Wikipedia talk:Wiki Guides/New pages

Informing of userspace incubation

How exactly should we word the message to new users about the incubation of their article to their userspace? Obviously, we don't want to have a set in stone notification or that would raise issues of "semi-automated" correspondence, but what would be the generalized format of such a message? Silver seren^C 22:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, are there certain pages that we would want to link the user to in this message? Silver seren^C 22:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally down to the user in question - the intention is to keep it as simple as possible. I'd generally phrase it as:

Hey there! Thanks for writing [article]. Unfortunately, there's an issue with it - [issue description]. Still, not to worry; I've moved it to [new location] so you can work on it, and I'm happy to provide any assistance you need. Take a look at [useful pages] and make the necessary changes; when you're done, or if you have any questions, drop me a message at the bottom of my talkpage and I'll get back to you. Thanks, and welcome to Wikipedia. Ironholds (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncomfortable userfying particles that belong in mainspace, They don't get cooperative editing in userspace nor can you add categories, the place to improve articles is mainspace. Ϣere SpielChequers 17:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So how about advising the creator to invite (suggest candidates with similar interests) a few others / mentors / wossnames to input into the usefied (p)article to get it (and them) on track? If you can see a Project it would come into, guide them to the project area so they could ask for help or just pick up tips. Adding: how abut the idea of 'article buddying' for new users, as opposed to the more 'official sounding' mentor? More adding: ... and how about the idea of putting something up on a Project's talk page saying 'article buddies wanted' with a link to the new user's talk page?

.... and more (lol!) I think every move we can make that gets newbies' perceptions away from "Wikiland is inhabited by a bunch of judgemental disciplinarians" and towards "Wikiland is a community of friendly collaborators who will help you out" has to be a good way to go. Pesky (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I love WikiProjects I really do think we need to find ways to guide more new users towards them. (I wonder if we could find some tricky way to show wikiprojects in the edit notice based on categories.... hmmmmm). I agree with WereSpielChequers about wanting to leave articles in mainspace I just get concerned about them continuously being tagged/targeted. Do you think the incubator would get more help? The reaching out/mentoring part is still the #1 thing I think. Jalexander--WMF 20:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpicking

Minor detail, but in the sample line of the incubation table, shouldn't the creator be 'bob' rather than 'blotto?' If not, then I'm confused about how that table works. -- Fyrefly (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeedy; my bad. Now fixed! Ironholds (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cat speedy

I've added Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as in my experience that is the best place to look for incorrect speedy deletion tags. There is a script that enables you to decline an incorrect tag and crucially inform the tagger. I have it in my Monobook if anyone wants to borrow it. We also have some advice and tips in the article rescue squadron which this project is somewhat overlapping with. May I suggest you rebrand this as a joint Wiki_Guides/Article Rescue Squadron endeavour? Ϣere SpielChequers 17:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see how that would be useful in bringing additional resources to bear. I mean, are people less likely to get involved if it isn't? The project is as much about saving new editors as it is about saving articles Ironholds (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, as much as I hate to say it, specifically aligning this project with the ARS is likely to drive people away from joining rather than the opposite. Silver seren^C 18:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the ARS is by default as much about saving the new editors as it is about saving their articles, the big difference as I see it is that this project is targetting "problematic-and-deletable pages" whilst the ARS is only interested in rescuing articles on topics that do actually belong here and shoudn't be deleted. Giving guidance and feedback to goodfaith editors whose articles are not even considered worth rescuing by the Article Rescue squad is in my view a worthy endeavour, but not I would suggest by userfying their articles. In my view all the people who criticise the ARS will be even more critical of a project that sets out to "save the articles even the ARS doesn't think are worth saving". But I'd make two exceptions that I think are noncontentious. Some newbie articles tagged as A7 can be uncontentiously moved to their userpage, and test pages created in mainspace can be moved to become a newbies sandbox. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INCUBATE

Seeing as there's already an established process for 'incubating' articles at Wikipedia:Article Incubator shouldn't this project work in tandem with that? -- œ ^™ 18:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that Article Incubation would be better than using userspace incubation. Silver seren^C 18:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Incubator makes it fairly clear how it fits in both with the Article Rescue Squadron and also with wp:userfication. As I read it userfication is for articles that merit deletion but one editor wants to work on them, whilst incubation is for articles where more than one editor wants to work on them. I'm not keen on either system, but I suppose an article about a forthcoming event or program might qualify, or an article on a notable subject that has been tagged as spam but that someone wanted to salvage. I've done over 5,000 deletions and only had a handful of requests for articles that I've deleted, I've no problem emailing people copies of love letters they've posted here, but I can't remember an article where userfication made sense as a prelude to a return to mainspace. Perhaps if you want to try and work with spammers you could try moving their article to userspace and stubifying it to x is a company/film/person from y known for Z, but if you are going to take that trouble and you think the subject is notable you might as well stubbify it decline the speedy and leave it in mainspace. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace incubation is more in line with the goal of the project (help the user help themselves) but article incubation would give more people the opportunity to help. Any complaints, or does someone want to do the honours of tweaking stuff? WereSpielChequers, you seem to be misunderstanding the purpose of this project. The primary goal is not to save content - if it was I'd be going around with LexisNexis and a magnifying glass looking for stuff to reference. The goal is to save users, and to gather data on (a) whether we can help them stay around and (b) whether they leave or stay based on their interactions with us. Helping them rewrite the content is far more useful for that than arbitrarily stepping in and rewriting it without forewarning or contact. Ironholds (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just think using Article Incubating would work better, because there would be more people showing up to help, which would have a greater net positive effect on new users opinions of Wikipedia if they see a bunch of people coming over to help them with their article. Silver seren^C 19:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As said, I agree, having now seen it. I'll change it right away. Ironholds (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saving editors rather than saving content

If this is about saving editors rather than saving content I'd suggest you need a hierarchy.

Best option is to rescue the article, rename, wikify and perhaps even reference it (essential if it is a BLP) but it is still recognisably the words that the newbie wrote. Just improved by categories links and so forth. I suspect you'll find this is the scenario that is most likely to result in a new editor who stays with us. This is the option where you can work with the article rescue squadron, and a note there will easily identify examples where articles are being rescued.
Articles that don't qualify for rescue but could be incubated - I suspect most of these will be ones tagged as spam or copyviolation (though in that case you are better off starting an incubation with a one line stub referenced to the source that was found by corensearchbot).
Userfication where someone isn't willing to work with the newbie
Moving to userpage or sandbox where appropriate. To be honest I've done the former quite a few times and I don't think that the authors stay or behave any differently than ones whose article has been deleted. Userfication is still rejection.
I suggest you add a group for ones where the article was deleted but you can soften the blow - for example by sending a welcome message to newbies with redlinked talkpages whose first article was deleted without explanation or informing them.

Of course this assumes that the most effective way to keep a newbie is to rescue their article, and that the newbies most worth saving are the ones whose first article is rescuable. This project may well be able to test that, and good luck trying to make useful editors out of people whose first article was correctly tagged A7 G11 or G12. If you are saying that people don't mind their article being rejected by being moved out of mainspace, but they just don't like other people changing it then your theory of newbie behaviour clashes with my experience of it; No problem if you want to test that, and happy to wager a pint on the result. Ϣere SpielChequers 19:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Lupe?

I assume that the Ronnie Lupe described here is the Ronnie Lupe that is chieftain of the White Mountain Apaches? Silver seren^C 21:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but since the page was called Sandbox but created in mainspace I thought it would make sense to move it to userspace. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GoPets

This seems to be an incorrect deletion of an old article rather than a correct deletion of a new one. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, we've seen it. Ironholds (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who can participate in this project

The Wiki Guides New pages sub-project is a boldly-asserted trial project which proposes allowing new articles listed in Special:NewPages and articles nominated for speedy deletion and listed in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion to be moved from article mainspace by any editor who is a member of that project to the Incubation Project without the consent of the article creator and entirely on the sole discretion and judgment of the editor who moves ("incubates") the article. The Incubation Project currently limits such removals to incubation by a sysop in lieu of deletion or as the result of an approved undeletion request, and forbids incubation of articles currently undergoing a deletion process, saying that the movement from mainspace to the unindexed Incubator is equivalent to deletion from mainspace. Comments are requested on the issue of whether the trial should proceed without community consensus. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The project page says:

Interested users go through Category:Candidates for speedy deletion the deletion log and Special:NewPages looking for new articles which are at risk of being deleted, or have recently been deleted, but could (potentially) be useful. ... When such an article is identified, the user who found it incubates it

But #2 of the Incubation project criteria, says:

The article has been either previously deleted or has been through a deletion process and a decision reached that it does not meet inclusion/content criteria

and the Incubation project goes on to say in "The Process" section:

Articles are moved into the incubator as a result of i) a deletion discussion; ii) a WP:refund request; or from iii) WP:userfication. The article must meet the incubator criteria.

The guidelines of the incubation project would, therefore, seem to prohibit the incubation of articles which have not yet been deleted or userfied (and, indeed, the Userfication essay says in "What cannot be userfied": Userfication should not be used as a substitute for regular deletion processes. Except for self-userfying and obvious non articles such as accidentally-created user pages in the main namespace, it is generally inappropriate to userfy an article without a deletion process.). Articles which are candidates for speedy deletion or which are still in Special:NewPages cannot be incubated in accordance with the guidelines of the Incubation project. Is this project utilizing the incubation project without following its criteria? Can only sysops participate in this New Pages project since only sysops have the ability to restore and incubate pages, much less look at them to see if they're worth incubation? Perhaps all of this was worked out when this New Pages project was established and I've just not been able to find it, but if not then what's proposed under this project would seem to either be impossible or in contradiction of the standing consensus behind the incubation project. Even if that technicality has been resolved, for WP:INCUBATE and WP:USERFY to retain those restrictions without allowing for actions under this New Pages project is very confusing. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

consensus can change, and I've seen a trillion userfications-instead-of-deletions. The article incubation project is itself outdated; practise and convention have long since moved on. Ironholds (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with the fact that consensus can change and that there are many userfications which do not comply with the WP:USERFY essay (which is, it is to be noted, only an essay, not a policy, guideline, or even a project). But as to incubation, it seems to me to be both procedurally inappropriate, unfair, and confusing to attempt to change consensus involving another project without giving notice of it there and involving the people who formed that consensus. For example, let's say we form a consensus here on this talk page to do away with the three-revert rule. Is that really consensus if that discussion does not take place at Wikipedia_talk:Edit warring? I would also point out that as little as three months ago, December, 2010, there was a substantial discussion on the Incubation project talk page about a subject very similar to this which ended, at least on a quick analysis, with no consensus to move that project beyond its currently-stated restrictions and I thus think you are mistaken about the outdatedness of the incubation project. There is IMHO a substantial question about whether or not it has been successful (or, indeed, will be successful if used as proposed here, though I hope for the best), but to take the position that you can just change it without involving its participants is a horse of a different color. Moreover, you speak of consensus being able to change, and indeed it can, but where is the consensus by which this trial was established, much less the consensus to modify a different project? Can you point me to the discussion, as I can't find it, or is this nothing more than an idea boldly asserted? Finally, I still don't understand how this project will work in regard to articles which have indeed already been deleted. Unless the reviewer just happens to have seen the article before it was deleted, or is a sysop, on what criteria can he legitimately choose to incubate it other than its title? And even if that's enough, how is he going to do it if he's not a sysop? Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have given notice of the proposed use of incubation at the Incubation project talk page. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that there are some reasons that the project would say to incubate that do not totally meet the incubation requirements (which we may want to look at anyway they seem a bit odd to me) but I think you may be missing parts of it. The most common reason that you guys are talking about (and that the project would be doing) is the "incubate a page nominated for speedy deletion" reason. One of the specified "ways to get into Incubation" in the criteria is:

3. An article is nominated for Speedy deletion and it is decided to send it here instead of deletion or keeping in mainspace

I think that would easily meet the requirements and is exactly what the New pages project seeks to get people to do so I'm a bit confused about why you're saying that someone should not incubate a speedy nominated article Jalexander--WMF 18:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let the new project get on with using the incubator. Being overly strict about what the incubator can be used for is a bad idea, and why I lost faith in it. I'd started a couple of articles in it, and they were deleted without checking with me after people who'd taken over the project decided to change the rules. Fences&Windows 19:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(This is more to Jalexander's points than F&W's.) See the "The Process" section of the Incubation project quoted above: Articles are moved into the incubator as a result of i) a deletion discussion; ii) a WP:refund [e.g. undeletion] request; or from iii) WP:userfication. None of those three apply to an article which has only been nominated for speedy deletion, since nominations for speedy deletion are not considered to be deletion discussions. As for Incubation criteria #3, since only a sysop can delete an article nominated for speedy deletion, the only person to whom "it is decided to send it here" in #3 can apply is a sysop who has just decided to delete the article pursuant to the speedy nomination or, in other words, who incubates it in lieu of deleting it. There are good reasons, moreover, to limit incubation to articles which have been deleted or which are incubated by a sysop or pursuant to community consensus in lieu of deletion. As is noted at Wikipedia:INCUBATE#What_cannot_be_moved_into_the_incubator #3, "Incubation of an article will effectively amount to deletion of an article, as in general, the redirect left behind will be speedily deleted." Allowing non-sysops to incubate or userfy articles is, in effect, giving them the right to delete them from mainspace, a right heretofore reserved only to sysops. Even if the incubating editor commits to personally "shepherd" it into shape, there is considerable potential for abuse. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Elaboration: The ability of just any editor to remove an article from mainspace simply on his or her opinion that it is non-viable is highly questionable enough when it is an article which has been nominated for speedy deletion; in that case there has at least been one other editor, the speedy deletion nominator, who shares that opinion. (Though I've seen, and have indeed made, some questionable, CSD nominations.) It is far more questionable if it is nothing more than a new page which has not even been speedy-nominated. Why is is okay for a garden variety editor to, entirely on his or her own cognizance and discretion to decide that a page is worthy of deletion and to yank it out of mainspace into non-indexed incubation? Do we really think that is going to make WP more friendly to newbies and encourage new editors? Are we going to be willing to penalize editors who incubate other editor's articles, just let them sit there for 30 days with no effort to do anything with them, and then ask for them to be deleted? I'd be amazed. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think our response is WP:IAR. Article Incubation is practically defunct nowadays, with only small spats of use of it here and there that, for the most part, don't lead anywhere. If it is the perfect process for us to use for this project and it will also lead to improved use of Article Incubation instead of deletion across the project, then I think we gain a lot by ignoring the rules of what can be put into Article Incubation, since those rules are detrimental to this project. Silver seren^C 20:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Article Incubator has been a slightly problematic project from the start. It was formed (quite deliberately) without community involvement. As such, there were not enough experienced eyes looking at it, and it developed practises which were against policy (such as deleting material without following appropriate process). Also, because there wasn't much community involvement in its development, it wasn't clear that it covered the same ground as existing projects such as WP:Articles for Creation and Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. The name itself is misleading, as it has mainly been used via AfD as a community userfication for existing articles, though it sounds like it should be used for newly created articles. There were some users who when the project was initially set up, did work hard on improving articles in a collaborative manner. Unfortunately, without the support of those users, the project developed into a dumping ground or limbo for unwanted articles. Other users felt that - even though the articles are not visible to search engines, and are effectively deleted - having them categorised, and thus accessible by non-admins, is a violation of Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed_uses, and so were keen to have articles deleted from the Incubator after sometimes fairly short periods of time. My feeling is that as the Incubator is problematic and unclear, sometimes doing more harm than good, and is today hardly used, it should either be formally closed down and marked historic, or the page and attending categories deleted completely.

It would be important not to repeat the mistakes of the Article Incubator, and delete articles out of process. Is there an intention by this project to do that? Are people here aware of WP:Articles for Creation and Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron, and making full use of those? Removing an article from main space that can be improved without first making an attempt to improve it, or without following the accepted deletion process, is not what we do. If an article can be improved, then it should be improved. If it cannot be improved then it should be deleted. If there's doubt about it then it goes to discussion at AfD, and if it does not meet our inclusion criteria, but an individual wishes to take responsibility for it, then it can be moved into that person's userspace.

I like the idea of a community userfication. Even though it failed before, it may be made to work. But it would need full community consultation and support, and clear procedures that are in line with existing policies and guidelines. Reviving the Incubator today, to abandon it in a mess in 12 months time would be in nobody's interest. SilkTork *^YES! 23:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be labouring under some misunderstandings:

This is a trial run. Nobody is proposing arbitrarily shoving it in as a binding or policy-based process - this is to see if it works.
The intention is not to delete articles out of process; I wasn't aware that saving them equated to deleting them. If incubation does equate to deletion, then you should be aware that non-problematic articles are not being incubated.
Some articles can be fixed in the mainspace, yes, but the project is designed to cover those which, if left alone, probably would get deleted...but can be improved. Those are articles which in practise it is impossible to fix in the mainspace, particularly if you're a newbie, even with a mentor. Ironholds (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favour of the principle of incubation; to wit there is one user who routinely runs his drafts past me before putting them into mainspace, and I usually offer advice as to its suitability or otherwise, or suggestions or a helping hand in getting it to such a level. I feel strongly that the Incubator must not be used as an alternative to deletion; it has been shown to be a dumping ground for inclusionists who could find no other way of keeping an article. I don't know if articles are still sent here by AfD, but having them sent here by CSD would be a huge mistake, IMHO. At least with userfication, someone remains responsible for the article. That someone – usually a newbie – would seek out the help necessary if xhe wants to have a chance of putting it into mainspace at some stage in the future. If this proposal is not to fail, each incubation must be adopted at the outset, with firm targets (qualitative and chronological) for improvement. Without such goals, we'll be getting Incubator II with none of the intended benefits. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm broadly with OhConfucius on this. I'm all for rescuing articles worth rescuing and I'd add that some CSD targets can quite reasonably be moved to being the authors sandbox or userpage. But Incubation of articles that should be deleted strikes me as at best pointless, and possibly problematic. By all means help the authors of articles that are deservedly deleted, but please not by incubating articles that even an ARS member would support the deletion of. I suggest we revert the project to this version. There are things we can do to help authors whose content is correctly deleted, I once emailed someone a loveletter he'd posted to here for his girlfriend. But incubation of articles that don't belong here is not really one of them. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read the remit and description of this project? Your example of a loveletter suggests you have not. That might be a good first step, don't you think? Ironholds (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the remit, though I may be interpreting it differently to you. I see the loveletter as an uncontentious example of at least being courteous and helpful to a newbie whose article was correctly deleted. But the remit is in my view somewhat flawed, apart from uBLPs and Copyvio what sort of articles meet our deletion criteria but might be salvageable? The "If the article is improved to the point where it no longer meets our deletion criteria", is fairly clear that though all the articles going into this do meet our deletion criteria, at least some of them can be improved to the point where they no longer do so. But that pretty much rules out common deletion reasons such as A7. Also if the remit is to be clarified or tweaked then I think we should reconsider the overlap between this and the Article Rescue Squadron. As long as the focus is on assisting the editors of correctly deleted articles then there is a clear difference between what this project intends and the role of the ARS, but if this project is going to cover articles that can be rescued then in my view there is an overlap. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's one piece of misunderstanding that is, perhaps, critical. Nobody's using the Incubator as an alternative to deletion. It IS being used to rehabilitate articles for which sources can be found, or which have a potentially viable life. Loveletter is a bad example. It can not be sourced, and is not a potentially viable article. - Philippe 16:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to be a bit more realistic... You may have the best intentions in the world, but seeing how articles end up vegetating after being put into incubation indicates to me that an "out of sight, out of mind" attitude exists. That the article has WP:POTENTIAL is insufficient. There needs to be a followthrough, which you alone cannot supply. If an article is 'saved' from deletion on such hopes, it must be shepherded until it is good enough to survive in mainspace. I would set a target of, say, one or two months, failing which anyone could justifiably tag it with {{db-house}}. Until the project gets strong enough, we need to match resources with the task at hand; we also need the teeth to clean up before people become confident enough to join the project. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply to Ironholds' last post, above.) In other words, this is a trial run which has not been created with community consensus but which has only been boldly and, perhaps, IAR-ly asserted. That's fine, but now that it has been challenged, standing consensus - i.e. that the Incubation project cannot be used in this way - cannot be changed unless you obtain community consensus for the trial to exist and continue. The best practice here would be to let SilkTork's revision stand and to do a {{rfctag|policy|proj}}-RFC to propose that Incubation be used in the way that you want it to work, so that the entire Wikipedia community has the opportunity to consider the matter. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, I've made an RFC request. I've also posted notice of it at Village Pump (proposals). Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is complete nonsense and adds another layer of bureaucracy to this WMF-supported scheme. Utter silliness. I'm absolutely happy for WikiGuides to make use of the Incubator (disclaimer: I'm a member). PeterSymonds (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite agreed. The deletionist wikilawyers who are moaning about "the community not being involved" and trying to kill the article incubator entirely - SilkTork I'm talking about you - need to go find something useful to do. Stop being obstructionist. Fences&Windows 18:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kaattu Chempakam

Yet another of the new articles on the list, currently in the Article Incubator here. My question is, I believe that this is talking about the 2002 Malayalam film made by Vinayan, Kaattu Chembakam. It was a failure at the box office, but you can find a small amount of discussion about it here and here. I don't believe there is the possibility of raising it to our standards since it wasn't a successful movie and there doesn't seem to be any significant discussion of it in sources. Silver seren^C 20:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RESCUE

I've amended the project page so it stays within existing deletion policy and guidelines. I've replaced Incubate with WP:RESCUE, and suggested that people work on the article to improve it rather than delete it from mainspace. There is a tag that people can use - {{Rescue}}. Pages should not be deleted from mainspace without first going through a deletion process. If it can be improved, improve it. If it can't be improved, either tag it for Speedy or Prod or AfD. If you feel there is some doubt, take it to AfD and suggest userfication. SilkTork *^YES! 00:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an april fools, right? Ironholds (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He changed the page ironholds --Guerillero | My Talk 00:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose with this change. It is Ironholds' project, not yours, SilkTork. This project is not meant to be some sort of extension of the Article Rescue Squadron, it has an entirely different purpose because it has to do with Speedy Deletion, not AfDs. THis page should be turned back to what it was previously. Silver seren^C 01:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go that far; nobody owns this trial run (although if they do, the most terrifying person involved is probably Philippe. He'd be the one in charge). I do, however, agree that we have a completely different process. If you think we fall under WP:RESCUE, you're slightly misunderstanding the ARSes mandate; they require articles to be explicitly under AfD. Would you say that this is the case with these articles? Ironholds (talk) 10:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed in Wikipedia space rather than Ironholds' or any other users Userspace, so it would be very unwiki to refer to it belonging to any one individual. But the overlap with the Article Rescue squadron is closer than you might think. The ARS is interested in rescuing articles that should actually exist, and AFD is one area where many ARS members are active, but uBLP is another, and personally I'm much more likely to be at CSD. This project as I understand it was intended to help editors whose articles do actually merit deletion, and if it had stuck to that there wouldn't be any overlap with the ARS. But clearly there is an overlap with the ARS as the second article on the list has already been kept at one AFD, this project may have more inclusionist leanings than the ARS, but I see much synergy and potential benefit in collaboration. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're misunderstanding the limits set on what should be rescued, and misunderstanding what the project is about. Take a read of the page. Ironholds (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it, and it still looks to me that the intent here is that at least some of the articles can be rescued - i.e. improved to the point where they belong in the pedia. Clearly that part of the remit overlaps with the Article Rescue Squadron, which of course is fine, everyone is welcome to improve and rescue articles. But if the two projects have a big overlap then I see an opportunity for synergy and collaboration, even though this project is explicitly more inclusionist than the ARS. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you have been suggesting is that this project is more inclusionst than the ARS. That is not the case. This trial run does not seek to rescue articles which are unrescuable, but simply to take articles on topics which have the potential to be useful - say, spammy ones about notable things, or notable ones which do not prima facie show claims of notability, but where sources are available - and fix them up. This is indeed an overlap with the ARS, and I would rebut the "this is more inclusionist" argument by pointing out that this is exactly what the ARS does; the difference is you typically wait until articles are manually flagged, normally when they're at AfD, before trying to improve them. This trial pre-empts that.
What makes this distinct from the ARS is that the primary goal is not rescuing articles, but rescuing contributors. We do not seek to fix up articles arbitrarily from the outside, we seek to tutor new users and show them how to do it themselves, in the hope that this (improved) reception will encourage more to stick around. The means are therefore similar to those the ARS use - the goal, however, and the methodology, are distinct. There is an opportunity for "synergy and collaboration"; this is why I have done my best to inform the ARS, both via messaging and emailing individual members, and letting the group as a whole know via a link dropped on the talkpage. Synergy and collaboration does not equate to a takeover, however.
There is no question that the Article Incubation guidelines prohibit incubation as an alternative to deletion. I find it somewhat amusing, however, to be fielding questions and quibbles about whether things are done within policy and consensus from someone involved in the execution (and, indeed, the design) of the disastrous and disruptive out-of-process experiment that was WP:NEWT. Consensus can change, and that it has. A thirty-second browse through Special:NewPages or the move log will show you innumerable cases where administrators have moved-and-deleted test pages, inappropriate pages and potentially-fixable-but-likely-to-be-deleted pages to userspace. The only distinction here is that the move is to the Wikipedia: space rather than the User: space, although in some cases incubation has been done as a user sub-page rather than a distinct element of the namsepace. You are welcome to contribute to the discussion and attempt to improve the trial run, and if it becomes a permanent thing, I'm happy to field questions about its legitimacy. Until then, this smacks of both hypocrisy and ignorance; consensus is not a fixed thing, and it changes as much by convention and community norms as it does by a formal RfC on a talkpage somewhere. To deny this is to feign severe ignorance of how en-wiki works. Ironholds (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I came here at your invitation, an invitation that specifically mentioned my involvement in WP:NEWT, I find a project tackling the same major problem and doing some but not all of the things that became controversial about NEWT. I pitched in, got involved and also gave various bits of advice, some of which were trying to steer you away from things that NEWT was criticised for. I find myself unwelcome in this wikiproject and so am withdrawing from it and will remove it from my watchlist. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page as currently written is against deletion policy as it is advising people to remove articles from mainspace without having gone through the deletion process. People can find articles that have been deleted and move them into either incubator space or userspace. But if an article is still in the mainspace, then it should either be improved or put through a deletion discussion - it should not be removed at the whim of any editor reading the article. We have certain deletion criteria that have been built up through discussion over the years, and an instruction to "interpret[] as broadly as possible" "new articles which are at risk of being deleted" is going against that community consensus. If there is potential in the article then it wouldn't be speedied or prodded - it would need to go to AfD. If, after a minimum seven days discussion (and ongoing improvement), the article is agreed not to meet our inclusion criteria, but is still thought to have potential it can be userfied or incubated. It is probably best to use our existing processes - and to use those which have been shown as successful such as rescue.

It is also appropriate to have the discussion regarding if the incubator is the right place to put deleted articles anyway. From studying the history of the incubator I would suggest that userfication is less problematic, though I can see the value of a community userfication. That did work in the incubator for a while. It could be made to work again. SilkTork *^YES! 16:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must take issue with a couple of points here; firstly, this is not deletion in the conventional sense. Deletion is the obliteration or removal of content; this is the movement of it, with the intention that it will be moved back into the mainspace - or, if it is still deletable with no likelyhood of inclusion, deleted through process. Secondly, to say " If there is potential in the article then it wouldn't be speedied or prodded" is to fundamentally misunderstand both deletion procedures (if you think PROD isn't for articles with potential, you haven't done enough CAT:SD and the like patrolling) and the goal of this project (to rescue articles that may not have potential on subjects which do). I am perfectly happy for this discussion to move to a formal !vote, if you want. Ironholds (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New editors not being greeted or given the Help links

I'm not sure where to post this, but I think one main problem that discourages new editors is that they are not given the "Welcome to Wikipedia" post and guidelines and Help links. When I created my account, I was given that right away. For the past few years, however, this has not been happening. Since Wikipedia is rather baffling to a newcomer, it's no wonder people leave without these instructions (which by the way included a "Your First Article" link if I'm not mistaken. What's happened? If it's too much trouble for people to do this, this sort of Welcome template with policies and Help links should just be automatically added to new accounts by bots. Softlavender (talk) 06:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcoming has always been done here by individuals, some of whom belong to the Welcoming Committee. While some other language Wikipedias welcome you automatically if you edit (some of the smaller ones even welcome you if do as much as read an article - that's desperation), that has always been resisted here as impersonal. This means that the welcoming is a bit haphazard and often new editors get missed. SpinningSpark 09:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say not only do they "often" get missed, they nearly always get missed these last few years. Since that's the case, then automatic is preferable to no welcome at all. Unless Wikipedia wants to keep losing editors. Softlavender (talk) 10:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A random check of welcoming committee members contributions show that they are still actively welcoming many newbies today. SpinningSpark 14:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't signify. To repeat, new editors nearly always get missed these last few years. Since that's the case, then automatic is preferable to no welcome at all. Unless Wikipedia wants to keep losing editors. Softlavender (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okie-dokes; go suggest it on WP:VP, then? Ironholds (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which section would I post it under? I've never posted there. Softlavender (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Ironholds? Please answer my question about your suggestion. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 05:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Softlavender! I would probably post it under the Proposals section of the village pump. Jalexander--WMF 04:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of encouraging neophytes and the easily intimidated to potentially invest the time to overcome the learning curve, I have a comment that may be misguided or even tangential, but here goes anyway. Example: I've made a few edits here and there, but never felt enthused to go so far as to move on to the next step, namely, to develop a full article for, in my specific case, the notable agent, Audrey Wood, whose clients included Tennessee Williams, whose career, in the eyes of many Williams scholars, was greatly affected by her involvement... enough of the particulars.

What I'm trying to get at is that in exploring how to do this, I'm finding it hard to locate simple guidelines, or at least the particular ones I need to move ahead. In this case, another Audrey Wood exists, mistakenly linked to the Williams article in fact. I could really use direct contact at this point with a mentor, or perhaps a better, simpler guide. I'm thinking, though, at this point it would be hugely beneficial to make contact with someone who could point me in the right direction with little fuss. While trying to find a Wikiculture-approved way to get started, though, I wound up following links to this program, which is also a good thing, but one I was hoping to use to spot anything like a way to contact a more experienced editor who might point me to the guidelines and such that I'm managing not to find. Is there any mentoring program like this and if so, why is it hard to find? It seems like the project this is attached to should also have a link somewhere to redirect those who are not creating instantly rejectable drafts and posting them as articles to better navigate any area we might have run out of patience to locate in the highly interwoven fabric of the community, such as it is?

To echo some of SpinningSpark's comments, I have yet to have any personal contact, and some of that has been by choice. My involvement has been light so far, and very infrequent. Usually limited to an edit here or there where I saw something that seem to really cry out for it. In most cases, articles already exist for anything I imagine might have significant "notability." But at this point, I'm actually seeking some guidance besides simple deductive and somewhat overly time-consuming digging through likely links in hopes of finding just what I need to continue, and often finding the Style Sheet and other elements too much all at once, when I'm mainly looking to generate a "good enough" article without unintentionally stepping on a figurative landmine. Forgive any typos or gracelessness, but I've gone well past my bedtime trying to puzzle this out, and now need to post or abandon.

Ebbixx (talk) 04:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the wider Wiki Guides project seeks to do that, but I'm fine with directly mentoring you if you want (although, in a few hours. It's 6am and I'm knackered ;p). Ironholds (talk) 05:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought: I think you need to master some of the basics first. Like don't put <p> to create a paragraoh, which just creates a mess that another editor will have to cleanup. Do a lot more editing before you start an article, and observe the formatting that already exists in the articles you are editing, and follow that. Best of luck. Softlavender (talk) 05:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List please

Is there any way of generating a list of users potentially needing help that volunteers can address? SpinningSpark 09:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Special:NewPages is the closest thing we've got, but it's really hit-and-miss; you could try Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. Ironholds (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SpinningSpark, Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and Category:BLP articles proposed for deletion are probably the best places to look. The vast majority of the authors of those articles will be newbies. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was kind of hoping for a list that had filtered out a lot of the myspace bands, trolls and nonsense leaving mostly people who are worth the effort of helping. I help out newcomers where I come across them, but I am not inclined to put a lot of energy into searching for them. Time is too limited. SpinningSpark 14:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to try and help with that but I am not totally sure what would be a good way to automatically filter out things like that. If you have any suggestions I would be more then happy to look into them! I think the idea of how long it would take to find people is also over estimated. Especially if you are looking at the deletion categories (for example for notability) you can glance through them (perhaps with quick google searches to see possible notability of it isn't obvious) very quickly. Jalexander--WMF 15:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restricting trigger-happy admins

The obvious problem is the trigger-happy admins who use speedydelete on anything they can get hold of. Why not restrict this abuse instead spending a whole lot of effort cleaning up after their mess? Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the page, you'll see this project attempts to pre-empt such trigger-happiness. Ironholds (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ironholds, it is not working and King OTWK is quite right. Wikipedia offers perches for non-creative self-appointed policemen who are taking no notice whatsoever of all this. Redheylin (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try an experiment soon to test just how trigger-happy some admins/new page patrollers are right now. My experience over the past couple of years has been dismal and if not for my already very thick skin I would have quit contributing to Wikipedia some time ago. Once an article gets at least some modest stability, set of references, and has been through the AfD process at least once, it usually isn't too bad for newer contributors to be involved.... but for a new contributor to start a new article is almost impossible, and for an old hand like me it is quite difficult even just to keep these trigger-happy folks away who love the delete button just a little too much.

I'm undecided as to how much time I can put into mentoring new users, but I certainly think that a new article process should be optional, not mandatory. I am especially ticked off that there are some who want to restrict new article development substantially. There has always been a need to push back against deletionists, but it is getting silly at times now. --Robert Horning (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Define "an experiment"? Ironholds (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's really no need. Just check the "most active wikipedian" pages and right at the top, with edits in the half-million range, you can find a fair number whose only edits are reverts and deletes. Ask them why, you get no answer - too busy reverting and deleting. Redheylin (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was a breaching experiment made awhile back... some users registered new accounts and created a bunch of stubby but acceptable-quality articles on obscure but reasonably-notable topics to see what would happen. The results were mixed (and there was some criticism of the project and it was ended). The results report is somewhere here on the Wikipedia... I forget where, but someone might have the link or be clever at finding things. It's worth reading. Herostratus (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Here it is: Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion. Also FWIW found this former-contributor survey from last year while poking around... Herostratus (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]