Can we get rid of the section about articles that need follow up? Articles that are not in AfD are outside the scope of this project, and I see no reason to increase the length of this page with that list. Once the articles are rescued, they don't belong here. There are other projects for that. Jim MillerSee me | Touch me | Review me16:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The follow up is actually stuff we need to do, like adding to the rescued list or checking for possible issues. With the heated discussion above i haven't taken the time to do more clean-up work around here. In general I quickly archive anything that needs no follow up and, yes, I don't really see us making a formal process of passing off articles to WICU although, in theory, we could. I'll try to catch up in the next day or so. Banjeboi23:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I've collapsed it and moved the follow-ups for the rescue list to that article and added a link as well. This should help keep this talkpage more clean. Does this address your concerns? Banjeboi01:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Addition of Tag Removal Section?
I thought the debate was still going on, but I saw the following had been added to the ARS project page:
It is unhelpful, and possibly disruptive, to remove the rescue tag before the AfD is completed. The AfD process usually takes less than a week and the tag is in place for less than that. Let the AfD closer remove it when the AfD tag is removed or the article is deleted. In all cases remain civil and assume good faith that other editors are working to improve articles.
I don't feel this reflects the debate above, which is still not yet at consensus. What would people think instead of:
In all but the most clear-cut cases, it is generally not a good idea to remove a rescue tag before the related AfD is completed. Remember that it was added in good faith by another editor who did believe the article was about an encyclopedic topic and able to be rescued. Try having a civil discussion with the tagging editor about why you feel the article is outside the scope of the Article Rescue Squadron. That said, you should feel free to employ common sense about removing tags applied to articles that clearly fall under what Wikipedia is not.
What would people think about that? Or any other wording suggestions? I'm not crazy about the recent addition with its across the board statement that removing the tag is always unhelpful and occasionally disruptive. I'd also be fine with just removing the brand new addition and leaving it as it was, with the idea that our fellow wikipedians and ARSers are perfectly capable of using common sense when dealing with tags. Vickser (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the addition isn't needed. The part about it being "possibly disruptive" is just nonsense in my view. It's not a crime to remove the tag. I think people should personally work on fixing the article, instead of slapping a tag on it just to notify the ARS about it. This view of "oh no it's getting deleted, I must ask for help by putting a tag on the article in AFD!" seems a bit unecessary and paranoid in my view. Also from the project page, I find this very hard to believe: Articles that are inappropriate content for Wikipedia per What Wikipedia is not. (that's listed under what the template is not for). People argue about What Wikipedia is not at times, so someone adding the tag could easily say something along the lines of "I don't feel it violates that policy, so the tag belongs". While another could disagree and remove the tag, thus resulting in another revert war over the rescue tag. Simply put: people should discuss things and think things over, BEFORE just slapping a tag on the article in AFD. Also note: if the AFD looks like it is swaying in delete: that doesn't instantly mean it needs a rescue tag either. Perhaps just copy the article to your user space and improve it, then get the article reinstated later. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm open to finding better and neutral ways to word both these areas both frankly I see removing the tag as simply antagonizing. Either the article will be saved at AfD or not - either way both the AfD and rescue tags will be gone in less than a week. If someone can't leave these tags in place for such a short time it really makes me question their abilities to handle other conflicts that will take far longer to sort out. Wikipedia is not just quick removal of items one doesn't like it's more about prolonged improving of articles and the project as a whole. Perhaps instead of citing "What Wikipedia is not" we could instead encourage editors to use common sense and only tag articles they believe can and will be improved in the short time span available. RobJ1981's suggestion about userfying is not something I think many consider so I would support including that as well. Also posting a message on the ARS talk page if one is unsure. In any case I see very little benefit it removing the tag once it's there. Let the process run its course, if someone is serially tagging then address that person specifically if the tagging is seen as detrimental to this project or wikipedia in some way. I still see removing the tag prematurely as more disruptive than adding the tag to articles perceived as undeserving. Banjeboi11:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
It's certainly not antagonizing to remove a tag. So what if the AFD process is short? That doesn't justify the rescue tag has to remain until the AFD ends. This simply makes me think people are indeed trying to canvass AFD participation. As I stated before: I feel this is indeed an inclusionist project, due to the behavior of the people placing the tags (and revert warring them back on, when someone removes it). An AFD tag is required on an article until it remains, however a rescue tag isn't required until the AFD ends. I suggest the next time you see a rescue tag removed early: don't revert, and just do what you want to clean the article. If the article gets deleted in AFD, so be it. Life goes on. RobJ1981 (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The question here is, why should you remove the tag? This wikiproject have no special powers that prevents you from doing so. But there is very seldom any reason for the removal of the tag. Taemyr (talk) 13:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Removing a tag in general, perhaps, is not antagonizing, but removing an article rescue tag is like stopping CPR before the patient is declared dead. It is my considered opinion that removing the 'rescue' tag is the most antagonizing tag removal on Wikipedia, because it's one editor saying "This piece of excrement can't be saved, and you're wasting everyone's time by pleading for help doing so." Even fiction might be salvageable--just because much of the fancruft that's found its way to AfD has no RS doesn't mean that none ever will. I'm all for some sort of rescue category sorting that lets the ARS members who don't want to see fiction quickly skip over them, but I absolutely do not support that any rescue tag should be removed other than by the deletion (speedy or AfD) process. Jclemens (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The spirit of consensus is we work together and do so civilly. I see the tag as being added in cases where no rescue is likely will continue, but guess what, it might help and I see only the slight discomfort of a few as being the only problem with that. Arathi is a great example of this, almost no one saw the value in the article until it was transformed into another article completely. The very small percentage of articles at AfD that ever get the rescue tag is making me wonder what is the big deal? You accuse ARS of being inclusionist, again, yet it has been denied repeatedly and all allegations quite unproven so unless you want to press the point please move on with that line of reasoning. If you just don't like this project or the articles tagged then state your case at the AfD and let the community process work. Tagging the article with {{rescue}} isn't a majic wand, only regular editing actually "saves" an article. Banjeboi19:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Could people please stop using Arathi as an example for this point. It completely does not apply. The article that the rescue tag was applied to no longer exists on wikipedia. And if the article that the rescue tag was in any way salvageable the procedure around the Arathi AfD would have been extremely troubling. Taemyr (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually I see it as a good example of an article that only one person really saw as rescuable. Turns out they were right but good editing took away the unverifiable subject and found another article altogether. To me that's an improvement. Banjeboi23:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The article that the tag was placed on have gotten deleted. If you think otherwise pleace point me to the article on the WoW race. A deletion outcome of delete for the WoW article would have had zero impact for the article on the completely different subject that is the east african religion. If the WoW article had been even remotedly salvageable, this edit would have been extremely problematic and the proper cause of action would have been to start the religion article at a different title, and leave it there until the AfD was finished. Taemyr (talk) 09:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I can agree that wikipedia is better of with the current article at Arathi. What I can not agree on is the statement that this is an example of a good rescue. The AfD was on a completely different article. Taemyr (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
What the tag is not for
I reverted Benjiboi's changes because I feel that this removes the important point that it is not the current state of the article that is matters. It's the potential for improvement. Taemyr (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
You modified and I general support the intention; although this still seems unhelpful to those who don't understand the issues or simply don't agree. I think it will be more productive to spell out common sense than point to a specific policy that then becomes a point of wikilawyering like we've witnessed. ie. "I'm removing because ____ says ____." I'm happy to work on something that conveys this so when editors need some guidance we can direct them there and it's not one policy that they may not agree with. Banjeboi19:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I just want to add my voice of concern as well. Without pointing to any specific AFDs, I am increasingly seeing the "rescue" tag applied to articles which promote a lot of "Keep: notable, sources exist somewhere !votes. (Not to accuse everyone in the rescue squad of bad faith. I'm sure most of you, maybe even all of you are actually trying to improve articles, and the !vote-spamming may be a coincidence, or the misunderstanding of a few squad members at worst.) I think there needs to be some kind of check or balance on the rescue tag for that reason. Reversion is an option, but I'd like to have some kind of precise standard to know when reversion is appropriate, to remove the tag. The only other alternative I can think of is excessively bureaucratic and combative: a "AFD scrutiny" tag for AFDs that are being spammed by !votes with incoherent arguments with no evidential basis. I'd hate to see things go down that path, but the growing abuse of the "rescue" tag needs some kind of reasonable and semi-precise limit. Randomran (talk) 01:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I would say that those situations, where editors believe that sources exists somewhere is precisely the sort of articles that are candidates for rescue. That is, an editor should apply the rescue tag when he believes sources exists, but do not atm have access to those sources. Also, you'll want to read WP:VAGUEWAVE again. Taemyr (talk) 10:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I remain unconvinced that the use of this tag is somehow out of control or being abused. The same arguments could be said about AfD in general. I think someone called the inclusionists/deletionists at AfD trench warfare and this discussion may be a part of that thinking. I've added to the dashboard a count of total articles to add perspective to this; currently there are 646 articles at AfD with 10 tagged for rescue. Banjeboi23:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Ai Nagano
I need serious help trying to save my article, Ai Nagano, which I recently tagged for rescue. The article needs references, and lacks information readily available. Can anyone please help me? It is an article that is about to be deleted and needs improvement! Any assistance in saving my article would be appreciated. Thank you. Kitty53 (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
All three articles, and frankly all articles need sources, good reliable ones. I suggest you focus on the most notable roles these actors did and on the Afd discussion you can post links to show evidence they acted in the roles listed. This might be found on the credits list for the film/series or a secondary report, even a press release could help demonstrate that actor _____ performed in _____. Figure out where it says they were the actors and you will have the sources. Banjeboi22:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
That is reliable sources. Unfortunately such sources would not be independent. As such they will not establish notability. Taemyr (talk) 07:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Let's start with sourcing which affirms what's being stated and work on replacing with more reliable sourcing as time allows. I'm unsure where to even look for this information but if movie credits state actor X played character Y and we have a RS that character Y is a major character in that movie I would accept the two as helping establish notability. Banjeboi09:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
"The Immaterium (also referred to as the Empyrean, Aether or Warp) is an alternate dimension in the fictional Warhammer 40,000 universe."
"In the fictional Warhammer 40,000 universe, the Age of Strife is the name for the chaotic period of human history between the 25th and 30th millennia. "
"The Custodian Guard, otherwise known as the Adeptus Custodes, or Golden Throne Guard, are a fictional group of genetically engineered super soldiers that served as the Emperor of Mankind's personal guardians in the fictional universe of Warhammer 40,000."
"In the fictional Warhammer 40,000 universe, the High Lords of Terra are the supreme governing body of the Imperium of Man."
Help! Now I have three seiyuu articles up for deletion! Ai Nagano, Kokoro Kikuchi, and Kiyoshi Kawakubo, which I have created, are up for deletion! Can anyone please help?!Kitty53 (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I personally have no skill making barnstar templates, but I think it would be a good idea if we did somehow have an Article Rescue Squadron barnstar (unless we do have one and I just don't see it) for editors who making considerable contributions to articles that result in their rescue. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!15:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone had already uploaded this 'rescue' barnstar, so I snagged it to try a Rescue Squadron barnstar. I can alternately create a different one for us exclusively (any of you who saw mylogo know what I can do, though I *think* I'd just wrap a barnstar in a life preserver, because it's saucy ;-) --Thespian11:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
There is also the Rescue from Deletion Barnstar with this tall image of a helicopter. I'm not sure whether it's been approved by some awards committee, but requiring that would be very un-wiki.--chaser - t04:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I LOVE this one and speaks to the idea of saving an article as well. I think we could have more than one anyway. Benjiboi07:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Howabout combining the helicopter and this one and simply adding the life-preserver onto the star like we just pulled it from the river? Benjiboi19:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
That would make the life preserver pretty tiny, though. I don't think it will work that well, but I can try tonight. --Thespian20:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Making the Helicopter bigger is actually going to worsen the problem. the issue is that barnstar (w/copter) is already bigger than most barnstars, and the barnstar is little. So making the copter bigger is not the right response; if anything, I would make it smaller or find a different copter for it. But you're still going to have a life preserver that's about 4 pixels high at that size, and there's not a lot you can do at that size with it to make it pop more; it's just Too Tiny. --Thespian21:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I prefer the helicopter one we have and it is just a barnstar so see what it looks like and we can tweak from there. If the helicopter can't get bigger then simply enlarge the star a bit. Benjiboi22:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Another idea would be to maybe have just the life preserver as a "level 1" award for someone who rescues one article and the one with the helicopter and the life preserver as a "level 2" award for someone who has rescued multiple articles? Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!23:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
That would be a keen idea. I can make the barnstars match, and then size will be less relevant, because anyone who rescues several articles will have seen the single one a time or two ;-) --Thespian04:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I am happy to see that nice response! I do think we should start giving these out somehow, as I've noticed some really commendable successes thus far. Although the following article does not have an ARS tag, I think Empty2005 might merit such recognition for this effort. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!06:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
This is really OT, but I can't resist sharing the literal war story of a friend of mine, who retired from the Air Force as an E-8 parajumper, with every intention of getting his doctorate and teaching at the university level. Somehow, friends got him to first take "one more tour" in a protective detail in Iraq (mostly as a paramedic), and then, when he had taught for another semester, got him for one last one.
He wasn't as lucky on this tour; I think it was suggestive when he said, very calmly, that he really appreciated how quickly the British got fighters and tanks to where they were ambushed. He brightened somewhat, and brought up the old saying "guns don't kill people. People kill people", and explained that his gun saved him. It wasn't that he used it, but he was wearing a M1911, in a shoulder holster, in an upside-down vehicle. A bullet smashed the pistol, but also kept it from going into his chest.
OK, I have made the suggested graphic, how about this?
Article Rescue Barnstar
This Article Rescue Barnstar is awarded by the Article Rescue Squadron for outstanding work in preventing an article of encyclopedic content from deletion.
I think that looks wonderful. Ties all the earlier ones together, and just looks generally awesome. Great job! Vickser (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Made one more. I actually prefer this graphic due to its size and because the helicopter looks more like a US Coast Guard search and rescue one:
Nothing says we can't use one for the Project Template and the other for a barnstar. I was actually thinking we could leave the project page template as you designed it (maybe reduce the size of the image because it's resolution is showing a bit at 125px). We could use the one with the orange copter to reward those who find and tag articles for rescue, and then we could use the star User:Thespian made as a barnstar for editing an article into shape. Should be easy enough to whip up the templates. Jim Miller (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I would support adding more and having suggested uses as you mention, ultimately i think we need to recognized the effort - agree that finding articles is an art form - i have little patience personally for digging through dozens of new AfDs so respect greatly those that do. Perhaps "Search and Rescue" can be the title of the second helicopter? Banjeboi22:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Resolved
