Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 2

message: ...and this could be a good idea. Seriously, all the talk about squadrons and such attracts exactly the wrong kind of people. Zocky | picture popups 15:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, I never thought of it at all in militaristic terms. The term "rescue squadron" at least in the US is used in the emergency and firefighting field much more than in the military sense. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I admit, the word "squadron" does have a militaristic connotation, but in a Saturday-morning cartoonish sort of way. As in a group of kids wearing beenie caps with propeller blades, and solving Hardy Boys-style mysteries. Anyone for "Captain Tlogmer and the Article Rescue Squadron"? We could sell advertising space to the junk food of our choice. :-) More seriously, I doubt anyone would object if you came up with a name for a group of people that doesn't have such an unfortunate association. llywrch 23:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If I am not mistaken, in the military a squadron is lead by a lieutenant (or a first lieutenant where this rank exists), while a captain leads a company, usually of 4 squadrons. So, by saying "Captain Tlogmer and the Article Rescue Squadron" we would automatically show that it is not used in militaristic terms. (Well, that supposes the reader knows that a squadron is led by a lieutenant.) But he name is nice. :-) BTW, who's Tlogmer?:Dc76\talk 18:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Captain" is one of those leadership titles that extends beyond the military sense. "Captain of a ship", for example. And the old parties of mountain men would be organized into groups under a captain. (FWIW, Once I came up with the "Captain Tlogmer" bit, I found msyelf wanting to rename the group "the Article Rescue Rangers". I would have suggested it earlier, but I was away from my usual Internet connections last night.) -- llywrch 19:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "The article rescue rangers" is pretty good.  I like "squadron" better, but I'm easy. Squadron was good for grabbing attention; rangers might be a better name from a promoting-wikilove point of view. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 06:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Article Rescue Rangers" might appeal to my inner furry, but I think I prefer "squadron".  I wouldn't mind "Captain Tlogmer and the Article Rescue Squadron", either, to be honest.  Ichormosquito 20:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Furthermore, it seems that we are using very Russian-istic language - when someone comes on the page, the first thing they read is "Step up, Comrades", which also creates a negative aura around the "squadron". However, I think that it is a quirky name for a dedicated group, and don't want to see it change (especially since I have already gone ahead and made a t-shirt for myself). --Queer As Folk 11:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Russian stuff was deliberate, and sort of tongue-in-cheek.  A kind of "we're cool, you're cool, we all know that the USSR was terrible, so there's no harm in appropriating its stereotypical terminology".  Though there's no better language of motivating people than Russian.  Plus, we get to have cool logo if I ever get around to making it. (The page doesn't belong to me, though -- be bold, etc.)  Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 17:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OIC, you are Tlogmer. You are the guy who started all this. Hi there.:Dc76\talk 18:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OH HAI! IM IN UR TALK PAGE, MESSIN WITH UR COMMENTS Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 06:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: After all, in Soviet Russia, Deletionists FIND YOU. --Thespian 09:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get rid of the militaristic terminology 

message: Really, anyone who has worked on an article (minor edits exempted) should be sent a message (by a bot or something) if that article is nominated for deletion.  Automation is usually (rightly) frowned on, but I think it would work well here. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 07:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Not everyone keeps articles they've created or heavily edited on their watchlist. I for one like to keep my watchlist relatively small for manageability. And not all AfD nominators do the courtesy of notification. Wl219 10:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this idea, a lot. do we know if it's actually practicable? AndyJones 12:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I keep my created articles in a list but not all in my watchlist (the same manageability concerns) and surprisingly (or not surprizingly) there were quite a few deletions totally out of process, like, tagged and deleted the same day. IMO one of the jobs of ARS if to keep track of such trigger-happy, although well-meaning admins, warning them about being too  bold and do some whistleblowing if they persist.  `'Míkka 20:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A technological fix

message: ::I keep my created articles in a list but not all in my watchlist (the same manageability concerns) and surprisingly (or not surprizingly) there were quite a few deletions totally out of process, like, tagged and deleted the same day. IMO one of the jobs of ARS if to keep track of such trigger-happy, although well-meaning admins, warning them about being too  bold and do some whistleblowing if they persist.  `'Míkka 20:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ...and an associated danger

message: From what's starting to happen I see the danger for this page to turn into vote solicitation billboard or for accusations that "inclusionists" are engaging in vote stacking. If this happens, this project will be forced to close, like it happened with equally (if not more) well-meaning project wikipedia:Esperanza and some others.
To prevent this from happening and to prevent from abuse, I suggest to establish a rather strict code of conduct.
#No idle wistleblowing If a member lists an article in the wikipedia:Red Book of Articles, they cannot vote "keep" or detag the endangered article without an attempt to fix some problems with it. 
#No idle vote ganging If a member sees an article in the wikipedia:Red Book of Articles, they can vote "keep" only after a decent attempt to fix it. 
#Show the light. Af a member votes for an article after fixing it, describe in the vote which problems have been fixed and hence no longer applicable.
#Don't make too much fuss If a member totally revives an article, wait for a day or two to see whether the attitude at the AfD changes. If not, then cry for help, otherwise be happy.  
I would also suggest the rename it to anything else away from ARS: I refuse to be in the arse, although I am a proud asshole. `'Míkka 19:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. The whole purpose of this project is to curb the insanity of AfD by making sure that stuff that is actually notable is not deleted through incompetence. With that in mind, it is pretty silly to put bureaucratic impediments in the way of it. Moreover, AfD is not cleanup - if changes need to be made to an article to stop an absurd result, then so be it, but if a topic is notable, I am going to vote keep, process wonks be damned. Rebecca 01:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK then I am out of here. A bunch of vigilantes who think that other editors are engaged in insanity is not my crowd. Good luck. `'Míkka 03:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. So I see Rebecca was a member of ArbCom. With such crazy temper. I knew that wikipedia sucks, but never thought rotten up to the head. `'Míkka 04:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: To me it would seem unnecessary to even consider voting on anything if we improve the articles in question. it makes any vote moot if the problem is corrected. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 16:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't agree with extra codes of conduct as wp already has pretty clear rules that apply to all editors and they general work. I also am opposed to doing anything that makes improving articles more difficult and the rules proposed seem to add extra components to work that is largely thankless and, by it's nature, stressful. Benjiboi 20:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the code of conduct issue is to prevent us from being nothing more than a vote stacking group. Sure, in some ways, our article improvements will change a vote, but not because we merely voted... It'll be because we voted based on changing the content of an article, and we will have demonstrated that AfD is not a place to complain about content, but a place to complain about an inappropriate topic. Ronabop 07:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Please get this code of conduct off the page. WP has plenty of rules to address these issues and these are not only confusing but another layer keeping people from editing. If the intent is to spell out we don't vote stack then say that instead clearly and concisely and move on. I think I just violated one of the rules because i voted keep without actually saving the article, i do know though because the codes are convoluted - get rid of them please. 09:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update. I've moved the Code of Conduct (for members) from the instructions to the members page. While I still feel they aren't worded well and if the purpose is to spell out no vote-stacking the whole thing needs to be redone the move alleviates the main concern that it confused the instruction process which should be clear and concise. Benjiboi 09:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Code of Conduct 

message: I appear to have annoyed an admin, and the AFR Template has been modified a few times and is now up for deletion. I have also had an incident taken out against me. Any advise or assistance would be gratefully received. Fosnez 07:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A wasp nest 

message: *Oppose - Fosnez 11:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment for name suggestion - Can we add Article Rescue Group to the list of possibles? ARG is kind of cute. Benjiboi 00:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *Comment - Choices, choices... In preferential order: "Article rescue squad" (squad instead of squadron - gives more of a sense of emergency vehicles); "Article rescue team"; Not a fan of "squadron", and not a fan of "crew" or "group", and though I laughed when I read "Rescue Rangers", I think Chip 'n Dale might get jealous : ) - jc37 03:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: # - name move (see just above) - does anyone acutally oppose moving it?
# - Merge with Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit.  I think the two projects should be merged, as they have identical purposes.  This one was started first (14 July vs 3 September), so my first suggestion was to merge into the older organization, this one.
# - I added a new section detailing when the Rescue template should be used - good idea?  Bad idea?
Busy busy busy. Neil ム 15:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are some differences (ie, ICU doesn't focus solely on AfD articles, and hopefully our approach will be more structured, if the triage template works out). But I agree, the redundancy issue should be addressed somehow. --Bfigura (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (EC) I think the merge would be good, as there is definitely cross-over between this project and ICU. However, The ICU project is not for AfD candidates only, but for any generally poor article that has potential, and notability. This project is focused on articles that are already at the proposed deletion stage, or the AfD stage. So, if merged, a slight re-wording of this project would be in order, to broaden the scope to encompass any poorly written article. Ariel♥Gold 16:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of curiosity, EC = ? --Bfigura (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: EC - edit conflict. Neil ム 16:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll go on record as opposing a name change, at least until the AfD has closed and a discussion as to the best replacement name takes place. I disagree with merge proposal as this too seems premature and a basic overview seems to support that these are different in scope. The ARS work on tight deadlines with only articles that are threatened with deletion and have been tagged for rescue. Its tight scope helps focus action and the timeframe further focuses what actions are possible. I'm not terribly enthusiastic about the new section, I think some articles will be tagged and get little response and other will get plenty of attention and it's based on multiple factors not the least of which is an editor's interest in what they want to edit. Regardless the number of AfD articles and therefore rescue tagged articles is relatively small so I don't see the need to micromanage that aspect. If someone tags an article that could never ever be saved then it (and the tag) will be gone within the week anyway. Benjiboi 16:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: To follow along with the above, I think I'd like to see the merger proposal wait until after the AfD and renaming proposal have both closed. (Just to keep things simple). --Bfigura (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's certainly reasonable. Neil ム 17:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I still don't completely agree with the move request, but the integration into the AfD tag idea sounds like a good one Fosnez 02:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: CBD's suggestions are intriguing, and I'd be curious to see how applicable they are.  Ichormosquito 05:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Why can't we just limit Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit to articles that aren't at AfD?  Ichormosquito 05:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would make it a suggestion that ICU is for articles that aren't AfD but if you're looking for assistance on an article that is AfD they can also be refered to the rescue squad. Benjiboi 06:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That's something that should probably be discussed on both pages (ie, ICU and ARS). However, off the top of my head, I don't have a huge objection to it, although I imagine it would lead to complicated logistics if an ICU article got AfD'd. --Bfigura (talk) 06:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, once it hits AfD it's a matter of days before one or both tags are removed so I say more help is ok. I'm missing what is problematic if both efforts land on an article at the same time. Benjiboi 06:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I see that the ICU has several templates, ,  and  (under construction from what I understand); what if there was a  template, in effect the same as ?  --Victor falk 06:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there are plans for such a template. (Especially given the TdF, plus the possibility that ICU might decide to refocuse on pre-AfD articles). Best, --Bfigura (talk) 12:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: In looking over both projects, This one seems more like a "task force" which has a time constraint, while ICU is more about general article cleanup. I suppose this could become a task force of that, but ICU should probably be merged with some of the other article cleanup projects. - jc37 22:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Okay, now I have 3 suggestions 

message: Someone please start the archive and clean off old threads. Thank you! Benjiboi 06:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Fosnez 12:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! Benjiboi 17:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive talk page items 

message: Two articles we worked on, Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) and Mzoli's Meats, were both prominently cited as examples of "Wiki-wars" in this recent LA Times article.  If you haven't seen it already, it's worth a read.  Ichormosquito 04:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I started that article! Benjiboi has done a LOT more work on it than I have though. Fosnez 13:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Last line: "Ultimately, Mzoli's was spared. But not until a gaggle of editors worked on expanding it from an afterthought to a more substantial portrait. Though it's still just a description of an African barbecue place, it's difficult to see how the world would be better off without it."  Ichormosquito 16:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[LA Times]] article

message: I added some references to Louie Giglio. Please add more info. Thanks. -- Jreferee   t/c 05:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Louie Giglio

message: I added some info to Radio malt. If someone has the time, please add the info from Google books. -- Jreferee   t/c 05:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Radio malt

message: Not really a rescue (the article was mentioned at WP:COIN, but I added some references to FreeLife. If you have the time, please consider incorporating the information from the references into the article. -- Jreferee   t/c 18:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FreeLife

message: My experiments in breeding templates has resulted in this hybrid. Check it out in action here - Fosnez 11:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is a good idea to have it on the AfD page (and I doubt that it is), then that's a very good hybrid. SamBC(talk) 14:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea for having it on the AfD came from the closing of the TfD - Fosnez 05:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to rain on your cake but it really does nothing for me. Perhaps there's some merit to separating the template and the project so we can get the template onto the article page without further delay. To me the template is simply impotent when vectored off the main page and incorporating it into the already ignored AfD template seems like a waste of energy. I do appreciate what you're trying to do I just want to be up front about what I'm thinking as others may feel the same way but might not bother to state it. Benjiboi 06:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It did come from the closing off the AfD, and I did summarise that closing for the template talk page... but it wasn't a mandate from the closing, and I disagree that it's a good idea, for reasons that I think I've outlined somewhere. The main thing is that the template will get less useful the further it gets from the article. However, a supplementary template for AfD wouldn't be a bad thing, just so long as it's not the only tag. SamBC(talk) 11:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New version!