I would have had the same reaction had the neologism been "androphilia/gynephilia" etc.— James Cantor (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd hope this discussion continues to discuss the issue of misapplication of rescue tags, not spill-over from another discussion. BusterD (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my main point above was to just frame the argument again, and then look at what VERTott's options would have been. He makes a poor decision in saying 'plenty of sources' exist, dropping a tag on the article, and then walking off, rather than taking a moment to talk about how the article could be rescued. -- Avanu (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I Template:Rescue tagged tagged him, but the user has very few edits and no association with the project that I can see. The rescue tagged template is way too complex to be useful, IMHO. It should read more like a standard user-warning, providing all the relevant links in a very simple format. Would anyone have a problem if I took a crack at this? BusterD (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I particularly like the collapsed boxes which are nested four deep. Nice touch. —SW— ^chat 13:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The point that everyone seems to be missing

• The point that everyone seems to be missing here is that an article should only be rescue tagged if there is a clear and plausible way that it can be rescued. And, the article's potential for rescue must be judged against the AfD nominator's rationale for deletion (i.e. the rescue work which would take place must be able to address the nominator's concerns). For example, I've seen several recent rescue tags on articles where the AfD nominator's concern is purely that the article is a content fork, a duplication of an existing topic. There is almost certainly no "rescuing" (i.e. no work or improvement to the article) which will change an article such that it is no longer a content fork, therefore tagging the article for rescue is inappropriate.

Rescue tagging traditionally is for articles which are sorely in need of sources to establish the notability of the subject, and while the tag is not restricted to be used in only those situations, one should very strongly consider explaining their intentions when using it outside of those situations. This is the case where "commenting at the deletion discussion on why this item should be rescued and how that could happen" is actually quite important. If you don't provide a clear justification, or if editors disagree that your justification is valid, then they might remove the rescue tag from the article. In this case, the onus is on the rescue tagger to provide a more clear justification and gain a consensus for its use on the article, not to just revert and re-add the tag to the article, starting an edit war if necessary. Remember, the rescue tag is just a maintenance tag, it doesn't have any special status above other maintenance tags. If I add a {{Globalize}} maintenance tag to an article and another editor removes it and posts on the talk page that he believes the article already presents a worldwide view of the subject, then I need to find consensus to re-add the tag, not start an edit war. This is the basis of WP:BRD, and the rescue tag is not immune to the policies of Wikipedia. —SW— ^confer 14:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't think adding distinct sources can establish that reference an article's topic (but not the topic of the supposed parent article from which it has been POV fork'ed) can actually address allegations of POV forking? While I admit that's a less typical use of the rescue tag, I can see that as being a legitimate rescue. Further, removal of the tag serves primarily to draw attention to the article and debate--while many ARS members see and ignore (or provide perfunctory !votes in) articles where improvement is unclear or difficult, the number of partisans brought out by deleting the tag prior to the close of the AfD certainly can't help civil discourse on the matter, can it? Jclemens (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not trying to mandate that the rescue tag can never be used on an article whose AfD rationale is purely that it is a content fork. I'm just saying that these cases (and other non-routine cases where it's not just adding sources to establish notability) will be quite uncommon, and when a legitimate case does arise, it should be accompanied by a clear explanation of what the rescue tagger's intentions are (e.g. "I believe that sources exist which show that topic x is distinct and different from topic y, such that both deserve a separate article"). —SW— ^confer 15:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

@Jclemens, If people are WP:CIVIL, it shouldn't matter. Arguing that we should fear the consequences of removal is a bit like blackmailing people into keeping something (whether it is a rescue tag or anything else). But I think its clear that whoever tags an article *ought* to be directly addressing/countering the AfD rationale, not just Charlie Sheen *RESCUED!* and move on. -- Avanu (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• That's not always possible, if only because not every editor has access to the same resources. Yes, some of the articles are exceedingly difficult to rescue, but that's also true of the AfD process. My only expectation for the ARS is that it narrow down the list of those AfD articles that are worthwhile trying to rescue; separating the wheat from the chaff. (This is less tedious than having to peruse the lengthy AfD list every day.) To try and constrain the process further is just herding cats. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are editors out there who either abuse the rescue tag for canvassing purposes, or misuse the tag because they are new editors who don't understand its proper use. Clarifying the conditions under which inappropriately applied rescue tags might be removed is necessary to correct such abuse/misuse, and hopefully to avoid the drama normally associated with the removal of rescue tags. —SW— ^talk 16:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I know this is a bit off-topic, but in the Ellen Kennedy deletion review debate recently, I noticed that the Admin who deleted it didn't follow a policy of Incubating or Userfying, which is listed in the Deletion policy page. In other words, the Deletion page has a clear preference that articles that show promise, or *can* show promise are given a home somewhere, not just entirely obliterated from human memory. The reason I mention it is that I often find myself agreeing that superficially the AfD tagger is right, but many articles just are in need of a bit of fixing. I'm just not always able to readily fix them. A non-fixed article means it *must* be removed under policy, but since the Deletion policy provides for Alternatives to Deletion, these alternatives ought to be persued more often, and are not. -- Avanu (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That may be so, but I don't really care as long as the category doesn't grow too large. It takes but a moment to check an article and see if it is something I want to help rescue. Really, I wouldn't sweat it at this point. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Articles at AFD are, by definition, those which are thought debatable - there is a need for discussion to establish whether deletion is appropriate. The Speedy Deletion process is provided for articles which seem to be so bad that they require no detailed discussion. If the outcome of an AFD seems predictable then it will tend to be closed quickly per WP:SNOW. What remains is therefore unpredictable and it is not possible to say what can or can't be done. Editors who assert that rescue is not possible are begging the question - they are assuming a particular outcome when the point of discussion and related rescue work is to determine that outcome. Such thinking is illogical and so improper. Warden (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I thoroughly disagree. Just because an article is being debated doesn't mean there is always a way to change or improve the article such that it will fare better in that debate. Some debates are just on the merit of the article itself, not based on its content or its sources. These are the AfD's in which rescue tagging is inappropriate. By tagging an article for rescue, you are implicitly saying that "I believe there is a specific way to improve the article such that the AfD nominator's concerns can be overcome, but I am unable or don't have the time to make such improvements." In cases where the nature of the specific improvement is not plainly obvious, explanation from the rescue tagger is required lest the rescue tag be at risk of removal. —SW— ^express 16:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the only criteria to 'rescue' something is that the AfD nominator's rationale must be successfully countered. That's why I think its more helpful for Rescue Tags to address that. People can get off topic in AfD discussions, and all they need to focus on is what the AfD nom said. Someone saying "rescue is not possible" is obviously just expressing an irrelevant opinion. Actually talking about the deletion rationale is much more relevant. -- Avanu (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• The point some people seem to be missing, is that articles some assume are not able to be rescued, are in fact rescued. And there is no proof ever submitted it was being used for canvassing purposes. I restored the Rescue tag at Deborah Regal after Snottywong removed it, and I have found references to prove this person notable. Whoever tagged it for Rescue wanted help in finding sources, obviously, they weren't just canvassing. Dream Focus 18:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

If it were obvious that an article should be saved or should be deleted, we wouldn't need AFD. I have nominated a number of articles for deletion that I felt were obviously not salvageable only to find that my Google voodoo was inadequate, or that I did not understand a relevant policy or guideline well enough. We make mistakes. What the tag does is request help, as all tags do--that is their purpose. If I place a cn tag, or a pov tag or any other tag, I'm saying I think this bit needs fixing. Sometimes I tag random articles when I'm tired or just don't feel like spending the time to fix it myself, or because I'm not really in a position to fix it. There are many reasons to tag articles. If any editor tags any article with any tag without explanation, I think the appropriate measure is to ask them directly why, and assume good faith on their part, even if they do not answer. We are volunteers, and we should not insist that others do as we wish. And if an editor consistently refuses to work with others, to answer questions posed to them, or not contribute constructively, that's an issue of editor conduct, not the use of a tag. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you're absolutely right about it being an issue of editor conduct, and I think many editors would like to be able to ask editors to explain, but the issue we seem to see often is that some editors seem to feel that no explanation is needed. So while it is an issue of editor conduct if it just happens from time to time, if it happens a lot, you kind of wonder if it is just a misunderstanding of how the tag is set up (and not blame the specific editor). So if all of us encourage proper use of the tag, and encourage people to communicate and explain, we shouldn't see a problem, but as it is now, with some editors encouraging tagging without explanations, we have problems. -- Avanu (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Even when editors explain, and others agree with them, some still seem determined to remove the Rescue tag anyway. [14] [15] Removing a tag because you fear it might bring in people that will vote opposite of how you do, or simply because you don't think the article can be saved and don't want others to try, is wrong. Dream Focus 04:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The issue there is that no one seems to be willing to give any reason beyond "you can't remove this tag when there's an AfD". At this point, the tag won't change anything with that article; the people who the rescue tag would bring over all basically know about it already. And even then it doesn't really fit: someone first looking at the article will see the rescue tag asking them to find sources to save the article, when that isn't what the AfD is about at all.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Dream Focus, I agree with you, but who is removing rescue tags for those reasons? I can't even count how many times I have explained exactly why I removed the tag, and how many times I have asked you for an explanation of specifically what rescue work could plausibly be done to that specific article which would correct the perceived issue of it being a content fork without any rational response from you. And then you go and say that I removed the tag because I don't want anyone to try and save the article. Really? That's how you're going to defend your actions? It's almost as if your whole strategy is to appear as ignorant as possible so that people will leave you alone and let you do whatever you want. —SW— ^comment 04:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I already explained it to you in several places, as have others. No sense repeating that here and dragging it out for ridiculous long discussions that no one will read after they pass a certain size anyway. Dream Focus 04:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. You have not specifically explained (i.e. by giving specifics) how the article could reasonably be rescued. If you have, then provide a link to the discussion. —SW— ^gab 05:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikilove kittens anyone?

This talk page needs a kitten. We are spending way too much time arguing instead of simply working on articles or individual AfDs.

Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Some people just seem to like to argue, alas. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Let us never argue about the need for kittens. A wise and silly card to play, Milowent. BusterD (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)