Misplaced Pages talk:Article Rescue Squadron: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:58, 18 May 2009 editBenjiboi (talk \| contribs)50,496 edits archiving 222k discussion that only one editor seems to want to belabour← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 09:00, 1 January 2025 edit undoCullen328 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators112,755 edits →÷the truth about Misplaced Pages =: DenyTag: Manual revert
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Article Rescue ~~WikiProject~~}}		{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron/Tabbed header\|This=8}}
			<br>
	:<big>Welcome to the talkpage of the Article Rescue Squadron. If you are looking for assistance to rescue an article please follow ].</big>
			<div class="center">{{resize\|1.3em\|'''Welcome to the talk page of the Article Rescue Squadron.'''}}</div>
	{{FAQ}}
			<div class="center">{{resize\|1.1em\|'''If you are looking for assistance to rescue an article, please see ] and ].'''}}</div>
	{\| class="messagebox {{#ifeq:{{{small\|}}}\|yes\|small\|standard}}-talk"
			{{talk header}}
	\|-
			{{FAQ\|collapsed=yes\|quickedit=no}}
	\|align="center"\|]
			{{Press
	\|''This page has been ]. The mention{{#if: {{{title2\|}}}\|s are\|  is}} in:''
			\| collapsed = yes
	* {{cite news
			\| author=James Gleick \| date=8 August 2008 \| url=http://www.wsj.com/article/SB121815517776622597.html?mod=psp \| title=Wikipedians Leave Cyberspace, Meet in Egypt: In Alexandria, 650 Devotees Bemoan Vandals, Debate Rules; Deletionists vs. Inclusionists
	\| author=James Gleick
			\| author2=Nicholson Baker \| date2=20 March 2008 \| url2=http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21131 \| title2=The Charms of Misplaced Pages
	\| date={{#if:{{{monthday\|}}}\|{{{monthday}}} {{{1\|2007}}}\|8 August 2008}}
			\| author3=Jennifer Schuessler \| date3=8 March 2008 \| url3=http://papercuts.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/gone-to-deletopedia/ \| title3=Gone to Deletopedia
	\| url=http://www.wsj.com/article/SB121815517776622597.html?mod=psp
			\| author4=Adversus Misplaced Pages \| date4=17 September 2008 \| url4=http://www.pc-actual.com/actualidad/noticia/2008/09/17/Adversus-Misplaced Pages \| title4=Adversus Misplaced Pages
	\| title={{{articlename\|Wikipedians Leave Cyberspace, Meet in Egypt: In Alexandria, 650 Devotees Bemoan Vandals, Debate Rules; Deletionists vs. Inclusionists}}}
			\| author5=John Broughton \| url5=http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=h37N0BvkVSUC \| title5=Ch.19 - Deleting Existing Articles \| date5=2008
	\| publisher=Wall Street Journal
	}}		}}
	* {{~~cite~~ ~~news~~		{{Old XfD multi
			\|result1='''Nomination withdrawn'''\|date1=19 September 2007\|link1={{canonicalurl:Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron}}
	\| author=Nicholson Baker
			\|result2='''Speedy Keep'''\|date2=23 September 2007\|link2={{canonicalurl:Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (2nd nomination)}}
	\| date={{#if:{{{monthday\|}}}\|{{{monthday}}} {{{1\|2007}}}\|20 March 2008}}
			\|result3='''Speedy Keep'''\|date3=12 July 2008\|link3={{canonicalurl:Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (3rd nomination)}}
	\| url=http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21131
			\|result4='''Keep'''\|date4=18 May 2009\|link4={{canonicalurl:Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (4th nomination)}}
	\| title={{{articlename\|The Charms of Misplaced Pages}}}
			\|result5='''Speedy Keep'''\|date5=10 February 2012\|link5={{canonicalurl:Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list}}
	\| publisher=New York Review of Books
			\|result6='''No Consensus'''\|date6=8 December 2012\|link6={{canonicalurl:Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list (2nd nomination)}}
			\|result7='''Snow Keep'''\|date7=23 June 2019\|link7={{canonicalurl:Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list}}
			\|result8='''Keep'''\|date8=19 November 2019\|link8={{canonicalurl:Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list (2nd nomination)}}
			\|result9='''Nomination withdrawn'''\|date9=25 Oct 2021\|link9={{canonicalurl:Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (5th nomination)}}
			\|result10='''Snow Opposed'''\|date10=18 May 2022\|link10={{canonicalurl:Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_173#AfD_alerts}}
	}}		}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|
	]
			{{WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron}}
	\|}
	{{cent\|width=200px}}
	{{multidel
	\|list=
	* '''Nomination withdrawn''', 19 September 2007, ]
	* '''Speedy Keep''', 23 September 2007, ]
	*'''Speedy Keep''', 12 July 2008, ]
	\|small=yes
	}}		}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
	{{archivebox\|auto=yes \|<inputbox>
			\|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
	bgcolor=
			\|maxarchivesize = 95K
	type=fulltext
			\|counter = 61
	prefix=Misplaced Pages talk:Article Rescue Squadron
			\|minthreadsleft = 5
	break=yes
			\|minthreadstoarchive=2
	width=20
			\|algo = old(91d)
	searchbuttonlabel=Search archives
			\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive %(counter)d
	</inputbox>}}
			}}

			{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects\|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2014-03-05/WikiProject report\|writer=]\|\|day=5\|month=March\|year=2014}}
	__TOC__
	<!-- Please Note: Articles tagged for rescue are automatically added to this list.-->		<!-- Please Note: Articles tagged for rescue are automatically added to this list.-->__TOC__
	{{Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron/Current articles}}

	==Recognition of efforts==
	<!--00:00, 1 January 3000 (UTC)-->
	===Barnstars project===
	{{hat\|Collapsed for navigation}}
	I'm not suggesting that every rescue should get a barnstar but it does seem like honoring those who have saved an article could use some recognition. I think the first step might be expanding the list of articles rescued, which, of course, means we figure a good way to track those. Then list them and possible evaluate if someone(s) greatly improved the article vs, the AfD discussion was generally for keeping. Along with the list would be our suggested guideline for issuing barnstars as well as the barnstar gallery. ] 22:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
	:Rawr. I want MOAR barnstars! I think this is a good idea. I know ] hands them out now and again for people who rescue his nominations from deletion (he's very open about being proven wrong when it means an article will be saved and improved), you should see if he wants to help. ] (]) 00:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
	::I'll look at clearing up the barnstar section above first then proceed from there. ] 00:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
	:::Well as often happens the timing was rather dismal, ] just went on wikibreak due to RfA drama but, assuming he returns, (I hope), we can invite him in. I've set-up the barnstars on the mainpage and the current system of listing articles currently tagged seems the best way of tracking. In addition to the list of rescued articles there's at least two dozen awaiting to be added - all could get barnstarred. ] 06:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
	===PROPOSAL: Past successful deletion debates Sub article===
	{{hat\|Collapsed for navigation}}
	I was thinking of creating a sub article of this article which lists great AfD debates, as examples for future editors attempting to save articles.

	For example:
	:]

	I have been trying to teach editors how to debate in Articles for Deletion. I realized that Articles for Deletion examples would be very helpful for new editors, but I think I need help. ] (]) 12:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
	:Ultimately, ARS is not about the debates. It's about the articles. The best rescues are those that makes the debate moot. ] (]) 14:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

	::I feel uncomfortable going down that road. We should find ways to encourage editors to understand the threshold of notability and also how to reolve real concerns of article creep. For instance, many of the fictional item AfD'd would be fine in a list format rather than separate articles. While I don't tend to delete items I also am concerned that we are getting a lot of articles that aren't notable because we are advertising ARS in your tips talkpage postings. There are already some good resources along the lines of what you're asking about but before they go in guns blazing they should take a breath and consider if an article is indeed appropriate at this point. A cleaned article about a non-notable subject is still an article in trouble. Having stated all that it may not be a bad idea to start up a thread on what works/what doesn't and see if any ideas pop from that. ] 03:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
	::::Hi Benjiboi :) I started a general article: ]. I am trying to teach new editors how to survive in an AfD discussion.
	::::RE: "Past successful deletion debates" I will do something unaffiliated with this project, I don't want to ruffle any feathers. Maybe I can solicit advice from editors to share some of their most incredible war stories.
	::::I already checked all of the AfDs involving ], which is on ]. But would like more specific success stories
	::::] (]) 01:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
	===New idea to recognize efforts===
	{{hat\|Collapsed for navigation}}
	Please see and help with ], which I have created in my userspace for now. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 05:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
	:Good job, I think it should be a subsection in the list of Article Squadron members. Maybe instead (or also) have the list by article, not by person because
	:#Its about the articles, not the editors
	:#Often several Article Rescue Squadron editors ] to save an article, not just one editor. ] (]) 00:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
	::I agree with this. We had something similar to this at DYK, which later resulted in some very heated discussions. It'd be better to list them by articles, since otherwise it might look like attention seeking (which some people would not like that much). ] ] 04:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
	:::Here's the problem that I have with listing this by article, and not editor (and I write this as someone who has had next-to-zero involvement in AfD, so I'm not trying to get in the "Hall" myself):
	:::*From a practical standpoint, listing by articles will likely yield a list of incredibly awkward length. I mean, what if the Football Hall of Fame listed all the "Great Plays", or even just the "Great Games"? Can you imagine how huge the number of "members" would be?
	:::*And that's another thing: It just doesn't ''feel'' right. I mean, Halls of Fame have ''members''. Doesn't it seem silly to have "Great Plays" in a Hall of Fame rather than players? Of course, they're related, (the greatest players make great plays more often than others) but we create Halls to honor people, not things. ]]] 03:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

	*'''Comment'''. Personally I'm conflicted on this. Many many articles are rescued without our involvement, that is not true for DYK, which is a more vetted process with defined parameters. Some feel a merger, or perhaps anything that isn't a delete, is a form of a rescue but I'm not sure I agree with that. Also this list will be huge and I'm not sure that makes sense. Perhaps we could simply have a list, not call it "Hall of fame", and use it to note when someone has been recognized for rescue work. I'll point to DGG who has undoubtably been instrumental in many saves but usually doesn't get credited as they mainly present sound perspective in AfD. Perhaps ditch the Hall of fame and treat more NPOV as just a list of note. What it is used for can be sussed out after more discussion. ] 22:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
	{{hab}}


	===Fifth formerly deleted article recreated and advanced to GA-Class===
	{{hat\|Collapsed for navigation}}
	With ] yesterday being promoted to ], and counting ], ], ] and ], I have created articles for five formerly deleted articles and taken them to ]-class. I am making the announcement since I only have one rescue barnstar and there seem to be several different ones.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 03:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
	::I have been told that some ] purists might be a bit taken aback by my claim. I should clarify my recovery involvment. I have successfully saved ] at ]. I was unsuccessful with ] on its second AFD. However, I took both articles to ] status. All of the other articles were deleted without my involvement mostly through CSD prior to my recreation and promotion to GA.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 04:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
	:I don't know which barnstar would be appropriate, but very nice job. - ] (]) (]) 03:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
	::Congratulations! That is wonderful. Three cheers for Fisher! You are an inspriation and a model for all wikipedians to follow. ] (]) 22:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
	:::I created a new category ] and template ] for use on recreated good articles talk pages. I added this template to the five articles of TonyTheTiger, and I am going to solicit whether other editors know of any other articles which were deleted then reached good article status too. ] (]) 09:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
	::::And I have removed it again from ], since the deleted article was about a different person and was correctly deleted. The ] article which was deleted was pure spam, with the wonderful closing line "Information provided by Brandhabit.com", and so was also a perfectly correct deletion. Only one of the other deletions was after an actual AfD discussion, so really relevant here. ] (]) 11:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
	*Also, ], which was previously deleted with much fanfare, is now a Good article. ] (]) 02:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
	:I am glad that you brought this up Protonk, I was about to mention this here. ] (]) 12:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
	{{hab}}

	===Example===
	{{hat\|Collapsed for navigation}}
	] was a logn ago (but very visible) rescue - see its ] for how this evolved (if examples are needed). ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] \| ])</span></sup> 07:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
	===Recognition of embattled users===
	{{hat\|Collapsed for navigation}}
	I have found in my work with new editors, that the majority of new editors are welcomed with warning templates and impersonally nasty messages, saying subtly, and not so subtly, that "your contributions are not welcome" In other words, veteran editors can be real &*&(^ to new users. What I love about this project is we are not only about saving articles, we are about, indirectly, retaining new users. I just created a new template/barnstar morph: ] which can be placed on new editors talk pages:

	<nowiki>==Welcome==</nowiki>
	{\| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
	\|rowspan="2" valign="middle" \| ]
	\|rowspan="2" \|
	\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" \| Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar'''
	\|-
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" \| Hello, '''Article Rescue Squadron''', and welcome to Misplaced Pages! I hope you like wikipedia and decide to stay. I am sorry that there are so many impersonal warning messages on your talk page. There are ''']''' who feel that ] here is important and valuable, especially me.

	;Need help?
	If you are looking for help, you can just type: {{tl\|helpme}} ...and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Or, please visit ''' <span class="plainlinks"></span>''', where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have!

	If you have '''any questions''' at all, please <span class="plainlinks"></span>. Again, welcome! ] (]) 11:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
	\|}

	<nowiki>{{Subst:User:Ikip/t}}</nowiki>

	The template signs your name for you. It is part of:

	{\| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
	\|rowspan="2" valign="middle" \| ]
	\|rowspan="2" \|
	\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" \| Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar'''
	\|-
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" \| message ] (]) 11:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
	\|}


	<nowiki>{{subst:Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar\|message ~~~~}}</nowiki>

	] (]) 11:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
	{{hab}}

	===Medals===
	{{hat\|Collapsed for navigation}}
	I started awarding Article Rescue Squadron medals to those people listed on ], the coding is here:
	:<pre>{{ARS\|ArticleTitle}}</pre>
	You don't have to add a name to this list to award someone or yourself this medal. ] (]) 16:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
	:(Inspired by ] which is hanging above his ]). ] (]) 00:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
	{{hab}}

	==ARS tools and possible tools discussion==
	<!--00:00, 1 January 3000 (UTC)-->
	===AFD summaries===
	{{hat\|A dust-covered AfD tool that categorized open AfDs by a number of parameters; very useful for "ARS Search and rescue" possibilities}}
	Any chance of someone taking over ] to get them working again? This may help us find those article in more of a need to rescue. -- ] ] 17:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
	:Holy crap that actually has potential! I consider my weak point actually combing through AFDs to find ones that deserve rescuing but this may help exponentially! ] 00:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
	==== Candidates for Speed Deletion ====
	{{hat\|CSD and rescue tag discussion; possible food for thought for "search and rescue" at CSD and Prods}}
	I have been watching the ] portal and have found that about 25% of the articles there have either been marked incorrectly (which I guess an admin should catch) or just need a little work. On most of the articles that deal with a person, they are notable under ] but no one (including the db tagger) has taken the time to check for notability references. If you're interested in finding more articles to save (as if there needed to be more to go through) I'd suggest check it out. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 20:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
	:I think you misunderstand the obligation of A7. If there's no ''assertion'' of notability, the article goes pfft. If there is an ''assertion'' of notability, then the speedy tag gets declined and the article sent to Prod or AfD. Whether or not an A7-tagged article is ''notable'' is irrelevant to the CSD-A7 process, because speedy does not evaluate anything outside the article itself. Does it claim notability? Speedy declined. Does it NOT claim notability? It's gone. ] (]) 21:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
	::Problem is that some admins think it's different and delete under A7 what does not belong under A7. Checking CAT:CSD and removing overeager taggings is thus something helpful. See also Pedro's comments on WT:RFA on that matter. Regards ''']]''' 12:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
	:::OK, that makes sense. I was curious as to whether or not an admin checked for references. So when I find an article in CSD that's worth saving (has sources for the info but doesn't cite it) what should I do? Generally, I add links to the sources in the talk page or just add the citations myself and removed the db. I know that the <nowiki>{{rescue}}</nowiki> is specifically for articles in AfD but would it be wrong to use it on an article that's tagged for speedy deletion? Sometimes I don't have time to add the citations on articles or could just generally use some help. I feel like it wouldn't be wrong to use it on CSD articles but I don't want to go against what the description of the tag specifically says it's to be used for. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 05:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
	::::My own view on that is the time frame. An AfD lasts around five days... give or take... and a Rescue tag night be added at day one or day five. If a resuce is to be mounted, we have to move fast and hope a closing admin makes notes of post-nomination improvements. When something is tagged for speedy, any improvement must happen within hours, minutes, or sometimes even seconds... not days. Even with the few days offered by an AfD we can be quite swamped, as there are so few of us and so much to do. So please continue as you are. If you find something being speedied that you can improve enough to address the reasons for the tag so that the tag can be removed, please do so. Perhaps we will one day have an "Emergency Rescue Squad", made up of editors who live on ], whose only task is to attempt rescue of articles that have been speedied. I do not mean to sound flippant, as you asked a very valid question. Simply put, ARS works at AfD, not CSD. Thank you. ''']''' '']'' 09:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
	==== Where do I go to make an alert? ====
	{{hat\|ARS and Prods.}}
	I do a lot of review of PRODs, and just recently came out of a 10 day snit (the typical steamrolling of over twenty grouped articles because of faulty logic on one. And no, they weren't my articles), where all I was doing was reviewing prods and CSD's, leaving notes as an IP user. But, I'm back reviewing. So, where do I go to alert others of articles that could use some work? I recently did some work on ], declining the speedy, before turning that over to the Judaism wikiproject, and now have concerns about ]. I found there is a of info one the subject, but most is not web acessible. I did find one book reference, and modified the article, but don't know the intent of the PROD'er (if they want it gone, they'll find a way), so i didn't de-PROD it yet.

	Anyway, let me know where to put article alerts as I find stuff that I can't fix myself or give to a WikiProject.

	] (]) 13:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

	* 99% of articles have yet to reach GA/FA status and so are in need of work. This is too wide a scope for the ARS which has enough to do just looking at the ones in immediate threat of deletion. If there's an article which has promise and you can find a reference then you shouldn't hesitate to deprod it. In most cases, there is usually a better alternative to deletion per ]. ] (]) 13:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

	*I think it will remain a case by case approach. Sometimes there are active appropriate Wikiprojects so alerting them is effective. Some of the same strategies you employ is what we do so your experience is quite familiar. Certainly if an article you work on then goes to AfD, like often happens with prodded articles, you should consider if adding the rescue tag makes sense. When we start to develop a guide for how to look for rescuable articles in the prods i hope you'd be willing to offer guidance. ] 14:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

	::In general, I handle saves by attempting the edit myself. Dependent on time, I will at least put one solid ref in. After that, I try to get 1) the article creator, 2) an appropriate WikiProject, 3) ??? to help out. It appears that the ARS jumps in primarily when the article goes to AfD? That's cool. I generally try to get the article at the CSD or PROD stage. So, given that this group definitely has the AfD covered, I will continue to plug along the CSD and PROD route. If you see an article show up at AfD that was contested by me, make sure to check the discussion page for links. That should save you time, and it gives me assurance that, in the extreme case, the ARS will be my #3 if the article gets nominated. ] (]) 15:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

	:::I too watch CSD for misplaced speedy tags and I also wish sometimes that I could add the rescue tag or mark the article in some way to show that it needs help soon. I started a discussion on it before (]). Someone pointed out that we'd have to have editors who are essentially injecting Red Bull into their veins to keep up with the CSD Rescue tags. I think the best thing you can do is basically what you're already doing; put in a strong reference or arguement, tag the article with known issues, and talk about the issues on the discussion page. Otherwise, you can always hit me up for help. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 16:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
	::::Did you know that ANYONE who hasn't worked on the article can remove a speedy tag? There's nothing at all wrong with removing a speedy tag and replacing it with a PROD or AfD, to give you some time to work on it, if it's not a G10 (attack) or G12 (copyvio). ARS folks nominating things for AfD may seem counterintuitive, but it buys time. ] (]) 17:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
	::(edit conflict)Actually you don't have to replace it with anything, as far as I know. If an article is tagged A7 (for example) yet contains an '''assertion''' of notability, it's perfectly legitimate for an editor to remove it. Ideally, the removing editor would then do some work to improve the article. <span style="border-left: 1px solid #cc3300; padding: 3px">]</span><sub><span style="background: #ffffcc; color: #cc3300;">].</span></sub> 17:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
	::::Also, anyone who has a motivation and willingness to improve an article can add a {{tl\|hangon}} tag. If someone besides the article creator has tagged an article with a note on the talk page that says "Give me X hours--I think this can be sourced and am actively working on it." I really expect that most admins would honor that. ] (]) 17:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
	:::::While I can only speak for myself, yes, I knew you could remove db tags. I usually do when I work on rescuing a CSD article (as well as a hangon). I don't add a prod because if I'm saving it, I believe it shouldn't be deleted and I don't put it into AfD because AfD isn't for cleanup (see ]). That's basically the issue that Vulture and I run in to. To get the help from ARS, we need an overzelous editor who places a CSD tag on an article that can be saved, then attempts to put it into AFD after we make a mvoe to save it. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 17:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
	::::::In general, I will not remove copvio's or patent nonsense. But I regularly remove CSD's, though I will only do so if I add to the article. In one case, as an IP, I encouraged someone whose CSD I removed to send it to AfD (it's an inherited notability case, and I think the AfD discussion will help establish/reinforce precedence). Now, one of my pet peeves (shared by the kindred spirits here) is having an article tagged ''for the wrong reason''. It irritates the hell out of me that editors who insist on factual accuracy in articles completely disregard it when it comes to deletion. And it is important, as if the article is deleted for the wrong reason (e.g. ] (another misused rationale, I could go on and on...)), recreation can be exceedingly difficult. The CSD and PROD processes scare me for the simple reason that hard work can be wiped out by, and this is a worse case example, a flawed nomination and a tired admin. So, without increasing the burden on anyone else, as I get to know bailiwicks of people here, I can shoot a direct request (and by all means, if I can be of help, let me know). ] (]) 18:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::There are times when I will remove a speedy tag & substitute a prod: when the reason given is not one of the speedy criteria, but would be adequate for deletion otherwise & the article itself is uncontroversially deleteable. ''']''' (]) 19:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
	{{hab}}

	===Adding the list of articles to be rescued to your talk page===
	{{hat\|{{tl\|ARS/Tagged}}}}
	] had a brilliant idea: adding the list of articles which currently have the rescue tag to your talk page:

	{{ARS/Tagged}}

	Coding:
	<nowiki>{{ARS/Tagged}}</nowiki>

	This list is dynamic, and the list of articles will change as the rescue template is removed or added from articles. ] (]) 14:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
	:This crosses a line. I am unhappy with an automatic tool to canvass AFDs to anyone with a self-professed agenda at AFD, especially with no criteria other than someone not wanting the article deleted. When it's a project's cleanup tool in the project's space, that's one thing, but this is too much. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 23:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
	===]===
	{{hat\|A cite tool to help when adding refs}}
	Most of my work on wikipedia involves adding references to articles which are about to be deleted.

	I found it is ESSENTIAL to have the cite tool. Here are easy instructions: ] it is really easy to install. ] (]) 02:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
	{{hab}}

	==Did you know...==
	<!--00:00, 1 January 3000 (UTC)-->...that there are ] for newly-expanded articles which are available at ]? I just tried this for the first time on ] that I expanded to save it from deletion. The process wasn't too bad - easier than nominating an article for AFD. By doing this, you can get some ] for the hard work of adding references and text as well as the warm glow of saving an article from deletion. This seems a good ] and we can share the credit if we work together on a rescue. ] (]) 01:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

	==ARS project development==
	<!--00:00, 1 January 3000 (UTC)-->
	===Wikiads===
	{{hat\|Banner ad for ARS}}
	See: ]. Any creative editor willing to make a wiki-ad for ]? I will ask the creators of the existing templates if the can create one.] (]) 18:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
	:I am going to try and build one of these also in the next week. ] (]) 18:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
	{{hab}}

	===Newsletter===
	{{hat\|Newsletter ideas}}
	Would anyone here be interested in starting a newsletter with me? The best example and most popular newsletter is: ]. There are several examples:
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]

	...and several bots: ]. ] (]) 22:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
	:I think a semi-annual one may be OK, lets coordinate this once we get a few other kinks worked out. I'd like to see a How-To rescue subpage be created and sort out a few of the present drama so if we get an influx of energy it is directed wisely. ] 23:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
	::I like your how to rescue page idea. I have started one here: ]
	::I think the ] is the best bet. ] (]) 18:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
	{{hab}}

	===Mottos===
	{{hat\|Motto ideas, collapsing thread to be mined for when Wikiad effort ensues. }}
	Hey everyone, what do you think of this as a motto for our project?
	{{Cquote\|...Know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy...\|200\|200\|], ]}}
	] (]) 20:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

	: and equate some editors with terrorists? ] 15:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
	:: If the shoe fits... Actually, I'm pretty sure most Misplaced Pages editors would identify some others as terrorists. The identity of said alleged terrorists might vary depending on the perspective of the editor in question, however. :-) ] (]) 16:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
	:::I like the motto, but being from a politician it is automatically partisan, so it may turn off republican editors. ] (]) 19:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

	:* ]. ] 02:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

	::I never said it was a battleground nor did I say anything about biased politics or terrorists. I'm just saying its always better to build things than destroy them. Isn't that the whole reason this group exists? ] (]) 07:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

	::: To whom was Obama referring? Terrorists. And both of the other editors above are making snarky personal attacks. Is this project about rescuing articles from a process or from opponents? And why a motto at all? If I can offer one from the peanut gallery;
	{{Cquote\|<del>To Divide and Conquer</del>}}
	::: ] 15:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
	::::Knock it off. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 10:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
	::::: Stricken. ] 12:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
	Good thought, TomCat, but the context and the political baggage are problematic. There's also the unfortunate equation of deletion to willful destruction, which is troubling. Personally, I favor making up a motto on the spot and attributing it to Oscar Wilde. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 10:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

	:Okay is this one more neutral and less of an attack on deletionists?:

	{{Cquote\|Don't point a finger, lend a hand\|unknown}}

	It may be simple and maybe sound like something from an elementary school classroom, but I think its applicable here too. ] (]) 11:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

	:Better, but deleting something is also lending a hand in solving the problem, and the project page advises people who don't know enough about a subject to fix it to add more-specific cleanup tags or alert specialist editors. Pointing a finger can be good, lending a hand can be bad. <small>(Plus the fact that most of the people who put things up for deletion aren't deletionists, any more than most of the people who comment to keep a given article are inclusionists. The vaaaaaaast majority of people do not have a general philosophy of inclusion at all, let alone one of either extreme. Be careful about labeling your opposition on a specific topic - keeping this or that article - as part of a cabal to oppose you in general.)</small>

	:Simple and direct are both good. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 11:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

	* Here's a similar sentiment which comes from another great politician. His hobby was brick-laying, which is a nice analogue of our activity here - building a great work, one brick at a time. ] (]) 11:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC) {{quote\|''To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day.''\|Winston S. Churchill}}

	::I like that one. ] (]) 11:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

	The others are also inherently adversarial; not about the articles, their issues, or the possibility of their rescue. I'll try again:
	{{Cquote\|Some things can be fixed}}
	] 12:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
	:I '''love''' TomCat4680's Churchill quote, I think that would be a great motto. ] (]) 15:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

	::Actually I didn't suggest that one, it was Colonel Warden's. ] (]) 15:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

	:::How is that motto relevant for here, and not antagonistic? ARS is about article deletion discussions, hardly thoughtless or a single day. And to build an encyclopedia, you may have to remove things which don't belong there. Deletion is a minor but essential part of building. Of course care must be taken that not too much is deleted, but that is not really what the motto suggests. ] (]) 10:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
	You know what I've been considering to be our motto?
	{{Cquote\|Don't count on us.}}
	The whole point of ARS is that it should not be necessary. --]<font color="black">]</font><font color="green">]</font> 21:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
	:Lol! Luv it. ] 02:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
	::Word, I like this one. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 04:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

	* '''Comment''': We could take the ones we like best and have a run off and use the top placers in some wikiads that serve them up randomly. ] 02:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
	:Want to setup a runoff? I still have no idea how to propose things officially. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 04:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
	::For stuff like this, there's no real official way of doing it nor any need for officialness. Do it however. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 04:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
	:::I wonder if we should start over and instead of a motto per se just solitic advert slogan suggestions since that's the only application we have potentially available. I would want to cast the net a bit to get more imput and it may make sense to wait til the RfC closes as theis could then be the main community discussion and would arguably be more inspiring. ] 13:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

	:Here's my offering, modified from my userpage motto. ''']''' '']'' 01:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

	{{Cquote\|We'd rather fix the damn pipes than complain about having wet feet}}
	{{hab}}

	==]==
	<!--00:00, 1 January 3000 (UTC)-->{{hat\|Collapsed for navigation. This is excellent material on policies on preserving content.}}
	This long-standing and useful policy is under attack at ]. Members of this project should take an interest since its statement that we should "''endeavour to preserve information''" is in harmony with our mission. ] (]) 10:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
	:thank you for the heads up, there are several other guidelines and essays which echo this policy, see ]:
	::#] '''Policy''' Preserve information. Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing...
	::#] '''Guideline''' states: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." Most editors who put an article up for deletion fail to do this. This is something you can bring up in the deletion discussion.
	::#] '''Policy''' Decorum and politeness. Misplaced Pages urges any contributor to read the ''Misplaced Pages:Deletion'' policy before deleting or nominating an article for deletion. "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page...If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion" (Discussing on the talk page before flagging for deletion is rarely done.)
	::#] ] '''Essay''' Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved.
	::#] ] '''Essay''' In most cases deletion of an article should be a last resort
	::#] ] Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously ], consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a ], instead of bringing the article to AfD. '''If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.'''
	::#] "consider adding a tag such as {{tl\|cleanup}}, {{tl\|disputed}} or {{tl\|expert-subject}} instead; this may be preferable if the article has some useful content."
	:] (]) 17:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
	::Indeed - thanks for this fine summary. It is quite remarkable how blind some editors are to these numerous encouragments to save material and build upon it. The fact that ] comes as a surprise to them is telling. ] (]) 23:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
	:::As a comment, "under attack" is a poor choice of words to describe a discussion where all concerned have the best interests of Misplaced Pages at heart but disagree on the detains of how to achieve this. Whenever I feel that a comment is an "attack", I think it indicates that I have become emotionally involved in a discussion, and should try to look at it from the other person's point of view. ] (]) 19:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
	{{hab}}

	== Proposal to set up auto message for those who apply {{tl\|rescue}} template ==

	The latest rounds of alleged abuse did spark an idea that may help. Perhaps an auto message that posts to any editor who adds {{tl\|rescue}} that prods them to try improving the article themselves and points them to some ideas about and resources for rescuing. This may in effect help them help themselves.

	I think it would be helpful to concurrently develop a subpage with some steps that ARS has found useful in improving articles (finding sources, better writing, appropriate categories, etc.) finding those with more experience in the subject (finding wikiprojects or editors that may know more in a given field) and how to respond to concerns raised at AfD (these seem to exist already so we could simply summarize and link. The target audience is newbies et al who may not get wikipedia's policies and now feel "their article" is being picked on. We offer some welcoming advice and a more neutral stance that all articles have the same requirements but perhaps some work and research may help the article they have rise to the standards. Our preliminary research noted above and elsewhere shows that a lot a wobbly article are created by newbies so i think this may help. If nothing else it installs a reasonable and friendly message on their talkpage - perhaps the first one they've gotten - that clearly sets forth that articles that don't come up to standards are deleted. As part of that message we could encourage them to draft their next article and ask for more eyes ''before'' launching it. In this way I think we might help slow down repeat frustration on all fronts and may help conserve community resources. Does that sound like a promising concept? ] 02:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

	* A Nobody had a similar ] that may be helpful for soem of the resources, also ] seems a good resource. ] 02:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
	**And when he returns from "break", and if we can keep him focused (chuckle), Ikip had some terrific help pages for new editors that would serve very well for those being advised how best to affect a rescue. ''']''' '']'' 09:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
	***Ikip is around now. I agree that specific help pages dealing with the deletion process would be nice. I think a large part of it, though, is that there is no punishment for overly aggressive people who nominate weak pages left and right, even article stubs that were ]. It's frustrating dealing with such aggressive deletionists; if they fail consensus on AfD, they don't actually lose anything and will simply try again later. Deletionism is a widely accepted philosophy, so they can't be accused of acting in bad faith either. -<span style="font:bold 10px Verdana;display:inline;border:#000066 1px solid;background-color:#ECF1F7;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span><sup>]</sup> 05:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::I already wrote ] which helps new editors with arguing policies, anyone is welcome to edit and expand that page.
	::::I also regularly post messages to new editors with promosing articles, for example: ]
	::::I remember Ben said that we need some way to review all of the articles which are put up for deletion. That is what I try to do everyday. I would like to create a ] which takes all of the articles on ] and then compares them to goolge news (archive) and google books. But thus far this has been difficult to program. ] (]) 15:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
	I'd personally find an auto message very annoying. Anyone doing a lot of rescue work would get a lot of spam. The constructive recommended steps for article development are a great idea, however. <font color="404040">]</font> 16:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::I agree with skom, there would have to be an opt out option. ] (]) 17:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

	::::::Personally, I'd rather not have an opt out for a couple of reasons. We can condense the content into drop-down format - "Click here for details" - thus mitigating issues of talkpage space. If someone gets ten in a row it still won't be ''that'' horrid. This bot is to present any up-to-date resources so even if someone didn't want one currently they easily may in the future but reality is that people opt out and rarely re-opt back in. I also see this as helping note if the tag is being "abused", that is if someone is misapplying the tag and they get multiple messages at least we'll have a record of that without having to investigate each AfD to confirm. In short the hassle of getting multiple messages can be somewhat addressed and the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. ] 22:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

	== A discussion of interest. ==

	{{cquote\|Be aware of ] and only delete an article when another measure (e.g., merging) is not appropriate.}}

	] In this, I argue that even when an AfD outcome by numbers is delete, administrators should be expected to close a discussion as merge when a reasonable merger target has been identified. That is, when we bust our butts making something verifiable and reliably sourced and enough people still think (or thought once and then never revisited the article after our improvements) it's not notable, the content we've added/improved can be expected to go to a reasonable merge target. ] (]) 19:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
	:great idea, but based on my experience at the deletion pages, I already know what the response will be, before I click on your link.
	:But hey, if the AfD can be increased to 7 days anything is possible, right? ] (]) 23:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

	:It was suggested to take this to ]. Do you have plans to rewrite and do so? ] 18:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
	::No immediate plans, no. One can only deal with so many controversies at once, I'm afraid. ] (]) 06:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

	:::Should we back-burner this for future AfD proposals or archive. ] 02:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

	==Poll: Do you support a bot which informs major contributors of an AFD? ==
	{{hat\|Collapsing for navigation. There does seem to be overwhelming support for this proposal.}}
	*'''How many people believe we need a bot that does the following:'''

	Bot sends an editor out an automatic message that an article which an editor has previously contributed to is up for deletion, and link to where to find the AFD at. This is done by:

	#The bot reads the ] a couple times each day, and adds any new AFD to an AfD list.
	#The bot goes to each article's page, checks through the edit history, listing which editors did the most contributions (<span class="plainlinks">, </span>), and the amount of contributions to the article, and/or the number of edits to it, adds them to a list to be contacted. Exact number to be determined later.
	# Makes certain the person has not signed up for any, ], removes names from the contact list as appropriate. The bot message also has a link to where to sign up to not get any more messages, if for whatever reason, an editor doesn't want these messages.

	*'''Support''' Its not possible to have every article you worked on and care about on a watchlist, since it'd be so filled up each day from constant edits, you wouldn't be able to sort through it. If anyone spent the time and effort contributing significantly to an article, they surely want to know their work is up for deletion, and work at finding a solution to fix whatever might be wrong with it. ]''' 17:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' brilliant idea, if it is possible, have you ask on ] if this is possible? I off and on contact new editors by hand who have their articles up for deletion. This could be expanded to other contributors. ] (]) 17:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
	*'''Support''', does not look like a bad thing at all and may resolve several AfD related problems. --<small>''Avant-garde a clue''</small>-'''<font color="#000000">]</font><font color="#FF0000">]</font><sup><font color="#FFFF00">]</font></sup>''' 17:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' - couldn't hurt, although <s>an article</s> articles with various tags on <s>it</s> them should be worked on before someone catches them and nominates them for deletion. <b>]</b> ] 18:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
	*'''Does not concern the ARS''' - this has little bearing on the tasks of our article editing suicide squad, so I take no position. --]<font color="black">]</font><font color="green">]</font> 18:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
	**Sounds like an offer of resignation after the ''James Burns orchestra'' is no more... --<small>''Avant-garde a clue''</small>-'''<font color="#000000">]</font><font color="#FF0000">]</font><sup><font color="#FFFF00">]</font></sup>''' 22:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
	**Sounds entirely relevant to the ARS, as it would have the effect of bringing more editors to the AFD who would !vote keep. Isn't that what you do? ] (]) 13:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
	*'''Not related to the function or goal of ARS''' But go right ahead. Enough of this sort of thing and people will come to realize that ARS isn't about rescue. ] (]) 21:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
	**ARS is not related to AFD at all? I'm happy someone pointed this out... --<small>''Avant-garde a clue''</small>-'''<font color="#000000">]</font><font color="#FF0000">]</font><sup><font color="#FFFF00">]</font></sup>''' 22:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
	*'''Comment, query''' I would think there would be huge problems coding this, the main problem being who the bot will identify as a major or significant contributor. Often the biggest changes in terms of bytes, text added or deleted are vandals. Number of edits to an article is also problematic, although I suppose that you could take the number of edits to be evidence of an interest in the article. What is the aim of this bot though, and how does it benefit the project? <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30; padding: 3px;">]</span><sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">].</sub> 22:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
	::I agree that this is a huge, maybe insurmountable obstacle. Maybe start with an automatic notice to the creator? ] (]) 01:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
	*'''"Why not?" support''' Agree with the others that this isn't really an ARS-centric topic, but I don't see why every article (even the ones I would never try and rescue) shouldn't get this sort of notification. ] (]) 01:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''. This needs some clarification as number of edits and volume of content (added or deleted) does not always equal quality but this is certainly do-able. I suggest the template employed be compacted as likely some editors will get multiples and have a show/hide section - for newbies - that includes content on what AfD is as hints for participating as well as rescue mantras of adding sourcing and demonstarting notability. Articles tagged with {{tl\|rescue}} could serve as a testing ground. ] 10:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
	*'''support''' No such bot will be perfect, but it's better than relying on manual notification. I point out that major contributors is not a biased group, as it will include those who are quite dissatisfied with the article.
	*'''Support''' - What Jclemens said. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 21:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
	*'''Strong support''' as those who are actually knowledgeable about the topic under discussion and willing to work on it should be heard. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 01:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
	*:...are you suggesting that they be solicited directly to the AFD to comment, or encouraged to improve the article and offered resources to do so? - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 01:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
	*::Same thing. They go to the AFD to see the reason someone nominated it for deletion, since that is where it'll be listed at. Discuss it there, and work on the article as necessary. ]''' 01:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
	*::They should do both; i.e. work to improve the article and note their improvements and what else they plan to do in the discussion as well. Best, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 01:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
	*:::Hm. I'm not happy with that for a reason I can't place my finger on, but your argument is so convincing that I can't currently refute it. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 02:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
	*'''Support.''' Looks like an effective way to improve the AfD process by making it more likely that editors familiar with the articles will enter comments. No significant downside as far as I can tell. --] (]) 01:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' surprised it doesn't exist yet ] (]) 03:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' anything that helps save valuable articles cant be bad. ] (]) 12:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
	*My reservations aside, whoever proposes this wherever it ends up being proposed should probably find out why notifying all editors of an article up for deletion is up at ] as a routinely rejected and re-proposed proposal. There's no links to any discussions or history for that, though. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 12:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
	**It states the answer right there: ''Excessive bureaucracy; people are expected to keep pages important to them on their watchlist. The "first creator" is meaningless for many articles, as this person may have long since left or made few contributions; "everybody" can number several hundred people, including those who have made trivial edits to the article and aren't concerned whether or not it's deleted.'' This is somewhat addressed by my comment - ''This needs some clarification as number of edits and volume of content (added or deleted) does not always equal quality'' - part of the bot set-up will have to be a reality check within reason, like editors who've touched the article in the last six months and aren't bots and aren't minor edits. This still isn't foolproof but the goal is to get those who are keen on the content existing to help demonstrate sourcing or if a merge is to happen, the best target, etc. ] 18:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::The difference between past perrinial proposals, requiring the nominator for deletion to contact the creator, and this one, is that a bot will notify editors.
	:::Currently any editor can find who created an article by adding the name to this link (with _ or + for spaces):
	::::<nowiki>http://en</nowiki>.wikipedia.org/search/?title='''NAME'''&dir=prev&action=history&limit=1
	:::For example:
	::::http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Article+Rescue+Squadron&dir=prev&action=history&limit=1
	:::I say we find someone to create the bot, such as the editor who made the WP:ARS bot, and ask them to make it, then we get approval to use it on the bot page.] (]) 14:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
	*Qualified '''Support''', I agree with Dream Focus that it's not possible to have every article you worked on and care about on a watchlist, and the general sentiment that AfD should prompt concerned editors to make improvements or repairs. But I don't think it is practical to work out which editors once cherished an article vs. those who merely touched it, and I don't think this distinction is necessary anyway. When an article enters AfD, why not just generate a watchlist event for everyone who has ever edited it or commented on its talk page? There could be a "Hide automatic AfD notification" command on the watchlist page for editors who don't want to know. If some new page creators get a load of messages, well, that's valuable feedback, isn't it? - ] (]) 22:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' as a bot will be both neutral and impartial... neither deletionist nor inclusionist... just buzzing along doing its job. ''']''' '']'' 01:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

	===Bot has already been made and approved===
	<big>'''Found it: ]'''</big>

	"This bot will automatically notify article authors when "their" article is up for deletion in an Article for Deletion discussion."

	:] bot created and approved in January 2007.

	:More details: ] <!--User may have a copy of the program: User_talk:Jayden54#AFD_program-->

	:Opt out coding: ]

	:Currently not active, Bot was deactivated by the request of the creator, because he was "taking a very long wiki-break"

	:Author talking about a speedy deletion bot.

	:"I haven't given out the source code for the AfD task" So no one has the coding for this bot.

	{\| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"
	!align="left" width="700"\| Past comments on this same idea, other bots
	\|-
	\|Bot requests page:
	:] "bot could automatically notify the talk pages of Wikiprojects that are associated with articles that have been nominated at AfD that the article has been nominated"
	:01:11, 27 November 2006: ], created Jayden54Bot
	:Our suggestion (short): ], <s>]</s>

	09:26, 29 September 2007:
	:]
	:Our deletion process would suck less if http://wikidashboard.parc.com/ was used to identify the main contributors of an article put up for deletion and they were notified. WAS 4.250 09:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

	:...It is altogether absurd that creators of articles are not notified. Unlike speedy, many if not most articles that come here have long histories, and it's difficult to program a bot with the intelligence necessary to notice whom the main contributors are -- and this is really the only reason against having it totally automatic. I however do not see why a first step could not be made by having a bot that notifies at least the original creator. Even if it was 3 years ago and the person is no longer around, no harm would be done. I've never learned how to program these--any volunteers? This won't deal with the problem of notifying all significant contributors, but that can be discussed a little later on. DGG (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
	::A bot that notifies the creator, at worst, wouldn't do any harm. I'd support that. Randomran (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

	;Other bots

	] <!--] "This bot is NOT a direct clone of my bot, because Cocoaguy is not using my source code " Jayden54

	Bot text is at ].-->
	\|}
	] (]) 06:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
	===Motion to close bot discussion===
	Seems there is overwhelming support to try this and various past bots have also been created along these lines. Obviously this may have to wait a bit but I'd like to close and compact this one as it seems to have winded down a bit. If no one else wants to address this i will but it will have to wait a few.

	*'''Support''' as nom. ] 02:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

	== Most abused acronyms in an AfD ==
	I have thought a lot about this list, and am finally putting it down in print, what would you add to this list and why? Is my numbering correct?

	# ] ] "Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information". This section names: "Plot summaries" "Lyrics databases" "Statistics" and "News reports", but editors often quote it for any list.
	# ] and ] "People notable only for one event". Used for any event, no matter how signifigant.
	] (]) 20:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
	:Yeah, for ], see to ]. :-) ] (]) 21:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
	::Lovely. After it'd been discussed elsewhere and in place for several days, one post here and it gets reverted without meaningful comment within 10 minutes of this post. ] (]) 21:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
	:::That's not a closely watched page. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 23:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
	::::No, but I would presume that ] is both more relevant and more closely watched than here, which is where the discussion actually took place. Something's wrong if describing a new consensus on an unrelated page immediately results in a reversion without discussion. ] (]) 05:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
	:::::Eh. It was reverted by Fritzpoll, who barely edited in the intervening two days. Plus, FP is active on BLP topics, but to my knowledge has never edited this talk page. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 12:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
	::None of those are acronyms except for BLP1E, hehe.
	::On a more serious note, cruft is almost always used exactly the way it means, but bear in mind that if you're arguing that the level of detail is excessive you're going to ''at least'' be able to justify that claim if challenged. If not, well, making conclusions you can't support is blowing hot air.
	::As for ], be very careful about this, but you can almost always rewrite the article, disposing of the affectation of a biography. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 23:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
	:::Thinking about it, and after AMIB comments, I removed ] and ]. I still think that ] is really abused though...] (]) 23:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
	::::AMiB, if you're going to be pedantic, BLP1E isn't an acronym either. It's an initialism. Ha! ] 09:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
	:::::Ack! Hoist by my own petard. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 10:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
	::::::1Es the one I encounter most frequently. They use all sorts, Some seem to grasp at the first policy that comes into their heads. When you look at the wording its clearly inapplicable , and it can be so obvious you feel almost like you’re insulting them to point it out. Grrrrrr! ] (]) 13:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::You mean: ]? ] (]) 13:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::Yep thats the one. I dont yet have a seasoned ARS campaigners precision of expression :-) ] (]) 14:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

	: The sad fact is that all Wikipedians use these initialisms as a crutch, some much more than others. My advice is to always be able to explain the policy or guideline ''in your own words'' before you use it, so that if challenged you can successfully defend its relevance. (And this might be a way to discourage their abuse -- get the other party to explain how a given acronym/initialism applies.) -- ] (]) 16:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
	::I have been toying with a way of making templates, that instead of typing ], you would type: <nowiki>{{WP:BLP1E}}</nowiki> and the name of the policy would be listed fully, with a link to the page. ] (]) 16:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::I'm not sure where I turned it on but my browser does that for me. If I mouse over any internal link, it shows me the first few lines (including the full title) or the page the link points to. It's very useful. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 17:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

	* '''Question'''. Is this all regarding the common outcomes page or something else? ] 00:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
	::It is not regarding the common outcomes page. I just posted my ideas, and Jclemens then mentioned the outcomes page. ] (]) 00:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

	*] (not an acronym) is often cited as a blanket policy to justify any article, despite saying "'''This policy is not a free pass for inclusion:''' articles must still abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the ]" <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30; padding: 3px;">]</span><sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">].</sub> 08:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
	*On ], while that section names a few examples, the page does point out earlier that "he examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive; see ]". Just because it's not specifically mentioned doesn't mean it's indiscriminate, although some analysis of what is and isn't indiscriminate is overdue. ] (]) 13:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

	*'''Comment'''. This seems somewhat useful info but I'm unsure where it could be directed to? Arguments to avoid or ? ] 10:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
	*How about ]? ] (]) 08:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

	==Why?==
	Back to the original question. In the above 50 pages, I count only three reasons editors gave that ARS should not appreciate all of the benefits and priveleges of a wikiproject.

	# Articles for deletion in other subject spaces (i.e. the real WikiProjects) are posted on the respective WikiProject pages because editors who are part of that project theoretically have knowledge of the subject matter, and thus are more qualified than most to judge it...This is manifestly untrue of this page.
	# I can only speak for the Comics Wikiproject, and there neutral reminders (X is up for deletion) are accepted, "come and keep X" isn't...I can assure you that I would react against canvassing on the Comics talk page the same as I do here.
	# We are not a wikiproject

	#Response one: ]
	#Response two: Has anyone here ever done the same thing as answer #2 has said? The editor says he ''would'' do this, but has anyone? I see "come and keep x" a lot in other wikiprojects, without a signal word of criticism. I am sure there is some criticism somewhere, for example if a inclusionist editor posts on a deletionist leaning wikiproject. But it isn't widespread. Would editors be happy if we refactored request to help to be more neutral?
	# Response three: the only difference is we are not a wikiproject in name.
	] (]) 12:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

	:Re 2: You might want to have a look at ]. It has many AfD notifications, which typically lead to project members outnumbering the other AfD participants. The difference is that for WP:MATH members the questions are normally: "What is it? Where can we find out more? Is it notable?" As a result, the project members are often divided, but often ''seem'' to block vote one way or the other. Sometimes this does lead to suspicion and accusations similar to those which this project faces. --] (]) 13:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	:Because Wikiprojects can be created or destroyed rather easily. The ARS should not be a Wikiproject, and to the extent that it "behaves" like a Wikiproject, those behaviours should be ended. The cameraderie (which is pretty minimal, anyways) or shared sense of identity makes ARS a target of people who want to say "See? Look, rabid inclusionists!"--becoming a clique of that sort only damages ARS. ARS should be viewed as an institution like MedCab or 3O, where everyone comes to find the AfD's that could use specific improvements, generally sourcing. ] (]) 17:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	* '''Comment by Randomran''': I don't think we're going to resolve this here, because I haven't really seen much indication that you'll take advice from anyone who disagrees with you, even other people who identify as inclusionists. But the difference between ARS and other WikiProjects is that ARS has always had a special status. When it was created, there were worries that it would become nothing more than an inclusionist lobby group. But that was -- across the inclusion spectrum by the way -- who pointed out two reasons why ARS was not an inclusionist lobby group:
	*# The project was confined in scope to improving articles tagged for deletion. (Which everyone agreed with.)
	*# The memberlist is not dominantly inclusionist. (Which a majority of people agreed with.)
	:: On occasion the group spent more time talking at AFD than improving articles. But this was rare enough to be tolerable, and the closing admin could usually ignore the "well-researched, well-verified" !votes when they saw an article with nothing more than primary and self-published sources. This was a small inconvenience considering that ARS was able to save dozens of articles on their merits. Most people across the inclusion spectrum celebrated ARS, and even deletionists had to accept that when an article improved.
	:: ARS has fundamentally changed in two ways. . The second is that the group has been linking to other discussions that don't involve specific articles up for deletion, at a rate that is impossible to ignore. Now, it's impossible to undo the inclusionist recruitment drive, which itself is problematic. But even then, the drama would probably go away if ARS volunterily kept its original scope of tagging articles up for AFD, and improving them, and even participating in AFDs to the extent that they understand that it's not a vote. But when it starts to trickle into policy discussions, joining in discussions at other WikiProjects, or other centralized discussions that aren't about an article up for deletion, you can understand how this undermines the good will that ARS previously enjoyed. If you can't, then I think the only answer is to construct an RFC where we limit input to people who aren't tight with ARS, ikip, or AMiB for that matter. (Being in the middle, I have no friends, but I'd step aside too.) ] (]) 18:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::First, as you wrote on my talk page:
	::::"I just want to chime in here and say we need to be able to discuss this without accusing each other of bad faith." (although I never used the term "bad faith")
	:::I would appreciate if you strike:
	::::"I don't think we're going to resolve this here, because I haven't really seen much indication that you'll take advice from anyone who disagrees with you, even other people who identify as inclusionists."
	:::One, this is not the case (see next point for example), and two, we need to be able to discuss this without accusing each other of bad faith. I think we can agree that such comments are not helpful.
	:::Second, I removed any mention of another editor's behavior, even going so far as refactoring out the comments, because of a suggestion of other editors. I would appreciate the same courtesy .
	:::Third, RE: "Being in the middle, I have no friends, but I'd step aside too"
	:::I don't blame you for saying you are neutral, it makes your credibilty stronger to truly uninvoled editors.
	:::WP:FICT was a project which Radorman was heavily involved with and supported. During the WP:FICT WP:RFC I notified several article talk pages that their was a RFC, with a neutral message. I took the unprecendented step of getting pre-approval from two admins before posting the message. WP:FICT had a direct effect on 25% of wikipedia, it would have deleted or merged thousands of articles. Ultimately WP:FICT failed for the third time.
	:::Randorman, your comments here and on my talk page remind me of this ] all over again. ] (]) 17:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::Just curious - Ikip, what does "lessen the scope of Nobility" mean?
	::::<small>later</small>Oh, you've deleted it already. It's here:
	::::Just wondering what exactly you're implying re Randomran and, more importantly, why it would have any bearing on '''this''' discussion. <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30; padding: 3px;">]</span><sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">].</sub> 19:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::Um, a little disengous Pablomismo, I decided this was not relevant, and removed it on 18:52, 10 May 2009.
	:::::You post 22 minutes later at 19:14, 10 May 2009, when the sentence was long gone. At 19:41, 10 May 2009 you post the "later" comment. ] (]) 03:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::: ikip, you need to stop accusing me of acting in bad faith. This is about the function of ARS. For the record, you misstate my view on notability, because I've tried to reduce it, expand it, and keep it the same at different times on different issues. You also misstate my role at WP:FICT, where I spent most of my time mediatinng between inclusionists and deletionists ''because'' I support reducing the scope of notability in specific cases, such as fiction. But most of all, bringing it up is completely irrelevant. I'd feel the exact same way if AMiB contacted 200 deletionists to join some Misplaced Pages space, and then other people started linking to various policy discussions. Not that it's an act in bad faith, but it's an act that at best will accidentally disrupt Misplaced Pages and turn it into a battleground. I don't want to see either side "arming up", and the truth is that if ARS is allowed to do this, it won't be long before the other side arms up too. Then we'll never get anywhere.
	:::::: The same is true if you try to make this about peoples' views of inclusion or deletion. We'll never get anywhere. You have other inclusionists who are telling you that it would be better if ARS focused on just articles, and you have deletionists who say to let this go. This is a legitimate area of disagreement. An indepenent RFC will allow us to settle the issue, without getting into the heated and accusatory stuff that other editors were throwing at you. This isn't about your viewpoint, my viewpoint, or even whether anyone broke any rules. It's about the appropriate role of ARS, knowing that the recruitment is what it is. ] (]) 06:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::Ikip, you are absolutely right; by the time I had read the lengthy Rfc that you linked you had already deleted that comment, and I didn't notice it was gone. I don't think that you could call that ], however (well ''you'' could, but I wouldn't). <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30; padding: 3px;">]</span><sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">].</sub> 08:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::Randomran, if you keep saying something long enough will people start believing it? I never accused you of bad faith. You stated that you wanted to explore the history of this page, well, our history and how you came here is part of how others can understand the full situation. Explain this is not bad faith. Bad faith is accusing an editor of this. It troubles me when this is a case of hyprocricy and attempts at censorship. ] (]) 22:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::: Ikip, you used words like "hypocrisy" and "conflict of interest". You examined my claim that I'm neither an inclusionist (like you) or deletionist (like AMiB), and offered false statements that I supported a proposal to delete more fiction articles than are currently deleted under the ]. I keep trying to talk about the appropriateness of certain recruiting-and-discussion tactics -- regardless of whether these tactics are employed by deletionists or inclusionists -- and you keep suggesting that this is secretly an effort to target your content viewpoint. To me, that seems like you're accusing a lot of people of bad faith. But maybe we're just on the wrong foot, and need to get back on the right one.
	:::::::::# Is the pending RFC totally hypocritical, or do some people believe in good faith that the scope of ARS is unique and fundamentally different from a WikiProject?
	:::::::::# Is the pending RFC about whether selective-recruitment followed by discussion-linking should be stopped, or is it secretly an effort to hamstring people based on their views of article content?
	::::::::: There are answers to both questions that assume good faith, and there are answers that don't. If you want to, you can clear that up right now. ] (]) 23:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::::I don't really appreciate this thrown-to-the-wolves nonsense. There is not a spectrum of "inclusionism" and "deletionism" on which I am one end. About the only bold position I've struck is on campaigning in contentious discussions. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 05:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::::: No wolves. I'm just pointing out you and I have clashed based on content viewpoint too, and your content standards are stricter than mine. That is, I'm not aligned with either you or ikip. This is a situation where I share ''some'' of your criticisms about behavior, though, and think we can address it without being accusatory or harsh. ] (]) 16:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
	I probably am not the most welcome person to sound off on this, but I'm going to anyway. The main problem in perception that the ARS has is not that it doesn't enjoy the benefits and privileges of other Wikiprojects, but that in fact it has one that others do not. As far as I'm aware, ARS is the only Wikiproject whose tag goes on the article page rather than the talk page. While it may not functionally make much difference, as it is likely to get categorized anyway, more than anything else this is your big problem with the perception that you're simply "rabid inclusionists". --]]] 20:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	*It also has an unlimited scope. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 21:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	*Counterexample: ]. All of the various cleanup-XYZ templates go on articles. But where the template goes is not the issue at hand, nor even one that has been brought up as a factor. (The template isn't even central to rescuing articles. I have two articles currently in mind for rescue that weren't, with one still not being, tagged with the template at all.) The issue at hand is that because of some editors who want a battleground, ARS is being turned into one, and being an ARS "member" is diverging from being someone who actually rescues articles, to the extent that the battlegrounders are now actively ''attempting to drive away'' from the ARS people whose focus is working on articles. ] (]) 01:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
	:*Likewise, I recently helped rescue one article as a merge, another as a cleanup and ''not'' commenting at the AfD, and an image (let's not go there yet!), none of which were tagged for Rescue. Tagging articles helps "rally the troops", but isn't one hundred per cent necessary, nor is a lot of the back and forth we've been experiencing lately. We're most effective when we're lurking at AfD'd articles. <b>]</b> ] 17:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
	:* Another counter-example is the ] project. There's no case to answer here. ] (]) 08:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

	==Proposal to survey recently closed AFD's that employed the {{tl\|rescue}} tag==
	In an effort toward constructive solutions, ''appropriate for any Wikiproject'', I propose we undertake a survey of recently closed AFD's that employed the {{tl\|rescue}} tag to specifically look for "empty" !votes. The AfD's themselves could have had any end result and the votes themselves only have to be ]. All those identified (no regard to being ARS affiliated or not) as casting these types of votes get a friendly NPOV note regarding the futility in those activities. No pillory needed, just positive and constructive criticism that woud certianly benefit all concerned. If approved in theory, specifics would be metted out based on if bots or hand counting methods were used.

	:''Note: '''Please''' keep comments concise and on point.''

	* '''Support''' as nom. ] 19:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	* '''Support'''. This should provide a useful pointer of what is ''actually'' happening at Afd rather than relying on subjective perceptions. (I'd actually be in favour of a survey of the "!vote quality" <small>for want of a better term</small> across '''all''' Afds, but that should be run at a different level.) <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30; padding: 3px;">]</span><sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">].</sub> 19:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	* '''Support''': this is a decent idea. It will show where ARS is effective, and show areas where ARS can improve its effectiveness. It may be hard since many articles tagged for rescue are ultimately deleted, though. ] (]) 19:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	*You would have to also look to see how in the discussions actually edited the articles as well, though, no? And how can you do that without undeleting the articles? Best, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 19:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	**Actually I think we are ''only'' looking at quality of !votes on the AfD; if someone edited the article in some way is also not the issue on this proposal - just poorly casted !votes. ] 19:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	***Also, I would hope such a thing works both way, i.e. it is not just about ARS members saying to "keep" but also those who say "delete as cruft" and the like who have no mainspace edits to the articles or show no sign of looking for sources. Sometimes I notice trends like what I reported , but other times we don't always pick up on the indiscriminate copy and paste "delete per noms" that are basically "delete all articles on fictional characters" or "delete all articles on bilateral relations", without considering their individual merits. Even I will argued to delete some fictional character articles, as at ], just as I am willing to argue to delete rescue templated articles as well, as at ]. It's the indiscriminate approach that is a concern. Just because an article is rescue templated doesn't mean it can be rescue and at the same time, just because it's on bilateral relations or about a fictional elements doesn't mean it can't be rescue as well. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 19:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	****Hey now, I called ] on the nominator days earlier for ]... I suppose it just took them doing something a little more widespread before becoming worthy of even more AN/I attention ;) ] (]) 02:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
	***Absolutely, it should highlight '''all''' empty !votes. <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30; padding: 3px;">]</span><sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">].</sub> 19:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	**An administrator can look at deleted articles and their edit histories, if that was necessary. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 21:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	*<s>'''weak oppose to oppose'''</s> The suggestion is not appropriate to discussions on curbing the effectiveness of ARS. ] (]) 20:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	::Changed to support. ] (]) 12:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
	**''One'' of the perceived canvassing issues is that the {{tl\|rescue}} tag attracts poor !votes. This would help address the issue but do so neutrally. Neither targeting nor excluding any editors but simply on improving the atmosphere at AfDs. ] 21:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	***Who's to say that the AFD template itself doesn't attract weak "votes"? We have, after all, had "arguments to avoid" to style votes long before the ARS and certainly in AfDs in which the ARS is not involved. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 21:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	***That's true, and arguments to avoid are regularly bandied about at Afd. But I think the intention here is to find empirical evidence of whether adding the {{tl\|rescue}} tag encourages null !votes. <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30; padding: 3px;">]</span><sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">].</sub> 21:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	****I wonder if it encourages some to make bogus delete "votes" as I have seen a few times now where someone makes a joke about it being tagged for rescue in a delete "vote" that doesn't really seem to focus on the actual article itself. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 21:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	*****But no other wikiproject has to go through such scrutinty. We should include WP:VG, for example in this study, and maybe one other, say warhammer. ] (]) 22:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	******Or better yet, as I have said many times on this page, use our time toward rescuing articles... Best, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 22:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	* '''Comment''' Permission is not required for this. Per ], if you think this is a good idea then go for it. ] (]) 21:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	**Indeed. This is less a "get permission" issue than a "find someone to bell the cat" one. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 21:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	***I was looking to find constructive solutions and work toward finding common ground. If we find a bot way of doing this as well that may be useful for a wider scope. ] 01:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
	****Bots that analyze (as opposed to bots that do things) don't need any special permission, I believe. Someone just needs to do this, if they want it done. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 03:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose.''' This would say nothing about vote-stacking, nothing about this project, and would just disenfranchise the opinion of people who haven't realised that they're required to state the bleeding obvious in order to ''not'' be disenfranchised. ] (]) 02:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
	**'''Huh?''' ] (]) 02:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
	*'''Support with Modifications''' In order for a comparison to be valid, it would be better to include not just "rescue" tagged AfD's, but a much broader selection of AfD's. Only then can one see if the tag attracts more improvements than "empty" votes. Note that I do would like to see "keep per improvement" and "keep per sourcing found" votes called out separately. I call them substantial votes, but realize that others might not. ] (]) 02:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
	*'''Wrong focus''' Of more interest is the extent to which the articles have changed while the rescue template is up. Of course this can only be conducted on articles that are kept. And of course either study can be conducted by any editor willing to put in the work. ] (]) 17:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
	** I think this is an interesting question too. Either would be illuminating. ] (]) 07:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

	*'''Comment'''. I'm not looking to do a big ol' comparison per se but just identify empty !voters who may also be ARS members (official or not) who should be coached to improve. For neutrality all empty !voters should be contacted with the same message. The stated concern is empty "keep" !votes associated with ARS. If those are stopped then that's a step in the right direction, right? And if we also help stop other empty votes then even better. In thinking on this further I'm not sure a bot would be able to determine all this so it may have to be the human bots instead. or perhaps an initial survey to see what the empty !votes are and extrapolate those findings for a bot. ] 01:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
	** Yeah, I think it's important to recognize that the worst thing that happens is we find a few specific instances where articles aren't being improved. That's information that we can use to teach some members of ARS to be as effective as . If people do a better job of improving articles, aren't we helping ARS achieve its purpose, and ultimately Misplaced Pages's? ] (]) 07:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
	***This survey wouldn't address that, only empty !votes at AfD. And the hall of fame list is majorly outdated; we've had hundreds of rescues since then but no clear idea how best to capture that and strycture the chart to express that. ] 03:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
	**** Err, I think that's what I meant. We'll find a few instances of empty !votes. That's just a way to help people make more effective arguments, and contribute to improving the article in ways that will help rescue, and help Misplaced Pages. There's really no downside, assuming a few other editors have the time and energy to do the analysis. ] (]) 04:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' - I support but only because I can't think of a better word. It sounds like a great idea and I hope that it gets completed but I don't really have any interest in participating. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 03:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
	*'''Strong support''', excellent idea. ] (]) 08:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
	*'''Strong Support''' to survey all empty !votes, as they are sadly just as likely to be found in terse delete opinions as they might in terse keeps. I recently worked on an article that was nommed as an unreleased future film that failed Crystal. The first several !votes were all delete as crystal, or delte as unreleased, etc... following in the footsteps of the nom. I spent 5 minutes in deiligent search and found that the film had not only been released the year previous, but that it had won several festival awards and received significant coverage. My squawking about poor ] starts to sound like bad faith in what would be hoped is a good faith nomination, but I have seen this happen far too many times. Its beyond frustrating. There has to be some way to curtail continued lack of or sloppy use of BEFORE, or lack of consideration of ], ], or following the instructions at ]. If this survey helps underscore poor !votes and results in suggested solutions, I am all for looking into the situation and I'd like this survey to have a wider scope. Time to open wiki-school and wiki refresher courses. ''']''' '']'' 06:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

	== Contest 2? ==

	See ]. What a splendid idea! Why not start a ] (after all it has been four years since the first, so in the spirit of the olympics...)? Let's focus on something that is simultaneously fun, rewarding, and constructive! Not opposed to ] or ] or something as an alternative name. Best, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 07:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
	: Sounds like a good idea to me. How would it work? ] (]) 07:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
	::Well, I suppose like the first one, no? I can tell from such discussions as ] (with rescue credit due mostly to Collectonian, I think?) and ] (well, I think I deserve the lionshare of credit on this one! :)) that editors do have a motivation to rescue the rescue templated articles, so I do not see why they would not be interested in such a thing as an added incentive and good spirited competition. Best, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 07:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
	::: I looked over the first one, and I guess I wasn't clear on everything. Would we start rescuing articles on some certain date and keep track of our efforts over a few weeks, or would editors begin submitting articles they've rescued over the years to see which ones are the most improved? ] (]) 07:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::I like to see things as moving forward, so rather than focus on ones rescued in the past for which we can already claim say the little life preservers I have on the top of my talk page, let's focus on ones currently under discussion or that will be and yes, we can set some target date. The ARS was founded on July 13th, so it can be an anniversary event say between now and then. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 07:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::: Sounds good. I think a race to see who can do the most or the fastest is always fun. But it may also be fun to see if people can take at-risk articles to GA or even FA status. It's very satisfying when you turn someone else's garbage into Misplaced Pages's treasure. There's a lot of different ways to approach a contest. But even though it's a competition, it's probably best to think of a format that will maximize the benefit for Misplaced Pages and its overall spirit of collaboration. ] (]) 07:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::First, let's agree on the name, i.e. which redlink to make blue above and then I will gladly began drafting the contest. As the proposer here, I would see my own role being as helping draft the proposal and just helping out on all the various articles rather than being a judge or contestant, although I would rather have a simple say 6 day vote open to all ARS members than a judgement deal. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 07:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::: Any of those would be a good idea. Let's get some feedback from the others. ] (]) 15:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::Sounds good. There is/was? something called a bounty board as well on here, maybe a rescue bounty board would be another motivating factor too. Best, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 17:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

	*'''Comment''' Once the current drama dies down I would support this. It may make sense to dovetail with building up our "How to rescue" page to assist newbies as well as guide non-newbies towards building GA level articles. For continuity for future use it may make sense as well to start it July 1 so it can cover half of 2009 and a new contest can cover the first half of 2010. ] 01:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
	::Will the drama ever die down? I say start the contest now A Nobody, knowing you will be doing the majority of the work. ] (]) 05:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::Gladly, but I would like us to agree on a name for it first. Thanks! Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 05:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::How about ]? Be Bold, create it, we can always rename it later. ] (]) 07:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::Okay, I have started it. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 16:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::Wow, 2 year aniversary, you are starting a annual trend ! ] (]) 17:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::Well, annual would suggest we do it every year; that first contest was I think back in 2005, no? Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 17:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::With respect I suggest starting it July 1 so the focus can be on a 6-month article improvement contest and not on ARS' anniversary. In promoting it we can advertise it as a way to mark our anniversary. Also rather than yearlong contests I wonder if two 6-month contests a year make sense to attrack those (like myself) who may not be into a year-long commitment or repel those who show up mid-year to a contest that is half-over, etc. ] 02:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::I like the anniversary date myself. Was the last contest for 6 long months? That seems to long, maybe two weeks, one month max. Otherwise people will start losing interest. ] (]) 16:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::To me the work needs to be in porportion to the benefits. I think six months is a good time period and if we want to start a new semi-annual one we simply copy paste. The goals, IMHO, is to not simply look to rescue but to instill quality work, if our top contestant rescues and takes five articles from AfD to GA that rather speaks for itself. Also a broader time frame lends itself to wider promotion in appropriate venues. As part of that promotion we should explain what ARS is in a brief boilerplate which can include our anniversary. Theoreticly, article rescuing has always occurred so it's not so much about ARS but the concept and getting better articles and editing. We are but one part of the solution and should be realistic in that many people rescue without our involvement at all. ] 00:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

	== "Article Purgatory" proposal at ] ==

			{{old move\|date=3 November 2024\|destination=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron\|result=Not moved\|link=Special:Permalink/1256800930#Requested move 3 November 2024}}
	Please see my idea/proposal at ] ] (]) 17:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
	:interesting suggestion. ] (]) 15:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

			==]==
	==Discussion to end edit-warring of including "objection statement" to ARS' FAQ==
			This article has great references and is one of the biggest music licensing and stock footage companies in the world. In addition, they are an Israeli startup. I think the article is being attacked in AFD and would like some help. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			== ] ==
	The following was removed from ARS' FAQ by an editor who has a history of objections to ARS:

			Deceased Wikipedian and member of ARS: ]. -- ]] 11:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
	# '''What if I object to what Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) is doing?'''
			: during the earliest days of ARS. His first contribution was in ] and ]. -- ]] 11:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
	#:ARS is no different from any of the hundreds of Wikiprojects in that we collaborate to improve content as a maintenance project. Our scope is not subject focussed as much as policy-focussed to determine if content adheres to Misplaced Pages's policies on sourcing and notability. Any editor committed to improving the encyclopedia is welcome to help here as well as at any of the ] representing a variety of views and interests.
			::I didn't know him, but RIP.] (]) 18:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
			:::"You got to worry about deletionists," . -- ]] 00:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

			I only just saw the sad news and came here to share but find that {{u\|GreenC}} has taken care of it. I met David when he came to London for the Wikimania in 2014 and was impressed by his enthusiasm and good nature. He gave me one of his trademark Misplaced Pages Editor caps which I wore to many editathons but it went astray at a WikiData event in Cambridge and so I need a replacement. Perhaps we should get some ARS merchandise made now? ]🐉(]) 21:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
	Any constructive suggestions to wording changes welcome otherwise I'd like to re-add as it has indeed been a source of disruption so spelling out clearly what our focus is and that other Wikiprojects exist which may be in line with someone's views seems appropriate. ] 00:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
	:See the entire proto-RFC above for objections. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 00:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
	:I can't believe that this is a question that is in any sense "frequently asked", unless it is a question that editors are asking each other via e-mail. I've never seen it asked on '''this''' page. <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30; padding: 3px;">]</span><sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">].</sub> 00:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
	::The spirit, obviously, is to address those who simply object to ARS which is sadly evident. Casting aspersions on all project members and non-objectively characterizing all members as part of some cabal. This is to help address that not everyone has to agree with what every Wikiproject does. In my experience if someone doesn't like LGBT issues they don't sit around the LGBT project talkpage harassing us. IMHO, that is what has been happenning here in many subtle forms. If any of these issues were dealt with civilly I doubt we would need such a statement but there you go. ] 00:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::It does not address. It dismisses. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 00:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::What could we add that may help ease that then - ''constructive suggestions are always welcome'' - or what? ] 01:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::How can you ease the problem? Dispose of this. "What if I object?" "Whatever your objection is, here's a statement about why this project is good and why you shouldn't have any objections." It doesn't specify any objection, it doesn't address any objection, it's a non-question. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 05:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::And on top of this, it says that this project does something it explicitly does not and should not do. It is not the place where people "determine if content adheres to Misplaced Pages's policies on sourcing and notability." This is not an article deletion thinktank. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 08:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

			== Warning, it looks like the page moving of ] broke subscription may have broken subscription to the page ==
			{{tracked\|T373543}}
			Hi,
			Just a word of warning as I just noticed that I suddenly wasn't subscribed to the rescue list at ] anymore after the recent move by @] and @].
			I'm not sure if there is anything an admin could do to bulk restore the subscriptions since the users deleted the original page? ] (]) 15:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

	::~~:::Ben~~, I ~~think~~ it ~~was~~ a ~~really~~ ~~good~~ ~~idea that~~ ~~you~~ ~~brought~~ ~~these~~ ~~discussions~~ ~~here~~. I ~~disagree~~ ~~with~~ ~~you~~ on ~~some~~ ~~things,~~ ~~but~~ ~~this~~ ~~was~~ a ~~really good call~~. ~~thanks.~~ ] (]) 02:55, 17 ~~May~~ ~~2009~~ (UTC)		:Hi @], the original page wasn't deleted par se, it's now a redirect, see {{-r\|Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list}}. I think the Topic subscription is supposed to work with page moves. – ] (]) 15:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
			::It might for talk pages, but the rescue list is a project page and hence my warning that my action bar suddenly had "Subscribe" instead of "Unsubscribe" when I navigated to it this morning. ] (]) 15:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
	::::::AMIB, you have caused a huge amount of disruption to this project, repeatedly over at least the past few months. In short this statement is to address your behaviours and anyone else following in your footsteps. Although others have come, made their peace and moved on, or been resoundly rejected in various community forums, you have stuck in my mind and that's unfortunate because it's for the worst of reasons. I look forward to the day we interact and I have to be reminded that we clashed over several months; that seems like a ways off at this point. You can continue what feels like ] but the next step is more eyes on your actions rather than what seems like an effort to in some way mitigate ARS' work. Is this a rather pointy statement? Perhaps, I hope it will curb some rather pointy behaviours. Even if you think you're right doesn't give you license to turn this project into a battleground. And yes we very much look to policies to decide what sourcing is indeed reliable; we look to policy to guide us on what subjects are indeed notable, etc. etc. ] 10:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
			:::Oh and actually, I can see that I am still subscribed to the page that is now a redirect at ] - so yeah I don't quite know what happened there, but I think it might be that project page subscriptions don't move over in a page move but are hard linked to the page title? ] (]) 15:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::Wait. So you're saying that people have come here with problems, been rebuffed, and left with nothing happening, and that's good. But I stayed to see change effected, and that's bad. This is revealing, but not in the way you think. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 03:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
			::::{{ping\|Raladic\|Ammarpad\|CFA}} I filed {{phab\|T373543}}. <span class="nowrap">--] (])</span> 16:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::Please desist from putting words in my mouth, that really seems like arguing semantics when the spirit expressed, both here and elsewhere, is that constructive criticism to any Wikiproject is fine and welcome. bullying and other incivil behaviours are not. ] 04:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
			:::::Thank you @]. – ] (]) 18:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
	: AMiB, I don't think you're going to get anywhere here. When editors start saying things like "A FAQ section is to help curb alleged problems - unclear why you would be opposed to solving the very issues you seem to be contiually alleging exist", there is a reasonable chance that they actually believe what they are saying (i.e. that dismissing all forms of criticism is a good way to solve a problem). It's good to know the Richard Nixon school of crisis management is still going strong, but ''Misplaced Pages pages shouldn't try to advertise in favour of their existence''. This just makes it even more of a "us vs. them" battleground. Ben,Trav,Michael, I think you're shooting yourself in the foot here. While you may, by acting as a group, be able to do pretty much what you like with the pages here, don't forget that when the ] comes (and we all know it will), every over the top green-e-in-the-signatures-type-thing will become an argument for your opponents. ] 09:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
	::Yandman, this really seems like back-handed compliment loaded with bad faith. The posse mounted against this Wikiproject in short is alleging there is an inclusionist cabal run amok at ARS yet the proof of such remains woefully thin and mostly absent. The few reasonable concerns as pointed out by uninvolved parties is (i) watch for ''possible'' problems when ARS is involved in non-article XfDs; (ii) notification posts to ARS need to be neutral and (iii) empty !votes should be discouraged. Guess what? Those issues have been and are being addressed. Veiled threats notwithstanding, constructive critism has hardly been dismissed. I can't think of any instance where someone's valid concerns haven't been addressed. Whether they like they answer they get may certainly be another issue. ] 10:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
	::I can't imagine how you thought this would be productive. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 23:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

			== Tentative ARS candidates from ] backlog ==
	==Discussion to end edit-warring of including "policy notification statement" to ARS' FAQ==
	The following was removed from ARS' FAQ by an editor who has a history of objections to ARS:

			These 12 pages were culled from yesterday's ]; from the moment of this writing, they may not be long for Misplaced Pages in the next how many weeks unless some action is taken. After I spent countless days ] hundreds and hundreds of articles in an ambitious, thankless one-man task--a few of which were never attended to since the early 2010s--it's time we finally discussed their chances for a change before it's too soon.
	# '''How can I get ARS to help win ''my'' policy discussion?'''
	#:First off, like articles, policies and content are not exclusively controlled by any individual(s). If you think ARS should know about a policy discussion you can post a neutral notification like "There is a discussion about ''foo'' at _____." Avoid the appearance of telling anyone how to think of the discussion - you are inviting people to participate, not to think or vote a certain way. See ] for clarification on this.

			At press time, two in the backlog--] and ], both ]s--are under scrutiny at AFD; no further comments on those. Anyway, on with the chaff we found within the wheat--listed alphabetically. (All have been tagged for {{tl\|notability}} unless otherwise noted; tag dates, and source-hunting links, are provided next to their titles.)
	Any constructive suggestions to wording changes welcome otherwise I'd like to re-add as it has indeed been a source of disruption so spelling out clearly and neutrally that policy discussion notifications need to be neutral seems appropriate. ] 00:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
	:That's not the objectionable text, and describing people as having "a history of objections to ARS" is ridiculous poisoning the well. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 00:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
	::I can't believe that this is a question that is in any sense "frequently asked", unless it is a question that editors are asking each other via e-mail. I've never seen it asked on '''this''' page. <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30; padding: 3px;">]</span><sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">].</sub> 00:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::this is a modification of my original posting, which was completly deleted by AMIB. one of the three 3RRs in the past 11 days.
	:::AMIB is starting his fourth edit war by deleting the FAQ tag. At least AMIB has not deleted the FAQ page entirely yet, with no consensus before hand, as AMIBhas with other ARS subpages he didn't like before.
	:::"a history of objections to ARS" ] ] (]) 00:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::And one of your two 3RRs in the last three days. And I could point out that you have a history of canvassing for favorable editors here and elsewhere. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 00:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::I only had 2RRs.
	:::::I think we are discussing reversions of this template. ] (]) 00:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
	*AMIB, if you descibe the text is "not objectionable", why did you persist in deleting it and related content? Hoping this is not the case, edit summaries such as might be perceived as edit warring and an assumption of bad faith. Let's discuss. ''']''' '']'' 00:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

			{{div col}}
	::A Man In Black that is the text you deleted. If you don't object to it then we can re-add it without further rehashing? Pablomismo, again this is a preventative measure to address the stated concerns that non-neutral notifications are an issue. This is a constructive solution to a problem that has been stated as a concern. If it's an easy solution then it would seem to be logical to try it. ] 00:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
			* ] (April 2023) / {{Find sources\|2023 World Seniors Darts Champion of Champions}}
	:::It's still junk. Nobody has asked this question, and the answer is lifted directly from pro #4 above. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 01:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
			* ] (June 2024; per ]--but this might survive nonetheless) / {{Find sources\|Abki Baar 400 Paar}}
	::::I didn't lift it from anywhere, FWIW, and don't appreciate it being dismissed as "junk". Again, this seems to directly address a stated concern so clearly helping prevent future occurences would seem to be a win-win situation. ] 01:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
			* ] (September 2023) / {{Find sources\|Alsace20}}
	:::::It is junk. It doesn't address a stated concern; it encourages people to do something that has been repeatedly questioned here. No, you really shouldn't be putting any notice of a policy discussion here; there are lots of noticeboards for them and this isn't one of them. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 05:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
			* ] (January 2019) / {{Find sources\|The Dream Wanderer}}
	:::You seem to be missing the point completely. ''Any'' Wikiproject can, and many are, notified of policy discussions; if you feel that should not happen then you need to address that on a system-wide basis - that no Wikiprojects can be notified of any policy discussions, no matter if it's neutral or not. Until then ARS will be treated like every other project. Your disdain for this project is well documented but finding new ways to vex us is only causing more emnity and casting further doubts on the wisdom of your participating here. You've had som ereasonable insights but coupled with the behavioural issues you're tap-dancing beyond the patience of this project. ] 10:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
			* ] (November 2021) / {{Find sources\|Nanjing Week}}
	::::There is no divine right of notification. You let a Wikiproject know about a policy discussion when it's relevant. Thing is, this project explicitly excludes policy from its scope.
			* ] (November 2022) / {{Find sources\|National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program}}
	::::As for the rest, your disdain for anyone even remotely critical of this project is well documented but going off-topic to attack people instead of issues in order to vex them is only causing more emnity and casting further doubts on the wisdom of your participation here. You've had some reasonable insights, but coupled with the behavioral issues, you're tap-dancing beyond the patience of this project. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 23:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
			* ] (February 2019) / {{Find sources\|Rountree, Springfield}}
	:::::A Man In Black, please refrain from this antagonism. Your wishes for how others should conduct themselves don't seem to be supported by community standards. Likewise your own behaviours are increasingly violating the civility policies that have been set by the community. In response to this specific idea - that ARS in any way excludes policy - you may need to re-read the one sentence that states anything about policy. ''The Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) is not about casting keep votes or making policy simply to ensure that nothing is deleted.'' This doesn't even imply that we exclude policy, if fact it implies that we concern ourselves with policy but not '''to ensure that nothing is deleted'''. You can try to trun that any way you wish but the meaning is inferred explicitly - we don't try to bend policy to prevent deletion. ] 02:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
			* ] (September 2016) / {{Find sources\|ShipSpace}}
	::::::What interest does this project have in policy, then? - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 03:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
			* ] (November 2020) / {{Find sources\|Society of Classical Poets}}
	:::::::Policies that affect any Wikiprojects work would naturally be of interest to them. I'm really not interested in further engaging you on this so I hope that's clear enough. ] 05:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
			* ] ({{tl\|local}}, April 2018) / {{Find sources\|Soroush Cinema}}
	::::::::Policies such as? - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 09:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
			* ] (February 2023) / {{Find sources\|WDC UK Matchplay}}
			* ] (October 2023) / {{Find sources\|John T. Wilson (born 1861)}}
			{{div end}}

			As an ]/], I may be a bit sorry if they end up delisted. But these topics, diverse as they may be, ''do'' matter to someone, somewhere. So as it stands, wishing those willing to save those topics good luck--and thanks to the AFC reviewers/participants alike for all your hard work. (Feel free to leave me talk-page feedback.)

			Maybe it's time I, an AFC drafter myself, took brief breaks from WP as other off-site commitments compete for my time and attention. All that grading was already overwhelming to begin with...
	::::I just don't understand. "junk" "cruft" "nuke and pave"
			----
	::::First, how do you think editors feel when you and others describe their contributions as "junk"?
			''(XPosted from ].)''
	::::Second, is a "nuke and pave" attitude towards editors' contributions compatible with rescuing articles? ] (]) 02:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::You have a real problem staying on topic. If you were here for something other than stirring up fights, you'd address what I was saying, instead of how I said it. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 05:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::I am not the person who has deleted other editors pages, or had three 3rr in the past 11 days, I have never called you a troll here. So accusing me of stirring up a fight seems like ], and much more. You are after all, calling the editors contributions "junk". Were you expecting a positive reaction? ] (]) 05:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::I eagerly await your defense of the utility of this topic. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 05:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::AMIB I eagerly await you starting to act like an adminsitrator is expected too. Don't demand editors to act a certain way when your edit history here and beyond shows that you have been less than civil and cooperative on numerous occasions.
	:::Civilized discussions don't magically develop when one editor is calling other editors' contributions "junk", starting three 3rrs in the past 3 days, deleting editors pages, etc., etc. 05:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::I eagerly await your defense of the utility of this topic. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 05:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

			--] <small>(] ])</small> 13:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

			== Requested move 3 November 2024 ==

			<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, inherit); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"><!-- Template:RM top -->
	:Let's get back "on topic". I do not myself see the text you wish deleted as "junk", as there have been reams of discussion above on this page about how some see ARS as some sort of "cabal with a mission" (not a direct quote, just an impression), and the questioned text answers a cogent question newer editors might have if they think to join ARS specifically because they beleive or wish we have some sort of trick other than hard work that saves articles. You are an experienced editor, certainly, but that FAQ is for the uninitiated, as they might have expectations that are not realistic.
			:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color: var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''
	:When they ask "'How can I get ARS to help win ''my'' policy discussion?" The answer of course is that they cannot "get" ARS to help them "win" anything, as this is not a contest. They are encouraged to improve their articles, get them properly sourced per guideline, and then hope that work is seen in a positive light at an AfD if it goes there. The FAQ answer
	::"First off, like articles, policies and content are not exclusively controlled by any individual(s). If you think ARS should know about a policy discussion you can post a neutral notification like "There is a discussion about foo at _____." Avoid the appearance of telling anyone how to think of the discussion - you are inviting people to participate, not to think or vote a certain way. See ] for clarification on this"
	:addresses a valid concern that should be addressed, and advises that neutral notification seeking input are allowed. The FAQ answer might benefit from tweaking, but educating newcomers in the proper ways to improve the project is of benefit TO the project. ''']''' '']'' 05:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
	::Then address that specifically. Tell people who are here on a mission to go elsewhere. Don't tell them to temper their message, to advertise less obnoxiously. ''If you are here to do something other than improve articles, then go away.'' There's doubtless a more diplomatic way to suggest that, but bottom line this is not a general-purpose deletion noticeboard. Politely misusing this project is less problematic but still problematic. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 05:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
	::Basically, if "This is the place to work on improving articles which are up for deletion, other business goes elsewhere" were quietly and effectively enforced, I suspect the RFC above goes away. I go back to having quiet qualms about the {{tl\|rescue}}/{{tl\|ARS/Tagged}} mechanism as a whole without having any argument sufficient to convince even myself, Ikip finds a new cause to champion (and he's got at least one more productive one on his plate), and this whole project runs a lot more smoothly. It'd just need to go smoothly and efficiently enough to keep anyone from rising to righteous defense of anyone or anything. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 06:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::Your concerns are well known however it's helpful that you remind us this is an ongoing issue of hounding Ikip. This Wikiproject is not going to cave into your intimidation and your disruption here needs to end immediately. Whatever you had to say has been repeatedly stated, responded to and in most cases refuted. Your continued presence is now disrupting us from moving forward. Time spent addressing the valid concerns is instead being spent to entertain your circular and somewhat mistaken concepts on what Wikiprojects do and how they conduct themselves. ] 05:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::Can someone give me a cookie when an ARS member actually answers the substance of a post here rather than dismissing it as 1) vindictive 2) a personal attack 3) disruptive?
	::::No seriously, I don't get why you don't make any of these changes that are being suggested. I'm rather distressed to peak here from finals hell and find that discussion of my suggestions (which were supported by Masem and PhilKnight, two users known for being even-minded and fair) was arbitrarily archived by you. If you care about the goal of this project—saving articles, which again, ''no one'' here has any objection to—I don't see why taking the steps being suggested is difficult at all. Swear off anything remotely to do with policy discussions, have people who work on rescuing an article recuse themselves from the article's AfD (after noting they made improvements), and appoint coordinators to enforce this. It's startling that so many former ARS members say that the current course of the project is ''blatantly wrong'' and that the current members apparently don't care. None of these means you can't go and argue against evil deletionists on X policy discussion; all it means is restoring this project to its original aims as a nonpartisan group. You have people here bitching about problems because ''there are problems'', not because they're all random blokes who have a beef to pick with the ARS. Again, that so many members of the ARS that were around when it was founded have a problem with the ARS' current course is indicative of a problem. Fix it. — <font face="Segoe Script">]</font> <font face="Verdana"><sup>'''(])'''</sup></font> 07:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::Sephiroth, I don't think anyone takes you seriously. You are a delitionists, someone who mindlessly tries to destroy things you don't like for whatever reason. Why are you even on this page? You naively believe you are helping the wikipedia by deleting articles that some would find interesting, which aren't hurting anyone by existing, and which no one would find unless they were searching for them to begin with. That sort of mentality is not compatible with what we are trying to do here. ]''' 22:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::This is extremely disappointing. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 22:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::What is? My pointing out that we wouldn't have to work so hard to save articles, if people like him weren't trying so hard to destroy them, and to prevent a change in the guidelines that would be fair and reasonable, to avoid most of the AFD altogether? He doesn't like episode or character pages, and votes to keep the guidelines from supporting their existence, and I've seen him in enough AFD in the manga/anime section to know he votes to delete them whenever he is around to participate. ]''' 22:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
	=== policy/FAQ ===
	Instead of having a bunch of fake "frequently asked questions", then, why not just have a statement of the scope and aims of the project? {{unsigned\|Pablomismo}} 11:05, 17 May 2009
	:Ignoring your rather uncivil assertion, we already have those statements on our project page. ] 10:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
	::Ignoring your assertion of incivility though, do you not think that if ARS is to have a FAQ section it should be a list of frequently asked questions? As I understand it that is what the acronym usually stands for. <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30; padding: 3px;">]</span><sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">].</sub> 18:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::Calling our FAQ "fake" is uncivil, unhelpful and counter-productive. And frankly you seem to be simply arguing that if the exact wording of question X didn't occur then it's invalid. Sorry, you seem to be more interested in just arguing. I think based on the vociferous debate of a handful of folks a concise FAQ may help nip this battling in the bud. ARS members, well no one really, needs to be treated this way. FAQ is to help those who may actually need some guidance while our project page seems to fairly enough address any scope questions. ] 02:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
	*I agree it should be named something else. Answers to what may be common questions, or explanations to further the understanding of what the squadron is about. ]''' 22:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

			The result of the move request was: '''Not moved.''' ] ] 23:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
	== Newby editors survey ==
			----

			] → {{no redirect\|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron}} – It's a WikiProject.   <b>~</b> <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>  15:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
	is a somewhat lengthy but interesting read for those concerning with how friendly and usable Misplaced Pages can be. The bits about references may help inform writing some of our ''how to'' material. ] 10:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
			# <code><nowiki>{{Short description\|WikiProject}}</nowiki></code>
	:thanks for the link, I enjoyed it. It seems like many of the problems they address are system wide, which we have no control over. But the "how to" may help in some of these respects. Maybe there are other how-to's which are already available which would be helpful and which can be incorporated? ] (]) 04:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
			# <code><nowiki>{{WikiProject status\|active\|sc1=WP:RESCUE\|sc2=WP:ARS}}</nowiki></code>
	::Definitely. I think for our part we should emphasize the most basic way to ref a sentence and feel free to ask for help. Once we're clear of the current drama I feel i can devote more time to the How to content] 05:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
			# "{{tq\|Welcome to '''WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron'''. This WikiProject works toward }}"
			# {{tl\|WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron}}
			# ]
			# "{{tq\|Wikiproject Article rescue squadron's main focus is}}"
			# "{{tq\|The Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject is about}}"
			<b>~</b> <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>  23:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''', ] is a wikiproject without wikiproject in the name, and it doesn't need to be changed. Just because it's a wikiproject doesn't mean its name has to say it's one. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
			*<s>'''Support'''</s> '''Neutral''' - Given our general naming of WikiProjects with the prefix, makes sense for consistency. Given the long standing time at the previous title though, we probably do need to have the redirect so old links don't break. ] (]) 15:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:small addendum - the page ] needs to stay where it is, due to a bug regarding subscriptions (see invisible note at the top of that page for details), until that bug gets fixed. (so this note is mainly for the page mover that may close this RM). ] (]) 17:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:ammending my vote to neutral per the below opposes, which make sense, in line with the possible technical challenges that I aleady pointed out above. ] (]) 23:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Mild oppose'''. Typically, WikiProjects are focused on a topic area, rather than on a task. (I realize the Guild of Copyeditors is an exception.) This project has had such a long history under its present name, that it feels "off" to me to change it just for the sake of some sort of consistency. (Consistency is more important in mainspace, whereas project space isn't really more efficient if we insist on it everywhere.) However, I don't feel strongly about this. --] (]) 23:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' Not organized as a Wikiproject. ] has been around since 2001 and ARS since 2007, and in 17 years of existence overlap, this wasn't previously enacted. Why might that be? ] (]) 23:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:Was wondering the same thing. Our ARS page says "WikiProject" in various places, and is in the category. Some of that was done in the past couple years. I thought maybe this was a clever attempt to delete the project by putting it under WikiProject rules and regs, but actually it looks like deleting a WikiProject is not commonly done. Stale and abandoned projects are supposedly kept around. Possibly a WikiProject would give it more protection, possibly not. WikiProjects I don't know much about. -- ]] 23:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:Quoting ]: "{{tq\|Welcome to '''WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron'''. This WikiProject works toward }}".   <b>~</b> <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>  11:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
			*::Looks like the WikiProject wording may have been added in 2012 by ]. ] .. maybe they can recall why it was done? -- ]] 21:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:::NA1k was with the WikiProject around that time, taking up more than a full history page's worth of contributions. {{tl\|WikiProject status}} was added by them in .   <b>~</b> <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>  22:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
			*::::Still, that was the view of a single editor, and the edits were not so conspicuous that others would necessarily see them as needing reversion. Editors can have different opinions now, more than a decade later, without being bound by the opinion of that one editor. --] (]) 22:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' Per ]. Its current name makes it sound like an official Misplaced Pages process like ], when it is more of a group of like-minded editors. ] (]) 00:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:It's actually not a group of like minded editors. It's more like a noticeboard to bring attention to certain cases, with noticeboard members independently making their own decisions. The people who participate here run the gamit from inclusionists to deletionists. -- ]] 00:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''': It's a wikiproject and has always carried itself as such. ] (]) 12:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:Always? I checked the history, I could be missing something but it seems like only recently the wording "Project" was added, and not sure under what consensus even that was done. Why in so many years has no one ever brought it into Project namespace until now? And it's being done via this RM and not a general discussion. It's never been discussed before. Seems odd. -- ]] 21:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Oppose''' As a long time "member" I have concerns, per my comments above. If other members want to do it, let's all agree and just do it, no RM required. Otherwise it feels forced. -- ]] 21:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' per ]. The proposal would also be ungrammatical with two competing nouns -- Wikiproject and Squadron. The title doesn't have the same format as a thematic project like ]. It's more like ] or ] which have a different style of title. ]🐉(]) 22:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. The proposed name is both boring and esoteric when compared to the current one. Names are important, and this is an excellent one, and well chosen by the participants. To impose a different name on them has justification neither in policy nor in improving Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 08:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' per the above argument presented by Andrew Davidson. I see no benefit to this proposal, and if anything will likely cause the technical issues as seen previously. Not broke, don't fix. ''<span style="color:Black">]</span>esonant]'' 09:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
			<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: var(--color-error, red);">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
			</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>

Latest revision as of 09:00, 1 January 2025

Main page

Welcome to the talk page of the Article Rescue Squadron. If you are looking for assistance to rescue an article, please see Tips to help rescue articles and ARS Guide to saving articles.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Article Rescue Squadron page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61Auto-archiving period: 3 months

faq page Frequently asked questions

To view the response to a question, click the link to the right of the question. Article help Q: Can the Article rescue squadron (ARS) save my article from deletion? A: Not exactly. First off, Misplaced Pages is a 💕 and articles can be changed by anyone and no individual exclusively controls any specific article. Secondly, if an article meets Misplaced Pages's policies on notability and reliable sourcing it likely will not be deleted. There are also alternatives to deletion which may be appropriate. The project members will do what they can as time allows. We suggest that you reference Tips to help rescue articles and the Article Rescue Squadron Guide to saving articles Q: Will ARS help fix the rest of article problems after the deletion discussion? A: In theory, No. Often, however, individual members will assist after the discussion has closed. You may want to contact a related WikiProject to see if someone there can assist. Sometimes project members completely overhaul an article but in practice most changes are incremental, and you should take initiative to add sourcing and improve the article yourself. Many times other editors will post sources to the deletion discussion; if they meet our sourcing standards then feel free to apply them to the article. Scope Q: Does ARS work to rescue other content on Misplaced Pages (other than articles)? A: While articles remain our main focus, poorly-formed encyclopedia content can be found in other namespaces. If content up for deletion, such as a template or image, is poorly-formed and you feel it can be fixed, go ahead and add it to the Rescue list, to request the ARS' consideration. Please be aware that unlike articles, templates and categories often change and are renamed to serve our readers. Q: Does ARS contribute to guideline and policy discussions? A: Similar to articles, policies and content are not exclusively controlled by any individual(s). If you think ARS should know about a policy discussion you can post a neutral notification, such as, "There is a discussion about topic at _____." on the ARS Talk page. Avoid even the appearance of telling anyone how to think or vote in the discussion— it's very important to keep the message neutral when inviting people to participate. See WP:Canvassing for clarification regarding appropriate discussion notifications. Q: What if I object to what the ARS is doing? A: ARS is no different from any of the hundreds of Wikiprojects in that we collaborate to improve Misplaced Pages. We are a maintenance Wikiproject, and as such our scope is not subject-focused (like a WikiProject focused on a specific sport, country or profession), as much as policy-focused to determine if content adheres to Misplaced Pages's policies on sourcing and notability. We try to determine if an article meets Misplaced Pages's notability guidleines as well as is it verifiable to reliable sources. We're also apt to suggest merging, listifying, redirecting and deleting as appropriate. Notifying the Article Rescue Squadron is essentially a means to request assistance with an article or content that one feels meets notability guidelines, or should be retained for other reasons. The goal is to improve articles and other content, to benefit our readers. All are welcome to help ARS improve the encyclopedia, just as at any of the other WikiProjects, which encompass a variety of views and interests. No canvassing Q: Does this project canvass editors to keep articles? A: No. The goal of the Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) is to clean up content that would otherwise be deleted. By necessity, this involves examining the deletion discussion to see what the problems with the article are, and then remedying them. If done correctly, this article cleanup improves the encyclopedia. If an article nominated for deletion is improved and retained on Misplaced Pages by this process, vis-à-vis addressing a nominator's concerns, the nominator hasn't "lost". Rather, the encyclopedia has won. Using this talk page Q:What about identifying and pointing out specific users who are nominating a lot of articles for deletion without apparent due cause? This talk page is for co-ordinating matters related to this project's purpose, which is rescuing content on notable topics from deletion. This is not a forum for dispute resolution. If there are issues with an individual user, talk to them personally or make a report or request at an appropriate noticeboard.

This page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

James Gleick (8 August 2008). "Wikipedians Leave Cyberspace, Meet in Egypt: In Alexandria, 650 Devotees Bemoan Vandals, Debate Rules; Deletionists vs. Inclusionists".
Nicholson Baker (20 March 2008). "The Charms of Misplaced Pages".
Jennifer Schuessler (8 March 2008). "Gone to Deletopedia".
Adversus Misplaced Pages (17 September 2008). "Adversus Misplaced Pages".
John Broughton (2008). "Ch.19 - Deleting Existing Articles".

This project page was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Snow Opposed, 18 May 2022, see discussion.
Nomination withdrawn, 25 Oct 2021, see discussion.
Keep, 19 November 2019, see discussion.
Snow Keep, 23 June 2019, see discussion.
No Consensus, 8 December 2012, see discussion.
Speedy Keep, 10 February 2012, see discussion.
Keep, 18 May 2009, see discussion.
Speedy Keep, 12 July 2008, see discussion.
Speedy Keep, 23 September 2007, see discussion.
Nomination withdrawn, 19 September 2007, see discussion.

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Article Rescue Squadron

This page is within the scope of the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject, a collaborative effort to rescue items from deletion when they can be improved through regular editing. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can help improve Misplaced Pages articles considered by others to be based upon notable topics.Article Rescue SquadronWikipedia:Article Rescue SquadronTemplate:WikiProject Article Rescue SquadronArticle Rescue Squadron

Article Rescue Squadron was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 5 March 2014.

On 3 November 2024, it was proposed that this page be moved to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron. The result of the discussion was Not moved.

Artlist

This article has great references and is one of the biggest music licensing and stock footage companies in the world. In addition, they are an Israeli startup. I think the article is being attacked in AFD and would like some help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.153.142.52 (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Dthomsen8

Deceased Wikipedian and member of ARS: Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2023-07-17/Obituary. -- GreenC 11:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

He was active during the earliest days of ARS. His first contribution was in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cope Truss and Misplaced Pages:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list/Archive_1#Cope_Truss. -- GreenC 11:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn't know him, but RIP.★Trekker (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

"You got to worry about deletionists," he warned. -- GreenC 00:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I only just saw the sad news and came here to share but find that GreenC has taken care of it. I met David when he came to London for the Wikimania in 2014 and was impressed by his enthusiasm and good nature. He gave me one of his trademark Misplaced Pages Editor caps which I wore to many editathons but it went astray at a WikiData event in Cambridge and so I need a replacement. Perhaps we should get some ARS merchandise made now? Andrew🐉(talk) 21:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Warning, it looks like the page moving of Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list broke subscription may have broken subscription to the page

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T373543

Hi, Just a word of warning as I just noticed that I suddenly wasn't subscribed to the rescue list at Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list anymore after the recent move by @Ammarpad and @Fram. I'm not sure if there is anything an admin could do to bulk restore the subscriptions since the users deleted the original page? Raladic (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Raladic, the original page wasn't deleted par se, it's now a redirect, see Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list. I think the Topic subscription is supposed to work with page moves. – Ammarpad (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

It might for talk pages, but the rescue list is a project page and hence my warning that my action bar suddenly had "Subscribe" instead of "Unsubscribe" when I navigated to it this morning. Raladic (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh and actually, I can see that I am still subscribed to the page that is now a redirect at Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list - so yeah I don't quite know what happened there, but I think it might be that project page subscriptions don't move over in a page move but are hard linked to the page title? Raladic (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Raladic, Ammarpad, and CFA: I filed T373543. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Ahecht. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Tentative ARS candidates from AFC backlog

These 12 pages were culled from yesterday's unassessed AFC backlog; from the moment of this writing, they may not be long for Misplaced Pages in the next how many weeks unless some action is taken. After I spent countless days grading hundreds and hundreds of articles in an ambitious, thankless one-man task--a few of which were never attended to since the early 2010s--it's time we finally discussed their chances for a change before it's too soon.

At press time, two in the backlog--Nathaniel Jenkins and Prateek Raj, both BLPs--are under scrutiny at AFD; no further comments on those. Anyway, on with the chaff we found within the wheat--listed alphabetically. (All have been tagged for {{notability}} unless otherwise noted; tag dates, and source-hunting links, are provided next to their titles.)

2023 World Seniors Darts Champion of Champions (April 2023) / Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Abki Baar 400 Paar (June 2024; per talk page--but this might survive nonetheless) / Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Alsace20 (September 2023) / Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
The Dream Wanderer (January 2019) / Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Nanjing Week (November 2021) / Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (November 2022) / Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Rountree, Springfield (February 2019) / Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
ShipSpace (September 2016) / Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Society of Classical Poets (November 2020) / Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Soroush Cinema ({{local}}, April 2018) / Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
WDC UK Matchplay (February 2023) / Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
John T. Wilson (born 1861) (October 2023) / Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

As an eventualist/incrementalist, I may be a bit sorry if they end up delisted. But these topics, diverse as they may be, do matter to someone, somewhere. So as it stands, wishing those willing to save those topics good luck--and thanks to the AFC reviewers/participants alike for all your hard work. (Feel free to leave me talk-page feedback.)

Maybe it's time I, an AFC drafter myself, took brief breaks from WP as other off-site commitments compete for my time and attention. All that grading was already overwhelming to begin with...

(XPosted from WT:AFC.)

--Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 13:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 3 November 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. SilverLocust 💬 23:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron → Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron – It's a WikiProject. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

{{Short description|WikiProject}}
{{WikiProject status|active|sc1=WP:RESCUE|sc2=WP:ARS}}
"Welcome to WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron. This WikiProject works toward "
{{WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron}}
Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron#WikiProject Invitation
"Wikiproject Article rescue squadron's main focus is"
"The Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject is about"

~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 23:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, WP:CVU is a wikiproject without wikiproject in the name, and it doesn't need to be changed. Just because it's a wikiproject doesn't mean its name has to say it's one. TheWikipede 18:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
~~Support~~ Neutral - Given our general naming of WikiProjects with the prefix, makes sense for consistency. Given the long standing time at the previous title though, we probably do need to have the redirect so old links don't break. Raladic (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
small addendum - the page Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list needs to stay where it is, due to a bug regarding subscriptions (see invisible note at the top of that page for details), until that bug gets fixed. (so this note is mainly for the page mover that may close this RM). Raladic (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

ammending my vote to neutral per the below opposes, which make sense, in line with the possible technical challenges that I aleady pointed out above. Raladic (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Mild oppose. Typically, WikiProjects are focused on a topic area, rather than on a task. (I realize the Guild of Copyeditors is an exception.) This project has had such a long history under its present name, that it feels "off" to me to change it just for the sake of some sort of consistency. (Consistency is more important in mainspace, whereas project space isn't really more efficient if we insist on it everywhere.) However, I don't feel strongly about this. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Not organized as a Wikiproject. WP:Wikiproject has been around since 2001 and ARS since 2007, and in 17 years of existence overlap, this wasn't previously enacted. Why might that be? Jclemens (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Was wondering the same thing. Our ARS page says "WikiProject" in various places, and is in the category. Some of that was done in the past couple years. I thought maybe this was a clever attempt to delete the project by putting it under WikiProject rules and regs, but actually it looks like deleting a WikiProject is not commonly done. Stale and abandoned projects are supposedly kept around. Possibly a WikiProject would give it more protection, possibly not. WikiProjects I don't know much about. -- GreenC 23:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Quoting Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron: "Welcome to WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron. This WikiProject works toward ". ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Looks like the WikiProject wording may have been added in 2012 by User:Northamerica1000. Special:Diff/472425951/472426031 .. maybe they can recall why it was done? -- GreenC 21:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
NA1k was heavily involved with the WikiProject around that time, taking up more than a full history page's worth of contributions. {{WikiProject status}} was added by them in 2011. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 22:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Still, that was the view of a single editor, and the edits were not so conspicuous that others would necessarily see them as needing reversion. Editors can have different opinions now, more than a decade later, without being bound by the opinion of that one editor. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Support Per WP:SPADE. Its current name makes it sound like an official Misplaced Pages process like Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion, when it is more of a group of like-minded editors. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
It's actually not a group of like minded editors. It's more like a noticeboard to bring attention to certain cases, with noticeboard members independently making their own decisions. The people who participate here run the gamit from inclusionists to deletionists. -- GreenC 00:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Support: It's a wikiproject and has always carried itself as such. BusterD (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Always? I checked the history, I could be missing something but it seems like only recently the wording "Project" was added, and not sure under what consensus even that was done. Why in so many years has no one ever brought it into Project namespace until now? And it's being done via this RM and not a general discussion. It's never been discussed before. Seems odd. -- GreenC 21:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose As a long time "member" I have concerns, per my comments above. If other members want to do it, let's all agree and just do it, no RM required. Otherwise it feels forced. -- GreenC 21:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:OVERPRECISION. The proposal would also be ungrammatical with two competing nouns -- Wikiproject and Squadron. The title doesn't have the same format as a thematic project like WP:WikiProject Anthropology. It's more like WP:Counter-Vandalism Unit or WP:Did you know which have a different style of title. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. The proposed name is both boring and esoteric when compared to the current one. Names are important, and this is an excellent one, and well chosen by the participants. To impose a different name on them has justification neither in policy nor in improving Misplaced Pages. Andrewa (talk) 08:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per the above argument presented by Andrew Davidson. I see no benefit to this proposal, and if anything will likely cause the technical issues as seen previously. Not broke, don't fix. ResonantDis_tortion 09:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Categories: