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historical reference.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 |
I'm a bit confused on including templates and categories, etc. to articles in the incubator. Should they be excluded from showing in the real Wikipedia space via some prefix? For example: [1] Eclipsed ( talk) 10:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
<!-- -->
per
WP:Article Incubator#How it works. What you did
here is correct.
Flatscan (
talk) 05:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)I added En Derin to the candidate list [2]. Any comments welcome. Thanks. Eclipsed ¤ 23:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The robot DASHbot is adding deletion tags on some images used in incubator articles. I think this is a false positive, and is detrimental to the work ongoing in the Incubator. I've opened a mediation case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-10-30/Images in Article Incubator. Thanks. Eclipsed ¤ 09:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I went through the current incubator pages and marked many for deletion, because they have been inactive for at least 3 months. Eclipsed ¤ 18:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
There's a Request for Comment relevant to the incubator process at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#RfC: Non-free content in Article Incubator. PhilKnight ( talk) 19:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
What | Where | Why |
---|---|---|
Add Article Incubator to NFC exemption list | + |
|
Eclipsed ¤ 13:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
currently contains:
if anyone would like to take a look. pablo 12:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
A new article has been created at Andy Dannatt.
Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Andy Dannatt needs merging there, probably. pablo 14:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I've proposed a CSD for stale incubated articles: Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#CSD_G13:_Stale_incubated_article Gigs ( talk) 01:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
We have categories for eval & delete, but is there one for 'start' ? Eclipsed ¤ 12:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I started Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Proposal_Boilerplate. Purpose is to create a short intro blurb that can be used for any future proposals/rfcs/etc involving the incubator. Eclipsed ¤ 09:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I started Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Incubation Workflow. Purpose is to create a workflow chart of how articles go through the incubator process. Eclipsed ¤ 10:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I posted a query on the Work via WikiProjects talk page about creating an internal assessment grouping for the incubator. Eclipsed ¤ 11:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I've rescued User:Fences and windows/Protest in the United Kingdom and User:Fences and windows/Post-Cold War era from summary deletion. The former was originally started by SmartSE in his userspace and moved by me into the incubator in its early days, where I did some work on it and hoped that others might pick up the baton. The latter was moved into the incubator after a no-consensus AfD, so summary deletion would actually be a sneaky way to get it deleted against consensus. This recent mania of deleting articles without considering other options is harmful. You are deleting material that has promise and that was the founding purpose of the incubator. With this attitude and atmosphere, I won't be trusting any more material to the incubator, as those who've taken it on themselves to control it are not nurturing promising content at all. Fences& Windows 21:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/RfC Removal Procedure. Eclipsed ¤ 00:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Eclipsed ¤ 14:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Article Incubator articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
A new userbox, to show that you have 'adopted' an article in the incubator. Example:
{{
User Incubator Adopter|Eclipsed|Example Article}}
See: {{Template:User Incubator Adopter}}. Thanks.. Eclipsed (t) 14:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Eclipsed (talk) (code of ethics) 12:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I support this as an obvious step to find ways to deal with the hysterics of those who somehow believe paid editing hasn't gone on since the very early years. We do not ascribe motives unless their is an obvious problem, we extend good faith to all until their editing or actions show they need to be taught better. I applaud Eclipsed for being open and honest in what they are doing, if only others would follow the example. With heightened status I have no doubt their work will be wacthed and likely get more and better peer-review than most -perhaps that's the whole point. Wroted ( talk) 19:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
This is presuming that the concept of article incubation is created at all, but it seems to me that perhaps the creation of a whole new namespace ought to be put here under consideration. This is rare and should be done only when there is a huge pressing need, and when such a move can help out the project as a whole. There certainly are a number of benefits to a completely independent namespace, and it is an organizational tool to consider:
In short, I see a number of positive benefits for creating a new namespace for incubated articles as opposed to having them as a sub-page. Like I said, the very concept of the article incubator is something that in general should be nailed down and gain more widespread acceptance as a concept, but presuming that it is accepted, it would seem like a good idea to put it into a separate namespace once it is commonly accepted as a concept. This would require widespread consensus with the Wikipedia community as a whole and would rightly be seen as a major change to Wikipedia. Other sister projects have successfully created alternate namespaces as applied to specialized content, and this certainly seems to fit the measure. I'm just asking for the idea to be considered. I do think such a discussion involving a new namespace would nail down hard just what the role of the incubator ought to be and if it ought to be a permanent part of Wikipedia. It would certainly get the attention of a whole lot of Wikipedia participants. -- Robert Horning ( talk) 17:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Why did the egg logo go away? Gigs ( talk) 02:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Eclipsed, User:Haengbokhada, and User:Graceconcepcionr appear to be paid editors who are using the incubator to try to get poorly sourced articles back into mainspace. Make sure that any articles they've tagged with "eval" are scrutinised properly, please. Fences& Windows 02:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
My involvement with the Incubator project is causing 'controversy', and I don't want to stand in the way of the current work to improve the Incubator. I'm thinking we should delete the 3 workflow drafts I started: Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Incubation Workflow, Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Graduation Procedure, and Wikipedia:Article Incubator/RfC Removal Procedure. Does everyone concur? Thanks Eclipsed (talk) (code of ethics) 15:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
{{
db-g7}}
. I have no problems with it. Diving into the deep end of policy discussions with little experience was tricky enough. Now with your disclosed COI, I doubt anything you've proposed would go anywhere.
Gigs (
talk) 15:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
As Gigs says, there is no need for you to remove your contributions, nor for you to point them out. As part of the ongoing development of Wikipedia your contributions will either be built on or covered over as appropriate. The decision will be based on the material you have added rather than that it was you who added it. The only time material is removed purely because a certain individual added it, is when a person has been banned from contributing to Wikipedia and that person has attempted to evade the ban. Not everyone agrees with removing material even then; though the rule is there to allow for quick removal of potentially problematic material rather than to be blindly applied in all cases. Also, the rule isn't for hunting through and removing a person's contributions from before the period when they were banned. I note above that you have been criticised for some of your work. This happens. If all of us removed all our contributions because people questioned or criticised what we had done, then there would be little of Wikipedia left! A more appropriate response would be to look at the criticisms, take on board relevant points, adjust your editing accordingly, and carry that forward. As of this posting your account has not been blocked even though you have revealed your connection with a paid editing service - until such time as the community decide your involvement with paid editing violates policy, you are free (and welcome) to continue. SilkTork * YES! 10:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
You've turned the project page into something that is guaranteed to draw extremely heavy opposition once people notice it. The incubator was never intended solely as a place for deleted articles. It was supposed to be an alternative to userfication in all its forms, which includes new drafts as well as REFUNDS, as well as unsuitable speedyable material that was placed in mainspace that someone felt merited incubation. It was meant as centralized, collaborative, userfication, not as a junkyard of previously deleted material. You've unilaterally redefined the entire project into something that I, and I'm sure many others, can no longer support. You've sentenced the incubator to death. Gigs ( talk) 03:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I would welcome a wider discussion about the incubator as I have some ongoing concerns. My intention is to analyse the histories of articles that have been through the incubator to see how much help the incubator has given. Then to contact those people who have been involved in the incubator to talk over known issues, and ideas for development. And then to move to a wider community discussion. I have been tightening up the process of the incubator, and making some aspects of it clearer - indicating where it clashes with existing process (there is no need to have two process which do the same thing running in conflict - for example, we have WP:AfC so we do not need another project which does the same thing). WP:AfC is a well established and efficient project, and people who want help in creating new articles should be directed there. I have also reworded those aspects of the incubator which were against policy. Material cannot be deleted on the whim of an editor, and must follow policy - that includes moving an article into the incubator as well as deleting it from the incubator. I noted recent concerns about the incubator, and I also noted that it was set up without the input from the community (those setting it up didn't want the community to be involved). It would be inappropriate to turn a blind eye to concerns about a project. And wider discussion is what is needed. My intention here is to clear up the project as much as possible, addressing concerns, and then seeing if the project remains viable, and take it to the community to discuss. I am quite willing to talk about specific concerns that anyone has about any edits or changes I have made. Also, I am not an authority figure - I am a fellow volunteer on this charity project. Any of my edits may be challenged, changed, improved, etc. I change my own edits quite often! My intention is to improve the project, not to impose my will. Let's all work together on improving it. SilkTork * YES! 16:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
No Gigs. If you have specific issues, let's deal with those. But you cannot bluntly return to a version that violates the deletion policy, which is not providing accurate information, and which has been causing users concern. There has not been a community input on this project, so there is no "consensus version". Also, see Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus". Let's discuss this. What are your particular concerns about the changes I've been making? SilkTork * YES! 01:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The incubator was originally designed and operated for over a year as a temporary home for all sorts of material that was not yet suitable for mainspace. This included new article drafts, candidates for speedy deletion that were not yet deleted, and articles with a delete consensus at AfD where at least one editor recommended incubation in good faith. There has been a recent proposal by User:SilkTork to reframe the incubator as a "soft deletion" process, to be only used on previously deleted material. The proposed changes can be seen here. The previously existing processes can be seen here. I invite wider community input on this proposed change. Gigs ( talk) 02:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
What is the correct procedure for outright removal of a long-unimproved article? Does merely changing the status tag like this suffice to bring someone around with a mop? -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm willing to delete long-unimproved articles when necessary. Feel free to ask me at my talk page anytime.
In reply to the above comment: I don't think it's true that userfication means there's an individual who maintains an interest in the article. I've personally forgotten completely about articles in my user space, and it was incubation that brought those back to life. - GTBacchus( talk) 20:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
As I understand it, articles in the incubator should not be in categories. Now, that's normally easily accomplished. But, what about in a case where a template puts an article in a category, such as Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Blooded (film) in Category:British films? Is there a way to remove the category, while keeping the template visible. -- Rob ( talk) 23:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
|nocat=true
.
Flatscan (
talk) 05:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)There is a trial sub-project under way at Wikipedia:Wiki_Guides/New_pages which would permit incubation through this project to be used in ways which do not conform with the incubation criteria adopted here. See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Wiki_Guides/New_pages#Who_can_participate_in_this_project. Your participation in that discussion would, I am sure, be welcome. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 17:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
There haven't been any new articles incubated in months, and as far as I can tell, nothing is moving on the incubated articles. Unless there's some good reason, I'll mark this whole project historical in a few days. Gigs ( talk) 17:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Um... now I'm confused. What about the new initiative described in the section above? Don't you think we should give it a chance? Contains Mild Peril ( talk) 03:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The article incubation trial for encouraging new users and improving new articles is currently underway. Sign up and get involved!
I don't really see any particular advantage to a "fresh start": on the contrary, I think use of the existing incubator could revitalise interest in the whole incubation project. Contains Mild Peril ( talk) 20:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I have made a userbox intended for counting article "resuscitations" via WP:REFUND or here at the Incubator: {{ User:Chaos5023/Userboxes/Reanimations}}. (See also my userboxen page for usage and display example.) Just FYI. :) —chaos5023 ( talk) 06:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Since apparently a few editors have zombified a year old RfC discussion about trying to shut down this page, there is some good that can come from such an action: taking another look at this wikiproject and concept in general.
For myself, I think it is seriously underused and needs somebody with vision to bring it back to life. I have seen some of the good that can come from incubating articles as I've participated with some articles that have gone the full life cycle including "rescued" articles that went through the incubation process only to become something useful and valued on Wikipedia. Userfication of articles may serve a limited purpose for awhile, but is to me unsatisfactory as it also seems to violate the spirit of WP:OWN and violates other basic principles of Wikipedia as well.
I think there is a role to play for articles that aren't quite ready for the main article namespace as full article, but still shouldn't be deleted entirely. The problem with this concept has always been trying to find that niche, and also to make sure that it doesn't get stomped upon by people who don't understand the concept of article incubation.
More to the point, I'd like to start a general discussion of article incubation in general, so if you have ideas or thoughts on how to restart this concept, please express your thoughts below. -- Robert Horning ( talk) 15:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Serene Branson hasn't exactly become a media sensation in the past year, but predictably, she has been retained by an organization involved with migraine, the National Headache Foundation, for their promotional efforts. She is also receiving attention in Google books. Here is a 2012 magazine article here. Unscintillating ( talk) 16:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
An administrator has indicated that he/she does not know how to incubate an article. Please advise. Unscintillating ( talk) 05:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Some IPv6 address has requested a move.
-- 70.24.250.110 ( talk) 22:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Please see the proposal at the Village Pump: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Wikipedia:Article_Incubator. Regards, Illia Connell ( talk) 05:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Proposed addition: Use in draft articles is related to pages in the Incubator. Please read it and provide your input there. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 15:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
List of German actors (from 1895 to the present) was copy-and-pasted out of the incubator from WP:Article Incubator/List of German actors (from 1895 to the present). It was incubated via AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German actors (from 1895 to the present). The attribution of the current mainspace version is broken, since the edit history remains in the incubator. The talk page similarly is broken, since the development comments remains in the incubator. Currently at talk:List of German actors (from 1895 to the present) there is a discussion on what to do with the mainspace version. Since this article exists simultaneously in the incubator and in mainspace, with the same verbatim content, you may be interested in this situation. -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 05:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I propose we formally deprecate the Incubator as it hasn't been used. WP:USERFICATION will remain as an option for deleted articles.
Articles currently in the incubator can be slowly worked or sent to WP:MfD if it's obvious there's no interest in improving the article enough to promote it. When the backlog is empty, the whole project can be marked historical. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 01:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be merged into WP:AFC Articles for Creation, considering that they now support unsubmitted drafts? incubated articles would just be unsubmitted drafts, waiting for conversion into submitted drafts at AfC. -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 05:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Request withdrawn - no consensus to mark project as inactive. See discussion above and below dated after 19:55 20 May 2013. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 01:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
If nobody objects sooner, will the first editor who sees this after 19:55, 20 May 2013 mark the project {{
WikiProject status/Inactive}}?
davidwr/(
talk)/(
contribs)/(
e-mail) 19:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Illia Connell ( talk) 04:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I moved SE&CR Diagram 960 PMV from the incubator to main space. Illia Connell ( talk) 06:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be a little stirring from some editors that would like to revive the incubator. Because of the unusual nature of this project (in that anyone could pretty much start their own incubator anyway), I don't think we should mark historical over genuine objections.
I propose the following (based on prior proposals of several editors):
What is the procedure for an article created in mainspace while a similar article exists in the incubator? The article is Omar Todd. Unscintillating ( talk) 05:55, 24 June 2013 (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 |
I'm a bit confused on including templates and categories, etc. to articles in the incubator. Should they be excluded from showing in the real Wikipedia space via some prefix? For example: [1] Eclipsed ( talk) 10:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
<!-- -->
per
WP:Article Incubator#How it works. What you did
here is correct.
Flatscan (
talk) 05:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)I added En Derin to the candidate list [2]. Any comments welcome. Thanks. Eclipsed ¤ 23:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The robot DASHbot is adding deletion tags on some images used in incubator articles. I think this is a false positive, and is detrimental to the work ongoing in the Incubator. I've opened a mediation case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-10-30/Images in Article Incubator. Thanks. Eclipsed ¤ 09:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I went through the current incubator pages and marked many for deletion, because they have been inactive for at least 3 months. Eclipsed ¤ 18:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
There's a Request for Comment relevant to the incubator process at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#RfC: Non-free content in Article Incubator. PhilKnight ( talk) 19:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
What | Where | Why |
---|---|---|
Add Article Incubator to NFC exemption list | + |
|
Eclipsed ¤ 13:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
currently contains:
if anyone would like to take a look. pablo 12:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
A new article has been created at Andy Dannatt.
Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Andy Dannatt needs merging there, probably. pablo 14:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I've proposed a CSD for stale incubated articles: Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#CSD_G13:_Stale_incubated_article Gigs ( talk) 01:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
We have categories for eval & delete, but is there one for 'start' ? Eclipsed ¤ 12:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I started Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Proposal_Boilerplate. Purpose is to create a short intro blurb that can be used for any future proposals/rfcs/etc involving the incubator. Eclipsed ¤ 09:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I started Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Incubation Workflow. Purpose is to create a workflow chart of how articles go through the incubator process. Eclipsed ¤ 10:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I posted a query on the Work via WikiProjects talk page about creating an internal assessment grouping for the incubator. Eclipsed ¤ 11:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I've rescued User:Fences and windows/Protest in the United Kingdom and User:Fences and windows/Post-Cold War era from summary deletion. The former was originally started by SmartSE in his userspace and moved by me into the incubator in its early days, where I did some work on it and hoped that others might pick up the baton. The latter was moved into the incubator after a no-consensus AfD, so summary deletion would actually be a sneaky way to get it deleted against consensus. This recent mania of deleting articles without considering other options is harmful. You are deleting material that has promise and that was the founding purpose of the incubator. With this attitude and atmosphere, I won't be trusting any more material to the incubator, as those who've taken it on themselves to control it are not nurturing promising content at all. Fences& Windows 21:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/RfC Removal Procedure. Eclipsed ¤ 00:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Eclipsed ¤ 14:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Article Incubator articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
A new userbox, to show that you have 'adopted' an article in the incubator. Example:
{{
User Incubator Adopter|Eclipsed|Example Article}}
See: {{Template:User Incubator Adopter}}. Thanks.. Eclipsed (t) 14:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Eclipsed (talk) (code of ethics) 12:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I support this as an obvious step to find ways to deal with the hysterics of those who somehow believe paid editing hasn't gone on since the very early years. We do not ascribe motives unless their is an obvious problem, we extend good faith to all until their editing or actions show they need to be taught better. I applaud Eclipsed for being open and honest in what they are doing, if only others would follow the example. With heightened status I have no doubt their work will be wacthed and likely get more and better peer-review than most -perhaps that's the whole point. Wroted ( talk) 19:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
This is presuming that the concept of article incubation is created at all, but it seems to me that perhaps the creation of a whole new namespace ought to be put here under consideration. This is rare and should be done only when there is a huge pressing need, and when such a move can help out the project as a whole. There certainly are a number of benefits to a completely independent namespace, and it is an organizational tool to consider:
In short, I see a number of positive benefits for creating a new namespace for incubated articles as opposed to having them as a sub-page. Like I said, the very concept of the article incubator is something that in general should be nailed down and gain more widespread acceptance as a concept, but presuming that it is accepted, it would seem like a good idea to put it into a separate namespace once it is commonly accepted as a concept. This would require widespread consensus with the Wikipedia community as a whole and would rightly be seen as a major change to Wikipedia. Other sister projects have successfully created alternate namespaces as applied to specialized content, and this certainly seems to fit the measure. I'm just asking for the idea to be considered. I do think such a discussion involving a new namespace would nail down hard just what the role of the incubator ought to be and if it ought to be a permanent part of Wikipedia. It would certainly get the attention of a whole lot of Wikipedia participants. -- Robert Horning ( talk) 17:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Why did the egg logo go away? Gigs ( talk) 02:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Eclipsed, User:Haengbokhada, and User:Graceconcepcionr appear to be paid editors who are using the incubator to try to get poorly sourced articles back into mainspace. Make sure that any articles they've tagged with "eval" are scrutinised properly, please. Fences& Windows 02:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
My involvement with the Incubator project is causing 'controversy', and I don't want to stand in the way of the current work to improve the Incubator. I'm thinking we should delete the 3 workflow drafts I started: Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Incubation Workflow, Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Graduation Procedure, and Wikipedia:Article Incubator/RfC Removal Procedure. Does everyone concur? Thanks Eclipsed (talk) (code of ethics) 15:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
{{
db-g7}}
. I have no problems with it. Diving into the deep end of policy discussions with little experience was tricky enough. Now with your disclosed COI, I doubt anything you've proposed would go anywhere.
Gigs (
talk) 15:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
As Gigs says, there is no need for you to remove your contributions, nor for you to point them out. As part of the ongoing development of Wikipedia your contributions will either be built on or covered over as appropriate. The decision will be based on the material you have added rather than that it was you who added it. The only time material is removed purely because a certain individual added it, is when a person has been banned from contributing to Wikipedia and that person has attempted to evade the ban. Not everyone agrees with removing material even then; though the rule is there to allow for quick removal of potentially problematic material rather than to be blindly applied in all cases. Also, the rule isn't for hunting through and removing a person's contributions from before the period when they were banned. I note above that you have been criticised for some of your work. This happens. If all of us removed all our contributions because people questioned or criticised what we had done, then there would be little of Wikipedia left! A more appropriate response would be to look at the criticisms, take on board relevant points, adjust your editing accordingly, and carry that forward. As of this posting your account has not been blocked even though you have revealed your connection with a paid editing service - until such time as the community decide your involvement with paid editing violates policy, you are free (and welcome) to continue. SilkTork * YES! 10:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
You've turned the project page into something that is guaranteed to draw extremely heavy opposition once people notice it. The incubator was never intended solely as a place for deleted articles. It was supposed to be an alternative to userfication in all its forms, which includes new drafts as well as REFUNDS, as well as unsuitable speedyable material that was placed in mainspace that someone felt merited incubation. It was meant as centralized, collaborative, userfication, not as a junkyard of previously deleted material. You've unilaterally redefined the entire project into something that I, and I'm sure many others, can no longer support. You've sentenced the incubator to death. Gigs ( talk) 03:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I would welcome a wider discussion about the incubator as I have some ongoing concerns. My intention is to analyse the histories of articles that have been through the incubator to see how much help the incubator has given. Then to contact those people who have been involved in the incubator to talk over known issues, and ideas for development. And then to move to a wider community discussion. I have been tightening up the process of the incubator, and making some aspects of it clearer - indicating where it clashes with existing process (there is no need to have two process which do the same thing running in conflict - for example, we have WP:AfC so we do not need another project which does the same thing). WP:AfC is a well established and efficient project, and people who want help in creating new articles should be directed there. I have also reworded those aspects of the incubator which were against policy. Material cannot be deleted on the whim of an editor, and must follow policy - that includes moving an article into the incubator as well as deleting it from the incubator. I noted recent concerns about the incubator, and I also noted that it was set up without the input from the community (those setting it up didn't want the community to be involved). It would be inappropriate to turn a blind eye to concerns about a project. And wider discussion is what is needed. My intention here is to clear up the project as much as possible, addressing concerns, and then seeing if the project remains viable, and take it to the community to discuss. I am quite willing to talk about specific concerns that anyone has about any edits or changes I have made. Also, I am not an authority figure - I am a fellow volunteer on this charity project. Any of my edits may be challenged, changed, improved, etc. I change my own edits quite often! My intention is to improve the project, not to impose my will. Let's all work together on improving it. SilkTork * YES! 16:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
No Gigs. If you have specific issues, let's deal with those. But you cannot bluntly return to a version that violates the deletion policy, which is not providing accurate information, and which has been causing users concern. There has not been a community input on this project, so there is no "consensus version". Also, see Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus". Let's discuss this. What are your particular concerns about the changes I've been making? SilkTork * YES! 01:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The incubator was originally designed and operated for over a year as a temporary home for all sorts of material that was not yet suitable for mainspace. This included new article drafts, candidates for speedy deletion that were not yet deleted, and articles with a delete consensus at AfD where at least one editor recommended incubation in good faith. There has been a recent proposal by User:SilkTork to reframe the incubator as a "soft deletion" process, to be only used on previously deleted material. The proposed changes can be seen here. The previously existing processes can be seen here. I invite wider community input on this proposed change. Gigs ( talk) 02:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
What is the correct procedure for outright removal of a long-unimproved article? Does merely changing the status tag like this suffice to bring someone around with a mop? -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm willing to delete long-unimproved articles when necessary. Feel free to ask me at my talk page anytime.
In reply to the above comment: I don't think it's true that userfication means there's an individual who maintains an interest in the article. I've personally forgotten completely about articles in my user space, and it was incubation that brought those back to life. - GTBacchus( talk) 20:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
As I understand it, articles in the incubator should not be in categories. Now, that's normally easily accomplished. But, what about in a case where a template puts an article in a category, such as Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Blooded (film) in Category:British films? Is there a way to remove the category, while keeping the template visible. -- Rob ( talk) 23:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
|nocat=true
.
Flatscan (
talk) 05:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)There is a trial sub-project under way at Wikipedia:Wiki_Guides/New_pages which would permit incubation through this project to be used in ways which do not conform with the incubation criteria adopted here. See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Wiki_Guides/New_pages#Who_can_participate_in_this_project. Your participation in that discussion would, I am sure, be welcome. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 17:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
There haven't been any new articles incubated in months, and as far as I can tell, nothing is moving on the incubated articles. Unless there's some good reason, I'll mark this whole project historical in a few days. Gigs ( talk) 17:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Um... now I'm confused. What about the new initiative described in the section above? Don't you think we should give it a chance? Contains Mild Peril ( talk) 03:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The article incubation trial for encouraging new users and improving new articles is currently underway. Sign up and get involved!
I don't really see any particular advantage to a "fresh start": on the contrary, I think use of the existing incubator could revitalise interest in the whole incubation project. Contains Mild Peril ( talk) 20:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I have made a userbox intended for counting article "resuscitations" via WP:REFUND or here at the Incubator: {{ User:Chaos5023/Userboxes/Reanimations}}. (See also my userboxen page for usage and display example.) Just FYI. :) —chaos5023 ( talk) 06:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Since apparently a few editors have zombified a year old RfC discussion about trying to shut down this page, there is some good that can come from such an action: taking another look at this wikiproject and concept in general.
For myself, I think it is seriously underused and needs somebody with vision to bring it back to life. I have seen some of the good that can come from incubating articles as I've participated with some articles that have gone the full life cycle including "rescued" articles that went through the incubation process only to become something useful and valued on Wikipedia. Userfication of articles may serve a limited purpose for awhile, but is to me unsatisfactory as it also seems to violate the spirit of WP:OWN and violates other basic principles of Wikipedia as well.
I think there is a role to play for articles that aren't quite ready for the main article namespace as full article, but still shouldn't be deleted entirely. The problem with this concept has always been trying to find that niche, and also to make sure that it doesn't get stomped upon by people who don't understand the concept of article incubation.
More to the point, I'd like to start a general discussion of article incubation in general, so if you have ideas or thoughts on how to restart this concept, please express your thoughts below. -- Robert Horning ( talk) 15:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Serene Branson hasn't exactly become a media sensation in the past year, but predictably, she has been retained by an organization involved with migraine, the National Headache Foundation, for their promotional efforts. She is also receiving attention in Google books. Here is a 2012 magazine article here. Unscintillating ( talk) 16:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
An administrator has indicated that he/she does not know how to incubate an article. Please advise. Unscintillating ( talk) 05:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Some IPv6 address has requested a move.
-- 70.24.250.110 ( talk) 22:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Please see the proposal at the Village Pump: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Wikipedia:Article_Incubator. Regards, Illia Connell ( talk) 05:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Proposed addition: Use in draft articles is related to pages in the Incubator. Please read it and provide your input there. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 15:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
List of German actors (from 1895 to the present) was copy-and-pasted out of the incubator from WP:Article Incubator/List of German actors (from 1895 to the present). It was incubated via AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German actors (from 1895 to the present). The attribution of the current mainspace version is broken, since the edit history remains in the incubator. The talk page similarly is broken, since the development comments remains in the incubator. Currently at talk:List of German actors (from 1895 to the present) there is a discussion on what to do with the mainspace version. Since this article exists simultaneously in the incubator and in mainspace, with the same verbatim content, you may be interested in this situation. -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 05:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I propose we formally deprecate the Incubator as it hasn't been used. WP:USERFICATION will remain as an option for deleted articles.
Articles currently in the incubator can be slowly worked or sent to WP:MfD if it's obvious there's no interest in improving the article enough to promote it. When the backlog is empty, the whole project can be marked historical. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 01:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be merged into WP:AFC Articles for Creation, considering that they now support unsubmitted drafts? incubated articles would just be unsubmitted drafts, waiting for conversion into submitted drafts at AfC. -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 05:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Request withdrawn - no consensus to mark project as inactive. See discussion above and below dated after 19:55 20 May 2013. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 01:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
If nobody objects sooner, will the first editor who sees this after 19:55, 20 May 2013 mark the project {{
WikiProject status/Inactive}}?
davidwr/(
talk)/(
contribs)/(
e-mail) 19:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Illia Connell ( talk) 04:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I moved SE&CR Diagram 960 PMV from the incubator to main space. Illia Connell ( talk) 06:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be a little stirring from some editors that would like to revive the incubator. Because of the unusual nature of this project (in that anyone could pretty much start their own incubator anyway), I don't think we should mark historical over genuine objections.
I propose the following (based on prior proposals of several editors):
What is the procedure for an article created in mainspace while a similar article exists in the incubator? The article is Omar Todd. Unscintillating ( talk) 05:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)