This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
In the first instance, this page allows a continuation of the discussion commenced here. The preceding link is a snapshot of the discussion at the time this page was created, and subsequent comments may have been made. I suggest consideration of some quick-and-dirty rules of thumb for a) getting articles out of AfD and into the incubator, b) organising improvements and assistance to the article authors, and c) some basic guidance for offloading the pages. The meat and detail of these can be developed in-flight, and anything we decide can be changed, so just some rough idea of what we're doing would be great for consistency of effort. Fritzpoll ( talk) 11:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
|
Ikip ( talk) 15:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Does anybody else remember the Userbox Wars of 2004? We undercut them with something, ludicrous on the face, that was unfortunately titled "Der German Solution", which I think is now at WP:UBM or something. I learned a lot that day. - GTBacchus( talk) 15:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I wonder, might it be easier to farm articles, at least at first, from PROD or Speedy Tags? I imagine there are fewer worth saving there, but the red tape is less. - GTBacchus( talk) 15:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Article Incubator | ||||
|
Fences& Windows 01:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe this incubator could be in the form of a transcluded (and annotated) list, with the actual articles on an editor's (usually the article's creator) subpage? That would be easier to set up, right? Abductive ( reasoning) 07:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I think this incubator would be even better if all sorts of articles were allowed in: (1) an editor could list something new that has that never been in mainspace, while they are working on in it userspace. (2) speedied, where the creator chooses between {{ hangon}} and a new userfy-please template (3) post prod-deleted, brought to the incubator by anyone (4) post AfD deleted, brought to the incubator by anyone Abductive ( reasoning) 07:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
"An editor preparing to delete a new article" I love it. what is wikipedias facination with cats? Ikip ( talk) 14:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, after some reading and some thoughts, this is what I'd suggest as a working draft for getting pages into incubation
Point 3 above seems to follow from some of the discussions going on about nominator withdrawal of AfDs at an early stage - if the main contributors to the article think incubation would be best, we might be able to accommodate that as well, but we don't need rules for every conceivable situation. Thoughts? Fritzpoll ( talk) 16:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, I thought you were considering somehow merging these pages into the Article Incubator. My original concern was about the AFD arguments simply being moved here, you responded, "you can't AfD a projectspace page" in which I interpreted that these pages would somehow become a part of the projectspace, on one long page. So editors can put these individual article pages up for deletion, as MfD. So on my example, people could put Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Infected (book) up for deletion. Ikip ( talk) 17:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone help me write Wikipedia:So you made a user subpage draft a page mentioned here: Wikipedia_talk:Article_wizard_2.0/maintenance#New_page_goes_to_Userfied_page
In addition, we can maybe work with this group later, when we are more developed. They can have new articles point to the incubator first.
There is a link to this project on many welcome templates now, you have probably seen them before. Ikip ( talk) 20:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I used category tree to create this collapsible list:
Category:Articles in the Article Incubator |
---|
Category Category:Articles in the Article Incubator not found
|
I removed the collapsible template but you may want to return it. This way, editors don't have to manually add articles to this list. Ikip ( talk) 21:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a former project which is similar to this one, except it did not involve AFD at all. We can borrow some of the language from this project, and learn from their mistakes. Ikip ( talk) 21:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Regarding medical terminology... we're already an "incubator", but talking about "killing" articles starts to verge into bleeding-heart territory. I would say that an article whose incubation fails gets "deleted". That's neither a euphemism nor a dysphemism. Somewhere on this page I already said "euthanized"; I'll be more careful. This WICU is a good lesson. I don't want to see that "historical" tag on this page. - GTBacchus( talk) 20:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
What's the point is writing about things that might become notable, when there's so much work to do on topics that already are notable?
It's not a race to get a new topic in here quickly, and it's not cool to write about topics that are not yet notable. Trying to make that part of this project will draw a lot of criticism, I think. Let's limit the scope to something less controversial, especially at first. - GTBacchus( talk) 20:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
==[[Wikipedia:Article Incubator]] == {{imbox|| image=[[Image:Songbird-egg.svg|50px]]| text=You commented at: [[Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_54#ARSify.3F|WP:AFD:ARSify]]<br> I thought you maybe interested in this: [[Wikipedia:Article_Incubator]] which will go live soon. <br>Your comments are very welcome. ~~~~}}
Creates:
You commented at:
WP:AFD:ARSify I thought you maybe interested in this: Wikipedia:Article_Incubator which will go live soon. Your comments are very welcome. Ikip ( talk) 20:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC) |
What details should be included in the main listing? Some organization will be required for editors to find articles that they are interested in working on.
WP:Categorization can be used, but generating a useful listing is probably best implemented with a bot reading from a template. Flatscan ( talk) 03:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Then again, I tend to be leery of bots, which is probably at least 20% irrational. The trouble with robots is that they're incessant; this is the lesson of everything from The Sorcerer's Apprentice to The Terminator. - GTBacchus( talk) 20:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
My big question is this:
Fortunately these questions don't need to be answered right now.
For the past two days I have been userfying or redirecting the very newest posted AFDs, after asking nominators their permission. My success rate in asking nominators to close the discussion has been between an astounding 70-80%. The reception I have received from this nominators has always been cordial and friendly.
We could start this project TODAY. I could have nominators agree to move these articles to the Incubator today, and I could redirect these articles to a sub-page today.
Enough talky-talky. :) Lets learn from doing, and lets see if this will work now. The worst that will happen is that we have to learn from our mistakes. Ikip ( talk) 19:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
(This principle actually applies to a hell of a lot on Wikipedia - wait until others say what you mean, and then you're already right.) - GTBacchus( talk) 20:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Ideas for images moved here:
Fences& Windows 20:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
This user edits and assesses articles in the Article Incubator. |
Fences&
Windows 20:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I added categorization to the template. It will now place people into Category:Wikipedians who incubate articles -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 19:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
This could work. I can find lots of candidates. Folks should consider Wikia as a possible destination of kittens stuffed in this bag. ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Their criticisms of the text at ARS are valid. We can't write copy like, "should its life be taken?" or "Some writer worked hard on that article." The idea - as I'm seeing it - is not to "save" every article that's "threatened". The idea is to enforce reasonable standards at a realistic pace that allows for development of articles on notable topics. I will absolutely play bad-cop as necessary.
I'm no "deletionist", but I don't think a bleeding-heart attitude will fly, and I want to see this baby airborne. There's a line to walk and a balance to strike. If we come across as seeing articles as poor widdle threatened infants, we won't be taken seriously. The current images are cool, but we should probably draw the line before the puppy quotient gets too high. Some puppies need to be euthanized, after all. - GTBacchus( talk) 19:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
My only caution would be that people like to shoot things down. It's best if we start with less controversial tasks, and see whether we can grow in the right direction. Let's walk before we run, eh? - GTBacchus( talk) 06:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Another way to deal with low improvement rate is to note what kinds of articles are entering the incubator, and which kinds have higher success rates. Then we can implement filters. This is not to be a catch-all for the whims of inclusionists; this is for articles that have a good chance of coming up to standards. I don't mean a theoretical good chance, either, but an actual verified-by-real-experience good chance. - GTBacchus( talk) 11:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
One possible filter on articles coming in, that would be simple to implement, is that articles could be nominated for incubation by any editor, but the nomination would have to be seconded by someone else to go ahead with incubation. Would this be useful, do people think? - GTBacchus( talk) 07:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I have remarked similarly on WT:Twinkle that I find it a huge problem with this otherwise good idea that the process can be started by everyone. Since such an action can be equally BITEy as userfication against the creator's will or speedy deletion, allowing everyone to initiate the process is a huge risk that mistakes will be made on a large scale, equally as mistakes are made with speedy tagging daily and far too often. I would suggest that this part of the proposal is revised to require review instead. My suggestion would be a CSD like process where NP patrollers can tag articles with {{ incubation suggested}} instead or together with a speedy or PROD tag and an admin can decide whether it should be moved here. Since the process has the same risk for BITEing newbies as CSD, it should be equally restricted in overview imho. What do you think? Regards So Why 09:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
As far as what's "allowed by any policy", see WP:IAR. - GTBacchus( talk) 19:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how to stop people from moving pages, because the software is set up so that anyone with an account can move an article to a title that isn't blocked. Most people can't push the delete button, but everyone can push the move button. There is not widespread userfication abuse, despite userfication coming up as an option every single day in AFD. Incubation will not be more well-known than userfication for a long time. I can undo moves very, very quickly. I've completed so many move requests, I can push those buttons in my sleep. I promise to be on strict guard against what you're worried about. Can you please give us a chance? I promise that I am alive and alert to your concerns, and that I will not tolerate incubation abuse. Can you please trust me to try it?
You ask, "The point of incubation is to remove articles that are deemed "unfit" from mainspace, isn't it?" Absolutely not. That's close to the opposite of the point. The point of incubation is to take articles that are going to be deleted, or that already have been deleted, and to keep them on the wiki and on a path into the mainspace. I won't tolerate anything being moved out of namespace that was not doomed. The first article we moved in had already been deleted. I promise you, this is not a method of getting rid of articles, in any way, shape, or form. Incubation is only for articles that were otherwise certain to be deleted or userfied.
Can you trust us, just until we see what happens? Please? You've got my word that I will nuke this page from orbit if this becomes a problem, ok? Keep an eye on us, and let us know if you see abuse, okay? - GTBacchus( talk) 22:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
← Some general comments: I agree that SoWhy's concerns should be considered in the long run, but the slow rate of manual incubation makes addressing them less urgent. I'm satisfied if the incubated article's major contributors receive notifications (hopefully personalized) from a mini-mentor. Taking articles from AfD – either during the AfD or after deletion – may be wiki-politically sensitive. Flatscan ( talk) 04:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
What's really safe, right off the bat, is to rob graves. Seriously, articles that have already been speedied are fair game. That's where the first one came from, really. It was a post-speedy post-mortem.
The concerns above are valid to an extent, but seem to ignore that this project is being run by humans whose goal is the opposite of "taking articles out of the mainspace that are deemed to be unfit". If someone starts doing the crap that SoWhy is worried about, I'll personally block them for disruption, so I really don't see where the fear comes from. - GTBacchus( talk) 05:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The article Eddie Kilroy (producer) was tagged for speedy, speedy was denied. Then it was prodded and the author blanked the page (I'm guessing he was getting frustrated). I initially tagged ot for a speedy G7, since the author blanked it, but then I thought about the incubator thing. If what was said in the short article was true, the guy is probably notable enough for an article. But that article had no sources and didn't assert notability very strongly. I'm not going to pretend like I'm going to try to rescue the article, but someone else might want to take a stab at it. If nobody does, then a G7 is probably in order. Niteshift36 ( talk) 04:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
It's an organization that has received plenty of local press in Seattle; I'd be surprised if it's non-notable, but in its current state... yeah. - GTBacchus( talk) 16:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Here's something I've just posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freiwilligen:
*Comment - If userfying is being considered, as was suggested above by User:Tikiwont, I submit that it might be better to move it to WP:INCUBATE, a new project that is essentially the same as the userfy option, except it's in a central area, in the project namespace. The advantages of incubation over userfication are that more eyes will see it, and that it won't sit there indefinitely out of sight if no improvement occurs.
Thanks for your consideration. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that's a good format to post in AFDs where userfication has already been suggested. If it's a template, it could have variables to make it a little more versatile, e.g., the name of the editor who suggested userfication. Thoughts? - GTBacchus( talk) 13:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, so if you type: {{subst:suggest incubation}}, you'll get:
Thanks for your consideration. - GTBacchus( talk) 13:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
If you type {{subst:suggest incubation|XYZ}}, you'll get:
Thanks for your consideration. - GTBacchus( talk) 13:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Questions: Is substing it the right idea? Any other features it should have? How about documentation? I'm new at this. - GTBacchus( talk) 13:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Ikip ( talk) 14:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Another template we definitely need is one to inform the article's creator where their article has gone. It should have two forms - one for an article that was tagged for speedy but moved here instead of deletion & one for an article that was never tagged speedy. I'll work on it later today or tomorrow if no one jumps on it first (but feel free to beat me to it. :)) -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 13:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to quickly slap a bot together to handle some admininstrative tasks in this part of the world. The bot will patrol our subpages and ensure that
Just to help us keep track of the articles and undo editing mistakes that may remove these tags. I'll shove it up for BRFA over the weekend Fritzpoll ( talk) 14:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to move Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Template to a more standard title, such as Template:Article Incubator? - GTBacchus( talk) 14:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Once we have a significant number of articles incubated and it becomes clear that this project is working, it may be a good idea to sort the articles. One method of doing this would be to add one or more Wikiproject tags to the talk page (these would be useful when placed in the main namespace anyway). But we would need some extra parameter in those (|incubated=yes), which would need to be added to every wikiproject tag we would use. Any other suggestions to make this sorting easier? Something like deletion sorting? The sorting is wanted to get knowledgeable / interested editors over to help with some of the articles. Fram ( talk) 14:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I've created two category pages: Category:Article Incubator for the project page itself and other supporting pages, and Category:Articles in the Article Incubator for the actual articles we're working on. Is there a way to edit the template so that it only sorts articles into the article category? Some kind of clever use of <includeonly> tags? - GTBacchus( talk) 15:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
With the list of articles in the incubator being auto-filled from the category, how do we keep track of how long articles have been in there? - GTBacchus( talk) 17:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a really good point, we also need to track (if possible) how many edits articles are getting and some way of tracking how many make it back to article space. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 17:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy for testpages to be userfied to sandboxes and non-notable autobiographies to be userfied to userpages, but I disagree with moving potential articles out of mainspace. If the subject is notable enough for an article why should a potential rescuer edit the article in an incubator when they could restart it in mainspace? The mainspace is the logical place for articles, its where our editors expect to find them and its where links from other articles are liable to point. If we have a problem with over enthusiastic new page patrollers lets deal with that instead. What we could have for an article incubator is a category, and make the articles in that category no-index so they don't show up in google. That would give us a virtual article incubator which would still get edits from those who found the article through links etc, and in the longterm might help our credibility with Google. Ϣere SpielChequers 19:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I see little difference between your suggestion of a category with {{ NOINDEX}} and what we're doing here. To your point: "If we have a problem with over enthusiastic new page patrollers lets deal with that instead," I say do it. Deal with that problem. That's been tried again and again, without success. If you can make new-page patrollers less zealous to delete, I'll nominate you for a Wiki-Nobel prize. Until then, I'm going to work on something that doesn't assume I can change the habits or attitudes of others. Nobel prize. - GTBacchus( talk) 19:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Eddie Kilroy
It ain't pretty, but it meets basic notability requirements, with 10 references, mostly books. Lets get it out of incubation, and move onto the next article. Ikip ( talk) 03:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
What we really need now is more articles to work on. Articles that AFD is on the verge of deleting or userfying are good targets, as are articles that have already been speedied in a suspicious A7 application. Incubation is just userfication with advantages. That makes switching from userfying to incubating a very natural and easy move. - GTBacchus( talk) 06:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay: Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Downtown Emergency Service Center.
Again, it isn't pretty. We could add a hell of a lot more references, and the editing is pretty rough, but it meets minimum notability guidelines. No objections, I am going to pull the umbilical cord. Ikip ( talk) 00:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Do we want to call articles that leave incubation "graduates" or should we stick with the incubation theme and call them "hatchlings?" I ask now, because I'd like to work on "formalizing" (i.e. creating a template & writing it into the project page) the de-incubation process today and need to know which term to use. :) -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 13:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Reading the above, I do not see any justification for moving such articles. This seems unhelpful in that, by removing the article from main space, this action seems likely to reduce the numbers of editors working upon the article rather than increase it. It will also result in the creation of numerous forks as other editors will recreate the article in main space. It is our clear and long-standing editing policy to maintain new articles in mainspace so that our millions of readers may develop them as they encounter them. We already have the stub concept to manage seed articles by providing categories which steer editors towards them, if they want to mother them. This concept thus seems redundant to existing practises and so fails WP:CREEP. I can't see it actually working in practise either as it will be soon overwhelmed by many thousands of articles - 99% of our 3 million articles are of less than good quality. 10:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I find it incomprehensible that self-styled "inclusionists" make the following perverse claim: They say that they don't have time to improve the article because they have to defend it at AFD. I find that completely put-my-head-through-a-wall bizarre, but I've failed to convince them that they can just improve the damn thing instead of arguing at AFD and claiming that they have to argue. I tell people they don't have to engage "deletionists" in discussion, and they come right back and tell me that I'm saying they have to have long discussions with deletionists!
Here's a thing about Wikipedia, Colonel. It doesn't always make sense. People here don't always make sense. Solutions that make no sense end up working! I've seen it happen repeatedly; if you're interested in history, I'll spell it out in detail for you.
We're trying something that some people think has promise, because AFD is getting more and more acrimonious, and many Wikipedians are claiming that good articles are getting deleted. You find another solution to that problem - implement it and make it work - and I'll give you a Wiki Nobel Prize. Others have tried and failed; the road is stained with blood, sweat and tears.
We're trying something here that carries zero risk, because as soon as it starts going wrong and we can't control it, the plug is pulled, articles are moved back to mainspace, and anyone trying to keep the abuse going gets blocked. I'm guaranteeing that, personally.
Now, can you tell me why this isn't worth a try? If you're going to convince me, make it good. What I won't accept is the following, "well, people shouldn't do such-and-such, so the solution is that they need to stop". Show me the money - show that you have the power to make those people change - or else let us give this our best. Trying to shoot this horse before it's out of the gate seems like a real pointless move. Zero risk, Colonel. Zero. - GTBacchus( talk) 13:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
In about 36 hours, I get in a taxi, and then on a train, then a bus, then 3 airplanes (one crossing an ocean), then a car, and then I drive 40 miles home. That will all take a healthy chunk of time, and when I get home, I'm going to study mathematics with my friend until she's tired (no, that's not a metaphor), cuddle up with my pet ferret who I've been missing terribly, and go to sleep.
Point is, I'll probably be of Wikipedia for a good long while, and that'll be cool. I like airports. While I'm gone, I'm sure the incubator will be fine. There are good hands on deck here.
I thank you for your concern, Ikip, which is almost certainly well-founded. I really throw myself into a project when I'm helping create something I believe in, and sometimes, yes, I get a tad over-wrought. I hope I didn't upset the Colonel. I'm probably calmer than I sound (I type fast, and 6 paragraphs are like nothing to me), but... yeah. Maybe I'll study some math and chill out for a while. I've only got today and tomorrow left to enjoy the Adriatic beach. - GTBacchus( talk) 15:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
How should editors find the incubating articles? We should have a refence or link from Wikipedias mainspace to the incubator. This would also allow users to find the incubating article (with a highlighted warning). Peter Mulvany 22:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulvany ( talk • contribs)
Ok, before I get offline, I just want to mention that I created {{ Incubate from userfied}} for notifying editors that the incubator is interested in taking pages out of their user space and into our page here. The template has two variables, so if you type
{{subst:Incubate from userfied|ArticleX|EditorY}}
you get:
Hi. I notice that the article, Article was moved out of the encyclopedia and into your user space. If you don't object, I would like to move this article to the Wikipedia:Article Incubator, a new project that facilitates the development of articles up to Wikipedia standards without the articles being threatened by deletion.
What I'm proposing is this: I will move User:Example/Article to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Article. In that location, it will be brought to the attention of many editors who can help improve it so that we'll be able to move it back into the proper encyclopedia soon.
Please let me know if you object to this for any reason, or if you have any questions or concerns. In the meantime, I am going to go ahead and move your user space article to the incubator. Thanks for your contributions. Friendly User ( talk) 09:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
No, you don't get the quotation box. That's just for here.
Have fun with it! I think that getting userfied articles from new user accounts (who are unlikely to get the article up to speed in their user space) is a good source for us. - GTBacchus( talk) 15:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
What happens when we get an article from someone's userfied version, and then end up deleting it anyway? There seems to be a diplomatic issue there - the newbie writes an article, it's thrown back, someone comes along and says they want to save it, and then.... See what I mean? Thoughts? - GTBacchus( talk) 06:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I got some nice sunset/sea photos last night. Maybe one of them will appear at Miramare soon... although checking it out, they've already got lots of good ones. Oh wait... I know what I can photograph! runs off... - GTBacchus( talk) 10:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I notice that articles in the incubator get the message "This article is being edited by the Article Incubator, an effort to improve articles at risk of deletion." even when those articles were not really "at risk of deletion", like the second graduate above (taken from GTBacchus user sandbox). Perhaps another template is needed for articles in the incubator that were not threatened by deletion? Fram ( talk) 11:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
We could just change it to "This article is being edited by the Article Incubator, an effort to improve articles that may not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards." - then it would be a jack-of-all-trades. Just a thought Fritzpoll ( talk) 21:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I updated the language. Feel free to tweak further as needed: Template:Article Incubator. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 03:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm working on this tonight - the tasks I have lined up for it are trawling our subpages checking that
Anyone got any other tasks that they'd like it to do in our little domain (while it lasts :) ) Fritzpoll ( talk) 21:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
status=
parameter to {{
Article Incubator}} so if you could make the bot pull that parameter and add it to the stats, that would be great. When placing the template for the first time it should add {{Article Incubator|status=new}}. Thanks! --
ThaddeusB (
talk) 02:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)We've talk a good bit about to to get articles into the project and a good bit about the process. Both fine and necessary things to do. The big question we haven't addressed yet is how do we attract editors (those who will improve the incubated articles) to the project? (When we are ready to kick it up a notch, of course.)
I like the "GA-lite" model the Ikip (inadvertently?) introduced and have run with it by creating {{ User Incubator Graduate}} which parallels {{ User Good Article}}. This should help keep people motivated once they arrive. Now, how do we get there here (again, when we're ready)? -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 01:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:Article_Incubator/Eie-manager#Delete_or_userfy. I've started Category:Article Incubator candidate for deletion. Fences& Windows 22:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
This is more like it. Sierra Kusterbeck might not be notable outside VersaEmerge, but I've found some possible sources in the shape of interviews with her. See Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Sierra Kusterbeck. Should be enough to tidy, expand and merge. Fences& Windows 23:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
First, let's not rush to delete anything. Keep in mind this in an alternative to userification. Second, there is no need to use a community deletion discussion here. If is not uncommon for admins to deleted userified articles that aren't touched after 30 days. (If they feel a need to classify them, they use the "routine maintenance" CSD criteria.) We should adopt a similar system here. I'll start working on the language shortly - which of course will be up for modification & discussion. I've been fairly busy so far today, but I can will probably get to it later tonight. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 03:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Before we delete things out of the incubator, I'd like to know that they've been given the best shot possible, and we're not in a hurry. If we can't find online references, why don't we encourage ourselves and others to check offline sources - an actual bricks and books library, for example? Lots of books and journals full of great, reliable information are not online.
I would oppose taking an article out of the incubator before a month or so has past unless we know there's been an effort to look for sources in ways that really are less feasible in a week-long AFD framework. I'll bet a lot of us are on university campuses, for example. I could start making a weekly trip to the library to run through a list of searches, and see what I can find. Maybe we can set up some kind of "list of offline search requests", to assist people who want to help in that way.
We've been given enough community confidence to use increased more space and time developing these things, so let's take advantage of that opportunity. I think that would do a lot to ease the minds of our cautious and conditional supporters, and maybe even win over some of the detractors. The detractors are the ones we need to listen to the closest sometimes... - GTBacchus( talk) 15:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
First, I love this idea, and plan to support it. I've tried to read all the background but there is a lot. At some time consider a nutshell summary, so new people don't have to read this entire thread to know the current status, but that's not a top priority at the moment.
However, I do have a question, minor in the overall scheme, but important to me. One of the aspect of this project I see as critical is the NOINDEX attribute. Halton Bus Services is a perfect example of what the incubator project is all about—a page that required a fair amount of work by an editor, but not meeting the standards of Wikipedia. Without the incubator, the likely options were either delete, or find enough editors to get it up to snuff tout de suite. (or usify, which I like, but probably means that no one else sees it, so a sole editor needs to fix it). We want to allow these not up to snuff articles to exist for a time, we don't want them visible to the outside wold, obviously the point of NOINDEX.
However, a Google search for "Halton Bus Services" shows a link to the incubation article on the first page. (Ironically, Wikipedia Search does not find it). Perhaps this is because it was indexed before it was rescued, but I wonder if someone who follows this process more closely than I could comment on whether this is a one off situation, or a problem requiring addressing. If virtually all are found by Google, there's not much point in move them to an incubation section.--
SPhilbrick
T 00:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Check it out at Wikipedia:Article_Incubator#How_it_works and discuss anything you disagree with here and/or edit the text to fix any problems you see. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 04:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
How about we have a tool box included in Template:Article Incubator. An example to follow is the WP:AFC in template:AFC submission and could include instructions, log of original article, move to article space, search on a popular search engine or WP for refs, a Last edited x hours ago, put in incubator x days ago, AFD link, put it out of its misery link. What do people think? Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 05:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I added a very basic toolbox (see below for examples). I'll add some more stuff tonight. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 21:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I've added a new status parameter to {{ Article Incubator}} the available option are as follows:
{{tl|Article Incubator|status=new}}
produces:{{Article Incubator|status=new|demo=1}}
{{tl|Article Incubator|status=start}}
produces:{{Article Incubator|status=start|demo=1}}
{{tl|Article Incubator|status=eval}}
adds the article to
Category:Article Incubator candidate for articlespace and produces:{{Article Incubator|status=eval|demo=1}}
{{tl|Article Incubator|status=delete}}
adds the article to
Category:Article Incubator candidate for deletion and produces:{{Article Incubator|status=delete|demo=1}} Feel free to tweak the wording as needing or ask me to do so if you are uneasy about editing templates. General comments and suggestions for additional classifications are also welcome. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 20:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
This switch on the template is cool. I really like the first three texts, and the fourth one brings up the issue of what it takes to delete a page from the incubator. The wording: "and/or the article doesn't meet Wikipedia standards and is unlikely to ever do so," sounds to me like what must be going through the head of an AfD "delete" voter. I think we want to set a higher bar than that.
One month of stagnation is a great requirement. That's a high bar - anyone wanting to fix it up has had a month. If there's to be an alternative to the month-of-stagnation, I propose the following:
An article can be deleted from the incubator after (A) one month of stagnation, OR (B) an editor attests to making a good faith attempt to find offline sources, followed by one week of stagnation.
Offline sources should exist for almost all notable topics. Per an idea in another thread above, we can keep track of pages with no sources yet, and make a list available to editors who want to help with brick-and-books research. If someone tries that, says they've failed, and nobody even offers to pick up the ball within a week, I think we can say we've given it a fair shot.
I dunno, whaddya you guys think? - GTBacchus( talk) 23:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Is something like this useful? I've put together a collapsed list of all the talk pages of the articles in the incubator. I did this manually; could it be done by a bot? Fences& Windows 20:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
It has carried across the categories of the talk pages, it there a way to suppress this? Fences& Windows 20:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
User:LivingWell4U/Immunocal, recently userfied following an AfD in November 2008. A Nobody had adopted the user, but is now taking a wikibreak (available via email, User talk:A Nobody#Adoption Request to Re-Submit Deleted Page). I believe that the user would benefit from an active on-wiki mentor (I'm not sure about the article), but given my involvement with A Nobody's present situation, I am submitting it here for wider input. Flatscan ( talk) 04:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Copied from Template talk:Article Incubator for greater visability
Not sure I get the point of this status. I just fixed and incubated article, and rather than set it to "eval" I just took it back to mainspace ( poker run). Under what circumstances should an editor set this status rather than just taking care of it themselves? Maybe if they're the original article creator, and they don't do much work on it before mainspacing it again, but still...what's the worst that could happen? Stevage 05:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, ThaddeusB makes a good point, which I will summarise as "Incubation is a concentrated dose of article improvement. Rapid excubation reduces that benefit." But I think Fram is incorrect in his argument: no one is suggesting that the original article creator should excubate their own article. Nor would it be acceptable to excubate without making significant changes. That seems like a weak slippery slope argument.
In conclusion, I think I would make the policy recommendation something like this: "If, after making significant improves, you are confident that the article passes notability and quality criteria, you may move it back into namespace. However, we recommend that you instead set the template status to "eval", to let someone else make that assessement, and give them one last chance to participate in the incubation."
Fair enough? Stevage 12:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Partially because of this project, I have started making regular trips to the library. As a result, I have discovered I have access to some pretty good premium resources including the full text LexisNexis and Factiva databases for the past twenty years or so. In other words, I can get the full text to most major newspapers' and many medium newspapers' articles even when Google links them to a pay service. I also have access to a very extensive microform collection and over 100 subject specific databases.
So, if you need something specific to write an article but can't get it, drop me a line and I'll see what I can do.
Others who are willing to help in a similar fashion, can add their details here. :) See also WP:LIBRARY. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 13:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I work in a University, so have pretty extensive source access. I'll make a similar offer to Thaddeus here. Fritzpoll ( talk) 08:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Having just moved my first page in here, I find myself unsure - are pages automatically NOINDEXED by being moved into the incubator, or do I need to add something, and if so what? JohnCD ( talk) 19:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Should articles in the incubator be wiki-linked from the mainspace or do they fall under the same rules as userspace where Wikipedia:User page#Copies of other pages says "One should never create links from a mainspace article to any userpage...?"
The situation at hand is I added content to the mainspace article Association of Nigerian Authors and wanted to wikilink from that to Simbo Olorunfemi which is presently incubating at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Simbo Olorunfemi. For now, I wikilinked from the mainspace directly to incubator-space article.
An alternative is to #REDIRECT from the mainspace but a sticky aspect to that is that this incubation was created out of an AFD. Would adding a #REDIRECT be be construed as a recreating a deleted article? Of the 19 articles currently in the incubator
I have a similar issue in that I'm working on an article in userspace. In that case I made the mainspace name a redirect to another mainspace article and added a note to the redirect page's talk page about the userspace version I'm working on. A tricky aspect to doing it this way is if I moved the article into mainspace that I would need to either delete the mainspace version (with the redirect) first. We'd loose the edit history of the redirect page though I could preserve the talk page via copy/paste. A benefit of this method though is that if the subject of the article is not be notable then I can add a note about my findings to the redirect's talk page. It preserves the research should someone else want to take up the project. -- Marc Kupper| talk 22:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I look at some of these articles, which will never be wikipedia articles, and I wonder if we can export these articles to other wikis.
A hard case, for example: Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Halton Bus Services Where would this go? Ikip ( talk) 00:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
In the first instance, this page allows a continuation of the discussion commenced here. The preceding link is a snapshot of the discussion at the time this page was created, and subsequent comments may have been made. I suggest consideration of some quick-and-dirty rules of thumb for a) getting articles out of AfD and into the incubator, b) organising improvements and assistance to the article authors, and c) some basic guidance for offloading the pages. The meat and detail of these can be developed in-flight, and anything we decide can be changed, so just some rough idea of what we're doing would be great for consistency of effort. Fritzpoll ( talk) 11:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
|
Ikip ( talk) 15:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Does anybody else remember the Userbox Wars of 2004? We undercut them with something, ludicrous on the face, that was unfortunately titled "Der German Solution", which I think is now at WP:UBM or something. I learned a lot that day. - GTBacchus( talk) 15:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I wonder, might it be easier to farm articles, at least at first, from PROD or Speedy Tags? I imagine there are fewer worth saving there, but the red tape is less. - GTBacchus( talk) 15:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Article Incubator | ||||
|
Fences& Windows 01:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe this incubator could be in the form of a transcluded (and annotated) list, with the actual articles on an editor's (usually the article's creator) subpage? That would be easier to set up, right? Abductive ( reasoning) 07:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I think this incubator would be even better if all sorts of articles were allowed in: (1) an editor could list something new that has that never been in mainspace, while they are working on in it userspace. (2) speedied, where the creator chooses between {{ hangon}} and a new userfy-please template (3) post prod-deleted, brought to the incubator by anyone (4) post AfD deleted, brought to the incubator by anyone Abductive ( reasoning) 07:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
"An editor preparing to delete a new article" I love it. what is wikipedias facination with cats? Ikip ( talk) 14:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, after some reading and some thoughts, this is what I'd suggest as a working draft for getting pages into incubation
Point 3 above seems to follow from some of the discussions going on about nominator withdrawal of AfDs at an early stage - if the main contributors to the article think incubation would be best, we might be able to accommodate that as well, but we don't need rules for every conceivable situation. Thoughts? Fritzpoll ( talk) 16:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, I thought you were considering somehow merging these pages into the Article Incubator. My original concern was about the AFD arguments simply being moved here, you responded, "you can't AfD a projectspace page" in which I interpreted that these pages would somehow become a part of the projectspace, on one long page. So editors can put these individual article pages up for deletion, as MfD. So on my example, people could put Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Infected (book) up for deletion. Ikip ( talk) 17:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone help me write Wikipedia:So you made a user subpage draft a page mentioned here: Wikipedia_talk:Article_wizard_2.0/maintenance#New_page_goes_to_Userfied_page
In addition, we can maybe work with this group later, when we are more developed. They can have new articles point to the incubator first.
There is a link to this project on many welcome templates now, you have probably seen them before. Ikip ( talk) 20:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I used category tree to create this collapsible list:
Category:Articles in the Article Incubator |
---|
Category Category:Articles in the Article Incubator not found
|
I removed the collapsible template but you may want to return it. This way, editors don't have to manually add articles to this list. Ikip ( talk) 21:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a former project which is similar to this one, except it did not involve AFD at all. We can borrow some of the language from this project, and learn from their mistakes. Ikip ( talk) 21:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Regarding medical terminology... we're already an "incubator", but talking about "killing" articles starts to verge into bleeding-heart territory. I would say that an article whose incubation fails gets "deleted". That's neither a euphemism nor a dysphemism. Somewhere on this page I already said "euthanized"; I'll be more careful. This WICU is a good lesson. I don't want to see that "historical" tag on this page. - GTBacchus( talk) 20:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
What's the point is writing about things that might become notable, when there's so much work to do on topics that already are notable?
It's not a race to get a new topic in here quickly, and it's not cool to write about topics that are not yet notable. Trying to make that part of this project will draw a lot of criticism, I think. Let's limit the scope to something less controversial, especially at first. - GTBacchus( talk) 20:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
==[[Wikipedia:Article Incubator]] == {{imbox|| image=[[Image:Songbird-egg.svg|50px]]| text=You commented at: [[Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_54#ARSify.3F|WP:AFD:ARSify]]<br> I thought you maybe interested in this: [[Wikipedia:Article_Incubator]] which will go live soon. <br>Your comments are very welcome. ~~~~}}
Creates:
You commented at:
WP:AFD:ARSify I thought you maybe interested in this: Wikipedia:Article_Incubator which will go live soon. Your comments are very welcome. Ikip ( talk) 20:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC) |
What details should be included in the main listing? Some organization will be required for editors to find articles that they are interested in working on.
WP:Categorization can be used, but generating a useful listing is probably best implemented with a bot reading from a template. Flatscan ( talk) 03:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Then again, I tend to be leery of bots, which is probably at least 20% irrational. The trouble with robots is that they're incessant; this is the lesson of everything from The Sorcerer's Apprentice to The Terminator. - GTBacchus( talk) 20:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
My big question is this:
Fortunately these questions don't need to be answered right now.
For the past two days I have been userfying or redirecting the very newest posted AFDs, after asking nominators their permission. My success rate in asking nominators to close the discussion has been between an astounding 70-80%. The reception I have received from this nominators has always been cordial and friendly.
We could start this project TODAY. I could have nominators agree to move these articles to the Incubator today, and I could redirect these articles to a sub-page today.
Enough talky-talky. :) Lets learn from doing, and lets see if this will work now. The worst that will happen is that we have to learn from our mistakes. Ikip ( talk) 19:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
(This principle actually applies to a hell of a lot on Wikipedia - wait until others say what you mean, and then you're already right.) - GTBacchus( talk) 20:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Ideas for images moved here:
Fences& Windows 20:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
This user edits and assesses articles in the Article Incubator. |
Fences&
Windows 20:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I added categorization to the template. It will now place people into Category:Wikipedians who incubate articles -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 19:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
This could work. I can find lots of candidates. Folks should consider Wikia as a possible destination of kittens stuffed in this bag. ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Their criticisms of the text at ARS are valid. We can't write copy like, "should its life be taken?" or "Some writer worked hard on that article." The idea - as I'm seeing it - is not to "save" every article that's "threatened". The idea is to enforce reasonable standards at a realistic pace that allows for development of articles on notable topics. I will absolutely play bad-cop as necessary.
I'm no "deletionist", but I don't think a bleeding-heart attitude will fly, and I want to see this baby airborne. There's a line to walk and a balance to strike. If we come across as seeing articles as poor widdle threatened infants, we won't be taken seriously. The current images are cool, but we should probably draw the line before the puppy quotient gets too high. Some puppies need to be euthanized, after all. - GTBacchus( talk) 19:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
My only caution would be that people like to shoot things down. It's best if we start with less controversial tasks, and see whether we can grow in the right direction. Let's walk before we run, eh? - GTBacchus( talk) 06:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Another way to deal with low improvement rate is to note what kinds of articles are entering the incubator, and which kinds have higher success rates. Then we can implement filters. This is not to be a catch-all for the whims of inclusionists; this is for articles that have a good chance of coming up to standards. I don't mean a theoretical good chance, either, but an actual verified-by-real-experience good chance. - GTBacchus( talk) 11:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
One possible filter on articles coming in, that would be simple to implement, is that articles could be nominated for incubation by any editor, but the nomination would have to be seconded by someone else to go ahead with incubation. Would this be useful, do people think? - GTBacchus( talk) 07:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I have remarked similarly on WT:Twinkle that I find it a huge problem with this otherwise good idea that the process can be started by everyone. Since such an action can be equally BITEy as userfication against the creator's will or speedy deletion, allowing everyone to initiate the process is a huge risk that mistakes will be made on a large scale, equally as mistakes are made with speedy tagging daily and far too often. I would suggest that this part of the proposal is revised to require review instead. My suggestion would be a CSD like process where NP patrollers can tag articles with {{ incubation suggested}} instead or together with a speedy or PROD tag and an admin can decide whether it should be moved here. Since the process has the same risk for BITEing newbies as CSD, it should be equally restricted in overview imho. What do you think? Regards So Why 09:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
As far as what's "allowed by any policy", see WP:IAR. - GTBacchus( talk) 19:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how to stop people from moving pages, because the software is set up so that anyone with an account can move an article to a title that isn't blocked. Most people can't push the delete button, but everyone can push the move button. There is not widespread userfication abuse, despite userfication coming up as an option every single day in AFD. Incubation will not be more well-known than userfication for a long time. I can undo moves very, very quickly. I've completed so many move requests, I can push those buttons in my sleep. I promise to be on strict guard against what you're worried about. Can you please give us a chance? I promise that I am alive and alert to your concerns, and that I will not tolerate incubation abuse. Can you please trust me to try it?
You ask, "The point of incubation is to remove articles that are deemed "unfit" from mainspace, isn't it?" Absolutely not. That's close to the opposite of the point. The point of incubation is to take articles that are going to be deleted, or that already have been deleted, and to keep them on the wiki and on a path into the mainspace. I won't tolerate anything being moved out of namespace that was not doomed. The first article we moved in had already been deleted. I promise you, this is not a method of getting rid of articles, in any way, shape, or form. Incubation is only for articles that were otherwise certain to be deleted or userfied.
Can you trust us, just until we see what happens? Please? You've got my word that I will nuke this page from orbit if this becomes a problem, ok? Keep an eye on us, and let us know if you see abuse, okay? - GTBacchus( talk) 22:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
← Some general comments: I agree that SoWhy's concerns should be considered in the long run, but the slow rate of manual incubation makes addressing them less urgent. I'm satisfied if the incubated article's major contributors receive notifications (hopefully personalized) from a mini-mentor. Taking articles from AfD – either during the AfD or after deletion – may be wiki-politically sensitive. Flatscan ( talk) 04:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
What's really safe, right off the bat, is to rob graves. Seriously, articles that have already been speedied are fair game. That's where the first one came from, really. It was a post-speedy post-mortem.
The concerns above are valid to an extent, but seem to ignore that this project is being run by humans whose goal is the opposite of "taking articles out of the mainspace that are deemed to be unfit". If someone starts doing the crap that SoWhy is worried about, I'll personally block them for disruption, so I really don't see where the fear comes from. - GTBacchus( talk) 05:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The article Eddie Kilroy (producer) was tagged for speedy, speedy was denied. Then it was prodded and the author blanked the page (I'm guessing he was getting frustrated). I initially tagged ot for a speedy G7, since the author blanked it, but then I thought about the incubator thing. If what was said in the short article was true, the guy is probably notable enough for an article. But that article had no sources and didn't assert notability very strongly. I'm not going to pretend like I'm going to try to rescue the article, but someone else might want to take a stab at it. If nobody does, then a G7 is probably in order. Niteshift36 ( talk) 04:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
It's an organization that has received plenty of local press in Seattle; I'd be surprised if it's non-notable, but in its current state... yeah. - GTBacchus( talk) 16:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Here's something I've just posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freiwilligen:
*Comment - If userfying is being considered, as was suggested above by User:Tikiwont, I submit that it might be better to move it to WP:INCUBATE, a new project that is essentially the same as the userfy option, except it's in a central area, in the project namespace. The advantages of incubation over userfication are that more eyes will see it, and that it won't sit there indefinitely out of sight if no improvement occurs.
Thanks for your consideration. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that's a good format to post in AFDs where userfication has already been suggested. If it's a template, it could have variables to make it a little more versatile, e.g., the name of the editor who suggested userfication. Thoughts? - GTBacchus( talk) 13:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, so if you type: {{subst:suggest incubation}}, you'll get:
Thanks for your consideration. - GTBacchus( talk) 13:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
If you type {{subst:suggest incubation|XYZ}}, you'll get:
Thanks for your consideration. - GTBacchus( talk) 13:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Questions: Is substing it the right idea? Any other features it should have? How about documentation? I'm new at this. - GTBacchus( talk) 13:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Ikip ( talk) 14:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Another template we definitely need is one to inform the article's creator where their article has gone. It should have two forms - one for an article that was tagged for speedy but moved here instead of deletion & one for an article that was never tagged speedy. I'll work on it later today or tomorrow if no one jumps on it first (but feel free to beat me to it. :)) -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 13:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to quickly slap a bot together to handle some admininstrative tasks in this part of the world. The bot will patrol our subpages and ensure that
Just to help us keep track of the articles and undo editing mistakes that may remove these tags. I'll shove it up for BRFA over the weekend Fritzpoll ( talk) 14:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to move Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Template to a more standard title, such as Template:Article Incubator? - GTBacchus( talk) 14:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Once we have a significant number of articles incubated and it becomes clear that this project is working, it may be a good idea to sort the articles. One method of doing this would be to add one or more Wikiproject tags to the talk page (these would be useful when placed in the main namespace anyway). But we would need some extra parameter in those (|incubated=yes), which would need to be added to every wikiproject tag we would use. Any other suggestions to make this sorting easier? Something like deletion sorting? The sorting is wanted to get knowledgeable / interested editors over to help with some of the articles. Fram ( talk) 14:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I've created two category pages: Category:Article Incubator for the project page itself and other supporting pages, and Category:Articles in the Article Incubator for the actual articles we're working on. Is there a way to edit the template so that it only sorts articles into the article category? Some kind of clever use of <includeonly> tags? - GTBacchus( talk) 15:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
With the list of articles in the incubator being auto-filled from the category, how do we keep track of how long articles have been in there? - GTBacchus( talk) 17:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a really good point, we also need to track (if possible) how many edits articles are getting and some way of tracking how many make it back to article space. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 17:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy for testpages to be userfied to sandboxes and non-notable autobiographies to be userfied to userpages, but I disagree with moving potential articles out of mainspace. If the subject is notable enough for an article why should a potential rescuer edit the article in an incubator when they could restart it in mainspace? The mainspace is the logical place for articles, its where our editors expect to find them and its where links from other articles are liable to point. If we have a problem with over enthusiastic new page patrollers lets deal with that instead. What we could have for an article incubator is a category, and make the articles in that category no-index so they don't show up in google. That would give us a virtual article incubator which would still get edits from those who found the article through links etc, and in the longterm might help our credibility with Google. Ϣere SpielChequers 19:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I see little difference between your suggestion of a category with {{ NOINDEX}} and what we're doing here. To your point: "If we have a problem with over enthusiastic new page patrollers lets deal with that instead," I say do it. Deal with that problem. That's been tried again and again, without success. If you can make new-page patrollers less zealous to delete, I'll nominate you for a Wiki-Nobel prize. Until then, I'm going to work on something that doesn't assume I can change the habits or attitudes of others. Nobel prize. - GTBacchus( talk) 19:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Eddie Kilroy
It ain't pretty, but it meets basic notability requirements, with 10 references, mostly books. Lets get it out of incubation, and move onto the next article. Ikip ( talk) 03:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
What we really need now is more articles to work on. Articles that AFD is on the verge of deleting or userfying are good targets, as are articles that have already been speedied in a suspicious A7 application. Incubation is just userfication with advantages. That makes switching from userfying to incubating a very natural and easy move. - GTBacchus( talk) 06:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay: Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Downtown Emergency Service Center.
Again, it isn't pretty. We could add a hell of a lot more references, and the editing is pretty rough, but it meets minimum notability guidelines. No objections, I am going to pull the umbilical cord. Ikip ( talk) 00:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Do we want to call articles that leave incubation "graduates" or should we stick with the incubation theme and call them "hatchlings?" I ask now, because I'd like to work on "formalizing" (i.e. creating a template & writing it into the project page) the de-incubation process today and need to know which term to use. :) -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 13:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Reading the above, I do not see any justification for moving such articles. This seems unhelpful in that, by removing the article from main space, this action seems likely to reduce the numbers of editors working upon the article rather than increase it. It will also result in the creation of numerous forks as other editors will recreate the article in main space. It is our clear and long-standing editing policy to maintain new articles in mainspace so that our millions of readers may develop them as they encounter them. We already have the stub concept to manage seed articles by providing categories which steer editors towards them, if they want to mother them. This concept thus seems redundant to existing practises and so fails WP:CREEP. I can't see it actually working in practise either as it will be soon overwhelmed by many thousands of articles - 99% of our 3 million articles are of less than good quality. 10:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I find it incomprehensible that self-styled "inclusionists" make the following perverse claim: They say that they don't have time to improve the article because they have to defend it at AFD. I find that completely put-my-head-through-a-wall bizarre, but I've failed to convince them that they can just improve the damn thing instead of arguing at AFD and claiming that they have to argue. I tell people they don't have to engage "deletionists" in discussion, and they come right back and tell me that I'm saying they have to have long discussions with deletionists!
Here's a thing about Wikipedia, Colonel. It doesn't always make sense. People here don't always make sense. Solutions that make no sense end up working! I've seen it happen repeatedly; if you're interested in history, I'll spell it out in detail for you.
We're trying something that some people think has promise, because AFD is getting more and more acrimonious, and many Wikipedians are claiming that good articles are getting deleted. You find another solution to that problem - implement it and make it work - and I'll give you a Wiki Nobel Prize. Others have tried and failed; the road is stained with blood, sweat and tears.
We're trying something here that carries zero risk, because as soon as it starts going wrong and we can't control it, the plug is pulled, articles are moved back to mainspace, and anyone trying to keep the abuse going gets blocked. I'm guaranteeing that, personally.
Now, can you tell me why this isn't worth a try? If you're going to convince me, make it good. What I won't accept is the following, "well, people shouldn't do such-and-such, so the solution is that they need to stop". Show me the money - show that you have the power to make those people change - or else let us give this our best. Trying to shoot this horse before it's out of the gate seems like a real pointless move. Zero risk, Colonel. Zero. - GTBacchus( talk) 13:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
In about 36 hours, I get in a taxi, and then on a train, then a bus, then 3 airplanes (one crossing an ocean), then a car, and then I drive 40 miles home. That will all take a healthy chunk of time, and when I get home, I'm going to study mathematics with my friend until she's tired (no, that's not a metaphor), cuddle up with my pet ferret who I've been missing terribly, and go to sleep.
Point is, I'll probably be of Wikipedia for a good long while, and that'll be cool. I like airports. While I'm gone, I'm sure the incubator will be fine. There are good hands on deck here.
I thank you for your concern, Ikip, which is almost certainly well-founded. I really throw myself into a project when I'm helping create something I believe in, and sometimes, yes, I get a tad over-wrought. I hope I didn't upset the Colonel. I'm probably calmer than I sound (I type fast, and 6 paragraphs are like nothing to me), but... yeah. Maybe I'll study some math and chill out for a while. I've only got today and tomorrow left to enjoy the Adriatic beach. - GTBacchus( talk) 15:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
How should editors find the incubating articles? We should have a refence or link from Wikipedias mainspace to the incubator. This would also allow users to find the incubating article (with a highlighted warning). Peter Mulvany 22:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulvany ( talk • contribs)
Ok, before I get offline, I just want to mention that I created {{ Incubate from userfied}} for notifying editors that the incubator is interested in taking pages out of their user space and into our page here. The template has two variables, so if you type
{{subst:Incubate from userfied|ArticleX|EditorY}}
you get:
Hi. I notice that the article, Article was moved out of the encyclopedia and into your user space. If you don't object, I would like to move this article to the Wikipedia:Article Incubator, a new project that facilitates the development of articles up to Wikipedia standards without the articles being threatened by deletion.
What I'm proposing is this: I will move User:Example/Article to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Article. In that location, it will be brought to the attention of many editors who can help improve it so that we'll be able to move it back into the proper encyclopedia soon.
Please let me know if you object to this for any reason, or if you have any questions or concerns. In the meantime, I am going to go ahead and move your user space article to the incubator. Thanks for your contributions. Friendly User ( talk) 09:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
No, you don't get the quotation box. That's just for here.
Have fun with it! I think that getting userfied articles from new user accounts (who are unlikely to get the article up to speed in their user space) is a good source for us. - GTBacchus( talk) 15:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
What happens when we get an article from someone's userfied version, and then end up deleting it anyway? There seems to be a diplomatic issue there - the newbie writes an article, it's thrown back, someone comes along and says they want to save it, and then.... See what I mean? Thoughts? - GTBacchus( talk) 06:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I got some nice sunset/sea photos last night. Maybe one of them will appear at Miramare soon... although checking it out, they've already got lots of good ones. Oh wait... I know what I can photograph! runs off... - GTBacchus( talk) 10:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I notice that articles in the incubator get the message "This article is being edited by the Article Incubator, an effort to improve articles at risk of deletion." even when those articles were not really "at risk of deletion", like the second graduate above (taken from GTBacchus user sandbox). Perhaps another template is needed for articles in the incubator that were not threatened by deletion? Fram ( talk) 11:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
We could just change it to "This article is being edited by the Article Incubator, an effort to improve articles that may not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards." - then it would be a jack-of-all-trades. Just a thought Fritzpoll ( talk) 21:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I updated the language. Feel free to tweak further as needed: Template:Article Incubator. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 03:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm working on this tonight - the tasks I have lined up for it are trawling our subpages checking that
Anyone got any other tasks that they'd like it to do in our little domain (while it lasts :) ) Fritzpoll ( talk) 21:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
status=
parameter to {{
Article Incubator}} so if you could make the bot pull that parameter and add it to the stats, that would be great. When placing the template for the first time it should add {{Article Incubator|status=new}}. Thanks! --
ThaddeusB (
talk) 02:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)We've talk a good bit about to to get articles into the project and a good bit about the process. Both fine and necessary things to do. The big question we haven't addressed yet is how do we attract editors (those who will improve the incubated articles) to the project? (When we are ready to kick it up a notch, of course.)
I like the "GA-lite" model the Ikip (inadvertently?) introduced and have run with it by creating {{ User Incubator Graduate}} which parallels {{ User Good Article}}. This should help keep people motivated once they arrive. Now, how do we get there here (again, when we're ready)? -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 01:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:Article_Incubator/Eie-manager#Delete_or_userfy. I've started Category:Article Incubator candidate for deletion. Fences& Windows 22:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
This is more like it. Sierra Kusterbeck might not be notable outside VersaEmerge, but I've found some possible sources in the shape of interviews with her. See Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Sierra Kusterbeck. Should be enough to tidy, expand and merge. Fences& Windows 23:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
First, let's not rush to delete anything. Keep in mind this in an alternative to userification. Second, there is no need to use a community deletion discussion here. If is not uncommon for admins to deleted userified articles that aren't touched after 30 days. (If they feel a need to classify them, they use the "routine maintenance" CSD criteria.) We should adopt a similar system here. I'll start working on the language shortly - which of course will be up for modification & discussion. I've been fairly busy so far today, but I can will probably get to it later tonight. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 03:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Before we delete things out of the incubator, I'd like to know that they've been given the best shot possible, and we're not in a hurry. If we can't find online references, why don't we encourage ourselves and others to check offline sources - an actual bricks and books library, for example? Lots of books and journals full of great, reliable information are not online.
I would oppose taking an article out of the incubator before a month or so has past unless we know there's been an effort to look for sources in ways that really are less feasible in a week-long AFD framework. I'll bet a lot of us are on university campuses, for example. I could start making a weekly trip to the library to run through a list of searches, and see what I can find. Maybe we can set up some kind of "list of offline search requests", to assist people who want to help in that way.
We've been given enough community confidence to use increased more space and time developing these things, so let's take advantage of that opportunity. I think that would do a lot to ease the minds of our cautious and conditional supporters, and maybe even win over some of the detractors. The detractors are the ones we need to listen to the closest sometimes... - GTBacchus( talk) 15:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
First, I love this idea, and plan to support it. I've tried to read all the background but there is a lot. At some time consider a nutshell summary, so new people don't have to read this entire thread to know the current status, but that's not a top priority at the moment.
However, I do have a question, minor in the overall scheme, but important to me. One of the aspect of this project I see as critical is the NOINDEX attribute. Halton Bus Services is a perfect example of what the incubator project is all about—a page that required a fair amount of work by an editor, but not meeting the standards of Wikipedia. Without the incubator, the likely options were either delete, or find enough editors to get it up to snuff tout de suite. (or usify, which I like, but probably means that no one else sees it, so a sole editor needs to fix it). We want to allow these not up to snuff articles to exist for a time, we don't want them visible to the outside wold, obviously the point of NOINDEX.
However, a Google search for "Halton Bus Services" shows a link to the incubation article on the first page. (Ironically, Wikipedia Search does not find it). Perhaps this is because it was indexed before it was rescued, but I wonder if someone who follows this process more closely than I could comment on whether this is a one off situation, or a problem requiring addressing. If virtually all are found by Google, there's not much point in move them to an incubation section.--
SPhilbrick
T 00:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Check it out at Wikipedia:Article_Incubator#How_it_works and discuss anything you disagree with here and/or edit the text to fix any problems you see. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 04:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
How about we have a tool box included in Template:Article Incubator. An example to follow is the WP:AFC in template:AFC submission and could include instructions, log of original article, move to article space, search on a popular search engine or WP for refs, a Last edited x hours ago, put in incubator x days ago, AFD link, put it out of its misery link. What do people think? Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 05:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I added a very basic toolbox (see below for examples). I'll add some more stuff tonight. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 21:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I've added a new status parameter to {{ Article Incubator}} the available option are as follows:
{{tl|Article Incubator|status=new}}
produces:{{Article Incubator|status=new|demo=1}}
{{tl|Article Incubator|status=start}}
produces:{{Article Incubator|status=start|demo=1}}
{{tl|Article Incubator|status=eval}}
adds the article to
Category:Article Incubator candidate for articlespace and produces:{{Article Incubator|status=eval|demo=1}}
{{tl|Article Incubator|status=delete}}
adds the article to
Category:Article Incubator candidate for deletion and produces:{{Article Incubator|status=delete|demo=1}} Feel free to tweak the wording as needing or ask me to do so if you are uneasy about editing templates. General comments and suggestions for additional classifications are also welcome. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 20:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
This switch on the template is cool. I really like the first three texts, and the fourth one brings up the issue of what it takes to delete a page from the incubator. The wording: "and/or the article doesn't meet Wikipedia standards and is unlikely to ever do so," sounds to me like what must be going through the head of an AfD "delete" voter. I think we want to set a higher bar than that.
One month of stagnation is a great requirement. That's a high bar - anyone wanting to fix it up has had a month. If there's to be an alternative to the month-of-stagnation, I propose the following:
An article can be deleted from the incubator after (A) one month of stagnation, OR (B) an editor attests to making a good faith attempt to find offline sources, followed by one week of stagnation.
Offline sources should exist for almost all notable topics. Per an idea in another thread above, we can keep track of pages with no sources yet, and make a list available to editors who want to help with brick-and-books research. If someone tries that, says they've failed, and nobody even offers to pick up the ball within a week, I think we can say we've given it a fair shot.
I dunno, whaddya you guys think? - GTBacchus( talk) 23:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Is something like this useful? I've put together a collapsed list of all the talk pages of the articles in the incubator. I did this manually; could it be done by a bot? Fences& Windows 20:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
It has carried across the categories of the talk pages, it there a way to suppress this? Fences& Windows 20:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
User:LivingWell4U/Immunocal, recently userfied following an AfD in November 2008. A Nobody had adopted the user, but is now taking a wikibreak (available via email, User talk:A Nobody#Adoption Request to Re-Submit Deleted Page). I believe that the user would benefit from an active on-wiki mentor (I'm not sure about the article), but given my involvement with A Nobody's present situation, I am submitting it here for wider input. Flatscan ( talk) 04:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Copied from Template talk:Article Incubator for greater visability
Not sure I get the point of this status. I just fixed and incubated article, and rather than set it to "eval" I just took it back to mainspace ( poker run). Under what circumstances should an editor set this status rather than just taking care of it themselves? Maybe if they're the original article creator, and they don't do much work on it before mainspacing it again, but still...what's the worst that could happen? Stevage 05:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, ThaddeusB makes a good point, which I will summarise as "Incubation is a concentrated dose of article improvement. Rapid excubation reduces that benefit." But I think Fram is incorrect in his argument: no one is suggesting that the original article creator should excubate their own article. Nor would it be acceptable to excubate without making significant changes. That seems like a weak slippery slope argument.
In conclusion, I think I would make the policy recommendation something like this: "If, after making significant improves, you are confident that the article passes notability and quality criteria, you may move it back into namespace. However, we recommend that you instead set the template status to "eval", to let someone else make that assessement, and give them one last chance to participate in the incubation."
Fair enough? Stevage 12:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Partially because of this project, I have started making regular trips to the library. As a result, I have discovered I have access to some pretty good premium resources including the full text LexisNexis and Factiva databases for the past twenty years or so. In other words, I can get the full text to most major newspapers' and many medium newspapers' articles even when Google links them to a pay service. I also have access to a very extensive microform collection and over 100 subject specific databases.
So, if you need something specific to write an article but can't get it, drop me a line and I'll see what I can do.
Others who are willing to help in a similar fashion, can add their details here. :) See also WP:LIBRARY. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 13:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I work in a University, so have pretty extensive source access. I'll make a similar offer to Thaddeus here. Fritzpoll ( talk) 08:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Having just moved my first page in here, I find myself unsure - are pages automatically NOINDEXED by being moved into the incubator, or do I need to add something, and if so what? JohnCD ( talk) 19:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Should articles in the incubator be wiki-linked from the mainspace or do they fall under the same rules as userspace where Wikipedia:User page#Copies of other pages says "One should never create links from a mainspace article to any userpage...?"
The situation at hand is I added content to the mainspace article Association of Nigerian Authors and wanted to wikilink from that to Simbo Olorunfemi which is presently incubating at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Simbo Olorunfemi. For now, I wikilinked from the mainspace directly to incubator-space article.
An alternative is to #REDIRECT from the mainspace but a sticky aspect to that is that this incubation was created out of an AFD. Would adding a #REDIRECT be be construed as a recreating a deleted article? Of the 19 articles currently in the incubator
I have a similar issue in that I'm working on an article in userspace. In that case I made the mainspace name a redirect to another mainspace article and added a note to the redirect page's talk page about the userspace version I'm working on. A tricky aspect to doing it this way is if I moved the article into mainspace that I would need to either delete the mainspace version (with the redirect) first. We'd loose the edit history of the redirect page though I could preserve the talk page via copy/paste. A benefit of this method though is that if the subject of the article is not be notable then I can add a note about my findings to the redirect's talk page. It preserves the research should someone else want to take up the project. -- Marc Kupper| talk 22:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I look at some of these articles, which will never be wikipedia articles, and I wonder if we can export these articles to other wikis.
A hard case, for example: Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Halton Bus Services Where would this go? Ikip ( talk) 00:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)