Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Archive 3: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:24, 5 June 2022

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.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 on Wikipedia:Article Incubator. 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.

tlx/tld/tl2/tlwhatever

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)

Comment them out using  per WP:Article Incubator#How it works. What you did here is correct. Flatscan (talk) 05:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

En Derin evaluation

I added En Derin to the candidate list[2]. Any comments welcome. Thanks. Eclipsed ¤ 23:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

There's claim to notability alright, but I'm not convinced of the strength of the sources; most are either his own website or reverbnation.com.
The section on 'personal life' is unsourced entirely. pablo 12:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

En Derin graduated, and I added a todo list item on the talk page for personal life sourcing. Eclipsed ¤ 04:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

DASHbot false positive on Incubator images

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)

Non-active incubator pages

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)

Thanks Gigs (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

All the articles in Category:Article Incubator candidate for deletion are now proposed for deletion (via my first real test of using AWB). Eclipsed ¤ 12:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

And another non-articlespace issue: all the delete requests get a big red warning on top: "Please use PROD only on articles." Hmmm.... Eclipsed ¤ 13:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps speedy delete is better, because inactive incubator articles are 'test' articles, re Wikipedia:CSD#G2. I tried it on the 12-month inactive candidate Iboga Records, as a test. Eclipsed ¤ 23:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't do that. I don't think the hard cut off is well established enough. If we had strong consensus here for a hard cut off, then you could probably squeeze it in G6. Gigs (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I picked the oldest inactive candidate. Will folks want more then 12 months as a hard cut off, you think? Eclipsed ¤ 23:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I doubt it. We could probably easily get 6 months, and maybe even 3 months, since the project page already says 3 months. Gigs (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a note: 3 months was recently added on 31 October by Eclipsed. ~~That duration might not be supported by consensus.~~ —striking after review Flatscan (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Flatscan (talk) 05:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

And I'm open to suggestions for other durations. Eclipsed ¤ 05:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Having reviewed the archives (WT:Article Incubator/Archive 2#timing, WT:Article Incubator/Archive 2#Deletion Policy), I see a consensus for a finite time limit, with rough consensus for 6 months. 3 months is reasonable. Flatscan (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not see 1/that there is any consensus whatever here on the time, everything from 1 month to >1 year being suggested--and I am not sure that the imposition of any fixed time limit will actually have general consensus; this is not a policy of guideline page. (Probably it would be more likely to get general agreement the longer it is.) At present, we delete userified articles with MfD, not PROD, and I think we should use the same method here. But I certainly do not see how we can use prod with a fixed time unless we agree on the time. Consequently, I'm thinking of removing the prods, since anyone can; MfD is always available. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems like a waste of time to me to force all this through MfD. No one complained about the dozens of "out of process" deletions to clean up the incubator prior to efforts to standardize the deletions. If people can't agree to a process, then the admins should just continue to do what they were doing... keeping the incubator clean, and ignore those who would filibuster the efforts to create a documented process. Gigs (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

MfD process is time consuming -- technically time consuming -- it's not just 'add a tag and go' like CSD and PROD... it's 'add a tag, then edit this project sub page, then edit this listing page, etc etc etc'. So while I like the idea of MfD (even have it on the proposed removal procedure write up) the time involved is troubling. Multiplied by the amount of articles we are, and will be, doing, it ads up to a lot of extra manual work.

Perhaps MfD should be the 'last resort' only. If an article is marked for deletion, and has an reasonable amount of time in the deletion que, and no editor has spoken up to 'adopt' the article, then it gets CSD'd. If an editor in-good-standing does speak up and 'adopts' the article, and there is agreement with the evaluating editors, it should go back into the incubator for another cycle. If there is no agreement, then the article should go to MfD. Only a 'Keep' result would then be allowed back into the incubator. Eclipsed (t) 08:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I take back my 'time consuming' comment. I just tried a MfD via twinkle, and it was easy. It would be a pain to do it manually for many pages, but now I see it's easy if semi-automated. See: Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Hagoole, Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Habibi Silsila, etc etc: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#November_7.2C_2010. Eclipsed (t) 03:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment at WT:NFCC

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	+	WP:CSD#F5 - Non-free content in the Article Incubator qualify as a Reasonable Exception for an upcoming article. WP:CSD#F5 - Non-free content in the Article Incubator qualify as very likely to have use on a valid article. WP:NFCC#9 - The Article Incubator is a valid use of creating or managing the encyclopedia

Eclipsed ¤ 13:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I've requested the medcab case and rfd for NFF material in Incubator be closed temporarily, with no changes to current policy (ie: NFF will get deleted if on only incubator articles). We can easily submit another case or rfd when we have the various proposed policies more clearly defined. Eclipsed (t) 07:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Articles for evaluation

currently contains:

~~En Derin~~

now in mainspace

~~Ultra Hal Assistant~~

now in mainspace

~~Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Athletes/Alex Murphy~~

~~recently expanded~~ now in mainspace

~~Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Andy Dannatt~~

~~contains little information, but all is sourced.~~ see section below

if anyone would like to take a look. pablo 12:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge/history merge/something required

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 think that the cleanest page history would result from simply deleting the Incubator version. It appears that the bit about Dannatt's later work history was taken directly from a common source, so there's no dependency. Flatscan (talk) 05:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Both versions use the Times source, yes, and I don't think there's anything in the history that might be retrieved and sourced for improvement.

There was an AfD of the incubator version which resulted in a 'keep' (obviously!) though, migh make sense to have the record of that preserved in the history. However, I realise you know more about merging and attribution than I do, and this may not be a problem. pablo 08:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

A histmerge would also be fine, although your recent edits might be deleted to avoid interleaving the two pages. WT:Article Incubator/Archive 2#What do we do when... was a similar situation (coincidentally for another rugby player named Andy). I have a slight preference for simple deletion, but I'll help with listing at WP:Cut and paste move repair holding pen if you want to go that route. Flatscan (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

CSD

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)

In case anyone hasn't visited this discussion yet, things are kind of going badly there, with wider implications for the way that the incubator operates. The discussion really needs input from those stakeholders with the most involvement in the incubator. Gigs (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Problem seems to be, every time the Incubator is involved in a proposal/RfC, some vocal editors use the discussion as an attack against the IDEA of the incubator. There is much confusion and lack of knowledge about the Incubator, and this makes any discussion difficult. This shows up a lot when people make direct comparisons between userspace and incubator. It is also dichotic, for example, the CSD#G13 proposal is filled with objections like 'the incubator can not delete anything!', and the CSD/NFCC proposal is filled with objections like 'this NFC must be deleted, the incubator can not use it!'.

With future proposals, I suggest we always have a short boilerplate 'what is the incubator/what the incubator is not' summary on top. so editors with strong opinions, but weak actual knowledge of the incubator, can get on-the-same-page and actually discuss the issue being brought up. This will save us the time of constantly re-defining and re-telling what the incubator is for each objection.

Also, when an editor starts digressing, but at least has an understandable point, then suggest another proposal/rfc/idealab/etc be created ASAP, to get the digressions into a different discussion. Kinda like we did with G13 and WP:COLDSTORAGE. Eclipsed ¤ 08:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

new categories

We have categories for eval & delete, but is there one for 'start' ? Eclipsed ¤ 12:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

created Category:Article Incubator candidate in editing Eclipsed ¤ 16:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

created Category:New Article Incubator candidate also. Eclipsed ¤ 15:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal Boilerplate

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)

Workflow chart

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)

Assessments - graduates vs. candidates

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)

Bonfire of promising material

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)

This is a work in progress, and will improve, please consider staying. Eclipsed ¤ 21:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

F&W, it's not a "recent mania". Administrators have been maintaining the incubator at their discretion since its inception. In nearly every case, a polite message to restore a deleted incubated article would surely be met with restoration without hesitation. Gigs (talk) 02:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a recent trend, if you don't like "mania". Deleting without checking with those who worked on the articles is thoughtless and rude. Fences&Windows 01:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a recent anything. Check out Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/History. It's how things have been done for well over a year... since the beginning of the incubator. Gigs (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Emergency Sprinkler System

Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/RfC Removal Procedure. Eclipsed ¤ 00:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Slothfull Suggestion Summary

reach consensus on
better categorization
- added Category:Article Incubator candidate in editing
- added Category:New Article Incubator candidate (but could be renamed to something better)
recruite
- expand Who can help
- create participant list (like WikiProjects often do)
develop
- some type of semi-automated method or bot to do management tasks (track last edits, etc)
assess
- create assessment tracking for articles within the Incubator (in addition to what is already in place for Graduates)

Thanks. Eclipsed ¤ 14:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Article Incubator articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

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)

What a stunningly bad idea. Gigs (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

well.. I have reviewed all the incubator articles on the 0.8 list, and after extensive research and thought, I have concluded that: there are no incubator articles on the 0.8 list. But seriously, the category list of graduates is mostly stub/start quality (but many have not been reviewed in a while). Highest rated is 2 B rated articles, neither of which got picked. Eclipsed (t) 00:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that! You're right, no articles were selected at all, though Big Cartoon DataBase came fairly close (with it appearing in 8 other languages, and >100 hits per day). We had a small bug in the bot that posted messages, and so we had to do this extra posting to a few projects that were missed. I'll suggest we omit it next time. This is the kind of reason why it's version 0.8, not version 1.0! Many thanks, Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Adopting articles

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)

COI Safe Harbor

I have a declared Conflict of Interest, in regards to all my contributions to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation.
I'd like to suggest that both the Article Incubator and Articles for Creation be denoted as Safe Harbors for COI contributions. The assessment process in both projects should mitigate the risk of promotion, BLP errors, NPOV errors, etc.
Declaring COI Safe Harbors will likely increase the backlog in both projects, especially for assessments. Corporate sponsorship of expert editors to assist with these projects, in an ethical and neutral way, is something that may be viable. See: Wikipedia:Reward_board#Corporate Pro Bono Work

Thanks! Eclipsed (talk) (code of ethics) 12:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hellllllll no. No corporate sponsors—this is contrary to the mission of a free and independent Wikipedia. We have enough spam at AfC. We don't need more, and we don't need to legitimize this activity by declaring these places a "safe harbor". No, thank you, I like my volunteer-based-no-paid-editing-please-and-thank-you Wikipedia and I hope it stays that way. /ƒETCH COMMS / 13:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me clarify: declaring a COI is a Good Thing and I appreciate it for all users who have done so. I also think in many cases, it is perfectly fine for a user with a COI to write an article about the subject they are affiliated with. The issue for me is the motive behind writing the article: if a user with a COI has the intent to promote a topic or "get it listed" in Wikipedia, as I have heard all-too-many times in the IRC help channel, then it will obviously end up as a spam article, 99.9% of the time non-notable anyway, and will be quickly deleted. If a user goes about writing carefully, checking for POV, using good sources, and asking another user to review their work, a COI is no big deal. But so often, people are too lazy to do this, so they hire someone to write something, it ends up as spam, the hired person gets told to read WP:BFAQ and essentially to stop writing, and end of story. Is this a bad thing? Not usually, because many of those articles would never be appropriate for Wikipedia. Making a place where people are "allowed" and encouraged to write about things they have COIs with is OK (and happens in AfC already), but not if they were paid to write or if they have the intent to "spread the word" about their company or product or whatnot. Corporate sponsorship is simply not in line with Wikipedia's mission. We want volunteer expert editors, not experts being paid—it's not the neutral or ethical part that worries me, it is that this idea of being paid to edit is simply against what Wikipedia stands for—freedom. (And, the AI and AfC are perpetually backlogged usually, and reviews take forever especially in dealing with the NPOV department.) We are already seeing success with the public policy initiative, where university students research topics and write about them. To summarize: COIs are OK, if handled properly by the user with the COI, but paid editing is something I strongly disagree with. /ƒETCH COMMS / 15:51, 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)

What is a "Safe Harbor for COI contributions", exactly? Fences&Windows 23:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Related to Wikipedia:Paid editing (policy)#Safe_harbors, but broadened to include other forms of COI (autobiography, etc). Eclipsed (talk) (code of ethics) 23:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there is potential for discussion of this. My experience on Wikipedia is that many (most?) editors have some form of COI. We are inclined to edit articles on topics for which we have some form of attachment; and this attachment may make our editing slanted. Most articles on bands and musicians are edited by fans. These fans don't declare they have a COI - indeed, most are not even aware that they have such a thing. They think that writing enthusiastically and favourably about their favourite band is acceptable, especially when they note that most Wikipedia articles on bands are written that way. I think we should be concerned about COI; and the first and best way of addressing COI is not to hide it away, but to openly declare it, and to keep being aware of it in ourselves and in others. We shouldn't make people afraid to declare their connections and interests. If an article on a company was moved into the incubator because the main contributor was the company owner and the article failed WP:NPOV, but it was felt that the company was notable, and the main contributor was keen to write a balanced article according to Wikipedia policies, but didn't know how, and wanted assistance, then that seems a good use of the incubator. And I'm always more comfortable working with someone who is quite open and honest. I prefer to know people's real names and occupations. It makes me feel more comfortable. I understand that some people have issues that mean they would rather not reveal themselves, and that's fine. It's just that on a personal level I prefer dealing with real people. SilkTork *^YES! 01:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this goes back to the article writer's intent: if they write out of a desire to get money and promote the company, the article will inherently be spammy and such. But if they write an article with a COI out of a genuine desire to write an encyclopedia article out of their own desire, and want to be neutral (but may not "get it" about NPOV/tone/RS/etc. at first), I see much more potential for a valid article to exist, assuming the subject of the article is notable. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with much of what's been said here. I firmly believe that humans primarily act in ways that are rationally selfish, even though the motivations might be subtle. That said, I don't think the incubator should be a permanent refuge for a lot of crap. Even without indexing, people can still link to their "Wikipedia article" (which is actually incubated) using a URL on their website, and ride our credibility. We should monitor the incubator for any articles with unusual traffic patterns to help combat this type of thing. Gigs (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Incubation namespace

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:

Articles can be searched more easily from within the namespace as opposed to being a sub-page.
A separate namespace allows for more specialized content administration, and in particular administrator tools can either concentrate on or even ignore a namespace giving more flexability to admins.
Indexing rules and how content gets put into archives can more easily be controlled and automated. For example, the content put into the semi-regular archiving of Wikipedia can include or exclude content from a particular namespace. Incubator content could be left out of the archive in this fashion.
The perception that these really are articles that deserve to be independent content in their own right is preserved. From this role, the stigma of them being part of some special project is removed.
Permits some additional exceptions to be added to MediaWiki to treat content in an "incubator" namespace as something unique. For example, page moves to the incubator namespace could have as default behavior where "cookie crumbs" of a link from the main namespace not be generated. On the other hand, a redirect from the incubator might be a good thing if the article "graduates".

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)

Nah ... a lot of the incubated articles are untouched, and we don't want people to get the sense that they are "legit" articles. It's also not necessary:

They can easily be searched from subpages; go to Special:PrefixIndex/WP:Article Incubator and use the "find" tool in your browser, or search Category:Articles in the Article Incubator.
I don't think that is a big issue. Admins don't usually have issues with needing to ignore or focus on a particular namespace.
We shouldn't archive incubated articles forever; WP:FAKEARTICLE applies, so we delete them if untouched for some time (a month or two?).
Well, they are part of a special project, and this encourages people to help out. The incubator is a relatively small section of Wikipedia, at any rate, and its own namespace seems almost excessive.
We shouldn't link mainspace to unfinished drafts.

/ƒETCH COMMS / 00:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

As regards incubating forever = Wikipedia:Article_Incubator#Time_limit. I looked at all the policies and guidelines and recent discussion on this matter. There is no consensus to delete simply because of an arbitrary time limit - there needs to be some rationale. However, there is also wide consensus that dodgy stuff cannot be kept forever. So the typical Wikipedia compromise is that if something dodgy has been given a "reasonable" amount of time to be straightened out, and it hasn't been, then it is appropriate to discuss deleting it. What is reasonable will vary, so any talk of fixing a time at one month, three months, one year, seven days or five minutes is not going to get consensus. Some stuff can be reasonably taken to deletion quite quickly, while other stuff can reasonably be left for much longer. SilkTork *^YES! 00:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think consensus on a time limit is as intractable as you imply. Consensus on a hard drop-dead limit may be impossible, but there seems to be a rough consensus for 3-6 months or so, with some exception for articles that have a good reason to be kept longer. At MfD we regularly apply 6 months as a time limit for stale userfied articles, unless it's an exceptional case that warrants keeping longer. Gigs (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The egg

Why did the egg logo go away? Gigs (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

As part of tightening up and clarifying this project I am looking at using a more appropriate logo. The cracking egg is suggestive of something new emerging - such an image is compatible with WP:AfC, but not for a project which is about taking care of (semi-)deleted articles. I have used an image of a bin with a no symbol to suggest that these are articles which have been saved from full deletion. I think that a better image can be found, but it'll do for now. The egg image gave a misleading impression of the project as it stands, and was more in keeping with the original intention (which we now know is better served by WP:RESCUE). SilkTork *^YES! 09:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur with the logo change, since it seems we're going towards a clear definition between AFC and AI. Eclipsed (talk) (code of ethics) 13:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't like it one bit. The incubator is not about saving things from deletion alone. How about a phoenix rising from ashes? Gigs (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The limbo pic is interesting, thanks. We'll still need something logo-like for tmboxes though. Gigs (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Paid editors

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)

Hi Fences and windows. I want to thank you for evaluating some of our 'Pro bono' articles here in the Incubator. And while I disagree with your assertion regarding "try to get poorly sourced articles back into mainspace", I am very happy that you agree with my stance that *all* articles should be 'scrutinised properly' For example, if you scroll up on this talk page a bit, you'll see lots of discussion about how to assess articles in the incubator. We've even come up with a test template to make sure evaluators review the major points for inclusion. I noticed that you chose not to use the template on Wikipedia_talk:Article_Incubator/Sock_Monkey_Ministries, while leaving the edit summary of "No way is this ready. Another paid editor abusing the incubator". While I appreciate your help on the article, perhaps next time you could also include a comment on the talk page, or use our assessment template (it's really easy to use, if you need help with the format, I'm sure many folks here would be glad to help, me included)

Regarding your eval of the FSR band article, wherein you left the edit summary "No way that is ready for mainspace - and people pay you to edit Wikipedia?". Your eval of this article was better. You left a message on the talk page Wikipedia_talk:Article_Incubator/Futuristic_Sex_Robotz and it was very good and helpful, and I'd like to see more good work like that. Thanks! Eclipsed (talk) (code of ethics) 14:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

P.s. If you'd like to review more of our Pro bono work, please see John Swope (photographer). The article was started in the Incubator, and then graduated. It could still use a lot of work, and it would be great if someone can find some freely licensed images to compliment the articles. Also, Swope's involvement with the founding of Southwest airlines should verified, and then decide what should be modified on the Southwest airlines page. Thanks! Eclipsed (talk) (code of ethics) 14:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really inclined to help you, Eclipsed. I think your approach here has been deceptive. Fences&Windows 20:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I think we are in agreement that all articles with significant contributions from commercial editors should be given a full review and scrutinised properly. For the other issues, let us agree to disagree for now. Perhaps in 6 months or so we can re-visit this discussion and see how you feel then. Thanks. Eclipsed (talk) (code of ethics) 09:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

older workflow drafts

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)

Tag them {{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)

That's good enough for me. I'll g7 them. Anyone who wants/needs to see the old content can do a WP:REFUND. Eclipsed (talk) (code of ethics) 15:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Also the section Wikipedia:Article_Incubator#Who_can_help.3F was mostly my work, and should be reviewed and/or removed. Thanks. Eclipsed (talk) (code of ethics) 15:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Also the Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Example Article was my work, and should be reviewed and/or removed. Thanks. Eclipsed (talk) (code of ethics) 15:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Also my post to the work with wikiprojects talk should be reviewed and/or ~~striken~~. Eclipsed (talk) (code of ethics) 15:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

And while we're at it, now that consensus is much clearer that AI should be used for articles that have had a delete discussion, I will move articles I worked on (that were never part of a delete discussion) into WP:AFC que. Thanks. Eclipsed (talk) (code of ethics) 15:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, the 'Incubator Shortcuts' box was my work, and should be reviewed and/or deleted. Thanks. Eclipsed (talk) (code of ethics) 15:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There may still be some more of my contributions scattered around the AI (for example a few article assessments, etc), but I think that the major stuff is listed above. I hope this will clear the way for others to continue the improvement work in the incubator. Thanks. Eclipsed (talk) (code of ethics) 15:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to remove all your contributions on collaborative pages. If people think they are wrong, they'll get edited. Gigs (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather err on the side of caution, and transparency. That's why I reviewed my contribution history for AI and tried to list all the (major) contributions that have not yet been removed and/or edited. Eclipsed (talk) (code of ethics) 09:44, 25 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)

Incubator

Discussion moved from User talk:SilkTork:

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 really don't understand why you are harping on about what you are harping on about. Not only you are contradicting yourself, you are being extremely unfairly prescriptive of the uses of the Incubator. In practical terms, there is little differences between material that could potentially be userfied, unsuitable speedyable material, and deleted articles, and I for one would challenge you to draw the line between them in any objective manner. The similarities, however, are that all these do not belong in mainspace. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 12:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Were you replying to me or to SilkTork? SilkTork is the one who wants to draw the line you speak of, not me. He's trying to exclude everything that's not previously deleted from the incubator. Gigs (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  - I apologise if I got you wrong... but reading from your post above, you seem to imply that deleted material do not belong in the incubator while speediable and userfied material does. Now you seem to be saying the opposite. I'm confused. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    - I'm saying it all belongs there. Silktork has been editing the project page in a way to exclude everything from the incubator other than previously deleted material. I think this is a bad idea, and once the deletionists get wind of it, it'll kill the incubator. Gigs (talk) 14:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
      - Well, I don't see it being restricted to deleted articles only, and I don't see any discussion about it on the relevant talk page, because that's where this discussion belongs. If you would say exactly which edit(s) cause you concern, then ST can probably explain the changes he made and the rationale behind them. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:31, 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)

So you want to unilaterally redefine the nature of the incubator, and then hold an RfC about whether your newly defined incubator is worth having or not? I specifically challenge every edit you've made that implies that the incubator is only for previously deleted material. Gigs (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted to the last consensus version that existed before the recent changes. Gigs (talk) 17:07, 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)

Your changes were all boldly done without consensus, it's up to you to justify them, not for me to justify what was the status quo for over a year before the changes were made. There was a banner inviting community participation for quite a while on the page while the processes were being formulated. Gigs (talk) 02:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, I do not see what you (gigs) allege, and ask you to please give me the benefit of your wisdom (for I am new to this subject area) by explaining it to me. Firstly, I would dearly like to know (preferably with concrete examples) in what way you believe the process has been hijacked for deleted articles only. As far as the Incubator text, I would kindly ask you to submit exactly what changes you find disagreeable, for ST has made some very positive changes among the many edits he made, and I am sure you do not disagree with all of the many well-explained edits. Indeed, I would find such a deep revert without clear rationale objectionable and disrespectful to fellow editors. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- It clearly excludes everything other than deleted content in this new version. It is now required that: "The article has been either previously deleted or has been through a deletion process and a decision reached that it does not meet inclusion/content criteria". This completely excludes new drafts, speedy candidates (that have not been deleted yet), pretty much everything other than deleted content. Gigs (talk) 02:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Should the incubator be reframed as a "soft deletion" mechanism?

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)

I'm not sure I see the motivation. As far as I can tell there's a proposal to make the incubator's purpose more narrow than it is now. It strikes me as policy creep to restrict something that's really just about trying to fix articles up. Care to explain the problem with the way the incubator has been used in the past, and how this fixes or improves it? Shooterwalker (talk) 03:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

SilkTork will have to provide that in detail. I've invited him to include a statement directly below mine, refactoring the discussion as necessary. One concern that we share is that the deletion process for stale incubated articles was ill-defined. I think there was weak emerging consensus to just put them all through MfD, which I don't see as ideal, but it's something I could live with. Gigs (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

We should be able to use it on both not-ready content and previously-deleted but close-to-ready material. (I think the changes are not exclusive to previously-deleted articles, though.) Actually, it doesn't really matter what we use it on (provided it's not a copyvio, BLP vio/other attack page, etc.) provided we delete the untouched stuff after a while per WP:FAKEARTICLE. /ƒETCH COMMS / 04:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Did you notice the new criteria 2 which requires the candidate articles to be previously deleted? Gigs (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  - Yes, but it also includes provisions for articles to be incubated rather than deletion via CSD/XfD/etc. Regardless, I agree with you and believe that we should allow both previously deleted and new articles to be incubated. The main point to the incubator is that the articles are not ready for mainspace, but have the potential to be, so we should not be excluding anything that was not previously deleted. /ƒETCH COMMS / 15:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    - I don't read those criteria as all disjunctive. The way it's written, it appears to me that all but the last two are required, and one of the last two must be satisfied. This seems to have been SilkTork's intent as well, as evidenced by [3] where he plainly states that the "incubator is for deleted content" when someone asks him why he called their draft unsuitable for incubation. Gigs (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we need a broader RfC to look at the purpose of the incubator, if it is working, and how we can make it work. We also need to consider if it's purpose is confused, out of policy, and redundant to other working and successful processes, such as WP:AfC and WP:Rescue, and if we should close it down. I have been working to clarify the process, reduce redundancy, and bring it back in line with existing deletion policy. My next intention is to analyse the articles that have been through the process to see what impact the incubation process has had, because I've become aware that some users are disappointed that the expected help has not arrived (and their articles may be about to - or may already have been - deleted without them being notified), and part of the problem may be that once incubated, the articles are ignored as they are not linked from anywhere, and are dependant upon a willing body of editors who are prepared to work on any article that is moved to the incubator. I haven't started this analysis yet, and it may be a while before I complete it. I would prefer to comment more fully at that time. SilkTork *^YES! 18:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

AfC is for creating articles, not saving potential articles. Yes, AfC submissions can be declined and re-submitted later, but it's not really a "community collaboration" process like the incubator is supposed to be; AfC was made as a way for IPs to create articles after we started letting only registered users make articles some years ago. The rescue squadron is for "saving" legitimate articles at AfD; they don't deal with previously deleted material AFAIK. I am of the opinion that the AI is sort of ineffective, as many articles are abandoned and unedited for months (and for unsourced or poorly sourced incubated BLPs, this is not acceptable), but that it has the potential itself to be effective. I don't think the issue is with which articles to incubate (why bother limiting them?) but how to integrate the AI with established and widely used processes, such as AfD. Not that the AI is not yet established, but it's really just a lack of interest to helping not-ready articles that may have little chance at success. I suspect the issue is really just that no one wants to write articles for someone else (many of the original creators never edit the article after incubation) about someone/something they don't care about or know about. /ƒETCH COMMS / 20:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see a better articulation of what's to be gained by changing things here. If we're moving toward an environment where nothing gets "deleted" unless it's impermissible (not simply non-notable and/or unimproved), and where salvageable wrecks of articles can languish out of mainspace and out of the sights of search engines which honor NOINDEX, where there truly is no deadline, then I support it. If it's an attempt to curtail or restrict the use of non-mainspace for storage of good faith yet insufficient-quality articles, then I'm opposed. Jclemens (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with Jclemens. If the incubator is actually a place for articles are improved in a reasonable time then I support it. But if it's going to be a place for wrecks of articles to languish with no deadline, effectively becoming a webhost for anything and everything, then we're better off letting articles be improved through other processes and scrapping this experiment. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Shooter. The 'incubator' should be just that, and must not be a substitute for deletion. It must not be allowed to turn into a junkyard for articles nobody is prepared to work on. Junk is better off deleted. Articles can and should only be recreated when someone is prepared to put in the work. In that sense, the incubation period must be clearly defined, and articles removed if they have seen little or no improvement within the defined incubation period, and preferably by WP:CSD#G6 upon expiry. Incubator would benefit from being an active project, with 'permanent staff'. AFAICT, SilkTork seems to be one of the few prepared to do this job at the moment, but his efforts alone do not suffice. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree that this project and Wikipedia as a whole would be served better if there was reasonable amount of time given for an article to "incubate" (I'd say 1 month). As in microbiology, if you don't see growth soonafter incubation, you probably won't see any further down the line. Angryapathy (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
This may be a stupid question, but why can't this be done with templates, rather than moving the article around? Just have one template that says that "deletion of this article has been put on hold for XX days while it is listed at the article salvage yard", and another that says "this is a newly created article for which comment has been solicited at the incubator. Please don't AfD it until XX". And give each template its own category, and the category puts the article into the appropriate sorting site. You might even set up more little specific categories. Wnt (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Having just gone through the incubation process for an article that was deleted and then put through userfication then incubation, I will declare that I think there is most certainly a role that incubation can play here. BTW, the article is now going through a deletion review, as that seems to be the only current method to get some significant community input for getting the article moved to the main namespace again... in part due to some salting and some other issues that came up during the incubation process. In this case there was a "community" of people interested in editing the article, and even in the past month or so there has been substantial improvement in both the quality of the content and the quality of the sources noted in the article. I think other articles could certainly use this process, especially as I see this as a "success story" for the incubator. If we are looking at establishing policies here, I'd suggest looking at these "success stories" as perhaps a source of guidance to see what works here. What I especially appreciated about the incubator is that it gave the article some "breathing room" to develop. It also took six months from when the article was deleted until now, which is part of my motivation of those saying a 3 month time limit is sufficient to note it wasn't sufficient in this case. This article (currently at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Bitcoin) needed something more than a simple article "rescue", and templates were also insufficient in terms of keeping folks who like to PROD and make AfDs away while the article was developed. I'm curious what other people had as experiences here for other "success stories"? --Robert Horning (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Procedure for outright deletion

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)

It used to be. That practice was challenged by several editors as "out of process", and I was not able to get consensus for a new CSD category for stale incubated articles. Unless you can G4 it, you'll need to take it to MfD now apparently. Gigs (talk) 13:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

And that is ridiculous. At any rate, I delete poorly sourced/unsourced and untouched BLPs in the incubator without MfD, just like the BLP prod process. If no one wishes to work on it for two months, leaving unsourced BLPs lying around is not helpful to anyone. /ƒETCH COMMS / 13:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The exit route out of the incubator is tied into the entry route. We have existing procedures for dealing with deleting material, such as only being able to Prod an article once, and only being able to summarily/speedily delete material if they fit certain criteria. Mixing the entry routes would mean having more complex guidelines regarding the exit routes. The question needs to be asked as to what people are expecting of the incubator. The idea that it is a community alternative to single user userfication is attractive, though it depends on there being a body of people who are willing to work on the article moved here. I haven't finished my analysis of articles moved into the incubator, but early indications are that there was a small body of users who were very active when the incubator was set up, but who are no longer involved. Currently articles are being moved into the incubator inappropriately because once moved here they are ignored, which is not what people who are !voting in AfD are !voting for. Looking at AfD discussions where the result was Incubate, the belief is that the article is notable, but that it needs a clean up/more sources, so the decision is to move it here in the belief that people will work on it. The reverse is true. Even the main contributor tends to ignore the article once moved here. If the article had been left in mainspace it would have stood more chance of being improved. I think we need to be clear as to what we want to do with notable articles that need more sources or a clean up. Is hiding them away in the vaults the appropriate route? If the article is really a mess, and people are not willing or able to clean it up during the AfD period, then perhaps a decision needs to be made as to if the mess is so great that a clean delete is better, or if the notability and possible interest in the topic is enough to allow us to keep it a bit longer in mainspace. Perhaps there could be a time-limit imposed on dubious articles. Keep in mainspace for another 3 months, and then bring back to AfD for a second review, and if not cleaned up sufficiently, delete. I am moving more and more to the view that Incubation doesn't work, and is geared up not to work. Out of sight = out of mind. At least with userfication there is an individual who still retains some interest in the article. I'm going to finish my analysis and then call for a RfC in the new year. We need to either reinvigorate Incubation, or mark it historical. SilkTork *^YES! 17:19, 6 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)

Removal from category

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)

In this case, the category was added by {{Film UK}}, which I commented out. The page WP:Category suppression describes general methods like |nocat=true. Flatscan (talk) 05:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Use of incubation outside stated guidelines

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)

Lets call the whole thing off

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)

Strongly disagree - Article Incubator has had very little publicity, interest, or participation till now. I came to know of it only due to a banner and have begun using it. The trend towards softening our responses towards newbie editors requires us to retain this despite its relatively low utilisation in the past. AshLin (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Mild Peril, they are off doing their own thing outside of what this incubation project was supposed to do. That can continue even if we kill this. Ashlin, you are probably referring to the Wiki Guides incubator, which has nothing to do with this wikiproject. Gigs (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Gigs, the "My watchlist" special page shows a banner which says :

The article incubation trial for encouraging new users and improving new articles is currently underway. Sign up and get involved!

The "article incubation trial" link leads to this Wikipedia Guides page, which in turn points to Wikipedia:Article Incubator in the ninth line of section "Process", but strangely the Wikipedia:Article Incubator guidelines do not mention or reflect anything about the new initiative. It appears to me that the Wikipedia Guides and this project are linked together and not separate as you mentioned above, though it appears as if the editors actively involved in Article Incubation have not been brought on board which should have been done.

What I think is that if this new initiative to preserve worthwhile newbie articles is to succeed, we need to ignore the present requirement that incubator articles be selected only from "deletion" processes or "userspace" initiatives and instead add useful salvageable new articles identified while patrolling new pages, as has been mentioned in the WikiGuides|New Pages link.

AshLin (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

That seems like an accurate summary. If the Wiki Guides want to "reinvent" incubation, then all the old incubation stuff should probably be marked historical so they can get a fresh start, since the old incubator project doesn't seem to have much or anything going on at this point. Gigs (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

It's been the more recent deletionist atmosphere that has put off a lot of people (myself included), and the reframing of the project so it was only a delayed "soft" deletion approach. Back away from that and more people might join in. I felt people here only really wanted to find ways to delete the content, not improve it, there has been a paranoia about incubation being a sneaky way to avoid deletion. Fences&Windows 18:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Support marking as historical Our long-standing policy has been to work upon article drafts in mainspace where editors and readers can find them using ordinary search and linking mechanisms. The incubation concept adds no value to this process but seems to disrupt it instead. Articles for creation seems more successful and it would be better to direct volunteers there. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Support marking as historical and deleting related categories. I'm amazed that the article incubator exists, dooming deletion survivals to a life in limbo. New articles on the subjects can be created in mainspace where appropriate, without saving old ones for a rewrite. G. C. Hood (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Support marking as historical redundant, relatively unused system with little to no merit. We have other places where potential articles can (and probably should) go. Mythpage88 (talk) 03:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Strongly disagree to discontinuous as this is a project that fits squarely within the idea that Wikipedia needs to be a kinder, gentler projects more open and friendly to new users. The problem here is that it needs to be more utilized and its usage encouraged by administrators working with borderline pages subject to AfD discussions. Where it seems to work best is for pages where emerging technologies or events are being described that could grow in the future, or pages where there is a large group of interested editors that would be willing to work on the page but are all relatively new to Wikipedia and need some extra help in developing a Wikipedia article. It certainly needs to be revitalized, not removed. --Robert Horning (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep Seems to be a case of objecting to things that are not understood. The speedy incubate idea for events so new that their notability cannot be assessed has been generally well received, but the technical details need work. Such a process could prevent massive amounts of disruption. Serene Branson was a pointless AfD with the underlying deletion reversed at DRV, all while the notability of the topic was still in flux. Unscintillating (talk) 01:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Strong Keep useful, and I see no cause to eliminate. --Nouniquenames (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Attempt to revive - the objections seems to be based on one of two things: the lack of recent activity, or a misunderstanding of the project's purpose. In short, the project is intended to be a centralized versions of userification. If userification is useful and accepted by the community (it is), then there is nothing inherently wrong with incubation. Thus, the only problem is lack of interest. I believe the project can be revived and will put some effort into reviving it within the next two weeks. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Userbox relevant to Article Incubator

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)

Revitalizing the Incubator

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)

proposal for an incubated version of Serene Branson

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)

administrator guidelines for incubating an article

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)

Is there a link to the query? I'd be willing to advise, I just need to know where. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It is on ANI, so I'm reluctant to give a direct link, although if you search for "incubat" I'm sure that it is easy to find. I think I was not clear in that I am hoping to find written instructions for administrators in how to incubate an article. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/The Mole (MC/producer)

Hello, Article Incubator. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/The Mole (MC/producer).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Some IPv6 address has requested a move.

-- 70.24.250.110 (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

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)

Proposed change to WP:Non-free content

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)

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)

Seems to be fixed now. Gigs (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deprecation of this project

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)

Agree completely. This project has accomplished little, and has not attracted the kind of workforce that AfC has. I think we should suggest that if deleted articles want to be worked on as drafts, they should reenter the AfC process. I will open a discussion on the AfC project talk page about this. Gigs (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Support. I initiated a discussion regarding clean-up of some of the articles in the incubator: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_99#Wikipedia:Article_Incubator and listed some for deletion: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Futuristic_Sex_Robotz and Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Arrinera_Automotive. Regards, Illia Connell (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment. The project is still getting some use. See, for example, Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Battle of the Damned and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arikil Oraal. Illia Connell (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that using the project per-se. It does indicate we can't just bulk delete the incubated articles, and will probably need to consider them on a case by case basis. Gigs (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Arikil Oraal does not do a good job of showing that the project is being useful. The article has not been edited at all since being incubated. OK, it's fairly early days, as it has only been in the incubator for a month and eight days, and it may yet be edited, but my experience is that an incubated article that has not been substantially worked on within that time will almost always still not have been worked on a year later. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I've listed another set of ten articles that haven't been edited in over a year at MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Mortal Kombat (2013 Film). Illia Connell (talk) 19:49, 22 April 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)

We could, but incubated articles are supposed to be articles that were created and then deleted for whatever reason. It was basically supposed to be an organized place to "rescue" articles, with longer than a 7 day time limit. Gigs (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

AfC has enough problems of its own, without adding another track of articles into it. Normally I do support merging projects, but AfC is so radically unsatisfactory that the fewer articles in it the better. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Well in any case I still think we should semi-officially put this project to bed. There is clearly not the level of interest that it requires to be sustained. Not to mention there's nothing stopping people from collaborating on "rescued" articles in userspace with pretty generous time limits. Gigs (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Support deprecation. It is an unfortunate fact that, despite the best intentions of the people who created the article incubator, its main use in practice has been as a way of keeping unsuitable articles that nobody is actually willing to work on. The substantial majority of all the articles that have ever been incubated have either been left lying around for ages and eventually deleted, or are still lying around with no significant editing, or even none at all. Only a minority have actually had any work done on them. What usually happens is that someone sees an unacceptable article that is heading for deletion, and suggests putting it in the article incubator in a sort of vague hope that someone or other will come along and save it, but they are not willing to take any effort to save it themselves. It would be no better to add it to AfC and leave it in the hope that someone would save it there: in fact it would be worse, for the reason that DGG has mentioned. The best option, when someone thinks an article at AfD may be worth saving, is for that person to take on the job in their own userspace. Even that is far from perfect, because very often userfied articles just get forgotten and left in userspace for years, but at least it would mean that there was someone who had expressed the intention of working on the article, and having it in their own userspace might encourage them to actually work on it, rather than walk away relying on "someone" to turn up and deal with it. If there is nobody who is willing to say "I will try to save the article", then there is little if any point in keeping it hanging around being forgotten. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

As an interim step: All articles left unedited in the incubator for thirty days are deleted or userfied. See how that works out. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I tried suggesting that idea (Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_99#Wikipedia:Article_Incubator), but it didn't get much traction. I have been sending batches of ten articles in the incubator to WP:MFD. The latest is: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Group of stale articles from Article Incubator. Regards, Illia Connell (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You say the idea "didn't get much traction", but certainly there was general support for the idea that something ought to be done. Nabla made a good point in that discussion; "I think that userfying is probably not a good idea. While in the Incubator it is relatively easy to search - Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Article_Incubator - and check them; and there is a (small but non-zero) chance of someone improving them. Or sending to deletion. Scattered around on user subpages they're harder to find." However, I really think that the main problem is that, whether in the incubator or in user space, there are just to many people storing pages somewhere or other that they hope someone else will turn into articles, but that don't do anything about it. AfC is not quite the same, as the idea is that the initial poster does do the work, and someone else just assesses it; however, the problem is simply that there are far more people creating submissions than there are people assessing them. However, the same fundamental point applies to all of these repositories of draft articles: there are plenty of people putting things into draft space, but few people following the drafts up. My guess is that whatever we do, that will be the case. Taking them one by one to MfD takes up too much editor time that could be better spent on more productive work, and at present the best method of dealing with them is taking batches of them to MfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Add WikiProject status/Inactive in 1 week if there are no objections

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)

And just what is your problem with the incubator? Unscintillating (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it, I just don't see it as an active project and don't want to mislead editors who may assume it is active. The discussion above indicates it's pretty much inactive or nearly so. Obviously, by your reply, it's not inactive enough to tag it as inactive. But the discussion above still stands - it's almost to that point. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I have posted a question at WT:V that I believe draws attention to a role for the incubator. Unscintillating (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Additional MfD listings

Illia Connell (talk) 04:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This was not entirely random because I picked a name that looked interesting, but I sampled one of these MfDs and found an article that belonged in the incubator. There is on-going discussion above, and you have previously been taking ten articles at a time to MdD. Why did you suddenly create 88 MfD discussions? Unscintillating (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The last time I sent a group of 10 to MfD, I was told to nominate them individually: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Group of stale articles from Article Incubator. This list comprises all articles in the incubator that have had no substantial activity for at least 12 months. Regards, Illia Connell (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I took a look at the first three... here is my take

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Arcaderush is a case of failed incubation... ie incubation did not result in any improvement. I would say delete.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Auld Lang Syne (The New Year's Anthem) should never have been sent to the incubator in the first place ... it should have been Merged into Ald Lang Syne).
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Bulma looks to be one where incubator actually worked. It appears to be a solid article, with citations etc. Unless there is some other issue, it should probably be moved into mainspace.

In other words... just looking at the first three, we have three different and distinct problems to deal with. It's a mess. Blueboar (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

How many man-hours of work do you think those 88 articles represent? The mess is not the work of the editors who contributed to Wikipedia, the mess is not having a plan and a schedule for dealing with the work in the incubator. So create a schedule for each article. Starting seven days from now, one article per day is scheduled to go to MfD. For the first article on the list, the editors here have seven days to prep the article. Bulma could be the first one, and Auld Lang Syne the second. If editors who have looked at the topic agree on the talk page, the MfD forceout posting date can be postponed to a specific date in the future after a given event has occurred. If talk page consensus is reached, including delete and keep, no need to push the article to MfD. This will give the volunteers here a clear target on what to work on next, but without the article actually being on the chopping block at MfD. Since the current articles would be more convenient in a transcluded discussion, transclude 7 to 14 days of talk pages to provide a centralized discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

SE&CR Diagram 960 PMV

I moved SE&CR Diagram 960 PMV from the incubator to main space. Illia Connell (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Potential new function/workflow

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):

Rename to "Deleted drafts for adoption"
Change the main page to AfD style format with transcluded sections
Store drafts as subpages only while discussions are open
Issues are closed after 30 days pass.
Possible closures are:
- Move back to article space: article has improved significantly over the 30 days and addresses whatever got it deleted
- Userfy: One editor is actively working on the article and has actually edited it
- Relist: Should be extremely rare based on past experience, only done when multiple editors are actively working on the article, but its fate remains unclear. If only one editor is working on it, userfy.
- Delete: The default action if no one has done anything significant to the article during the 30 day period or if no one has commented. If someone expressed intent to work on the article but then did not do so, may be deleted or userfied at the discretion of the closer. Of special note is that the article should be moved back to article space, and then deleted, so that the history resides at its article space title. Under our old workflow, the incubator was a black hole for article histories. We should fix that, it's a minor copyright issue. Gigs (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm probably missing the big picture here, but I agree that articles brought to the incubator need to have a timeout after which something happens. The Speedy Incubate has not caught on, but has received positive comments. For breaking events whose notability is in flux, one to two weeks is enough time in the incubator for the weekly news magazines to weigh in. I saw another AfD case that the topic needed to be in the incubator for a year before we'd move from WP:CRYSTAL knowledge to the thing actually existing. Unscintillating (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Incubator is great in theory... but is not achieving its purpose in actual practice. I think the incubator has become (or perhaps always was) a way of passing the buck... it's a dumping ground for articles we think might be savable - if someone else is willing to work on it. What incubation needs is accountability... something to encourage editors to step up to the plate and say "I am not going to leave this for someone else... I am willing to work on this article". A thirty day time limit would do so. Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, this is exactly the problem I hope to solve with this proposal. The details can be flexible; it doesn't need to be afd style, as long as there's a way to figure out what needs to be done after the the time interval expires. Gigs (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion thread here got one comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chobham Academy, which basicly was that a thirty-day limit would be a restriction that would prevent Chobham Academy from being considered for the incubator. The Chobham Academy would be scheduled to open in September, which is why thirty days and out would not work. Unscintillating (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need to replace the main page with a list, but a list of all articles and a flexible maximum time period would be helpful. No need to have an AfD style discussion - that is just a waste of resources. Something like have a list of all articles where comments can be left about what needs done, plans to work on it, etc. If no one has edited (minor edits don't count) or commented on an article in say 30 days and there is no reason to believe someone will soon (i.e. its not a upcoming event), then an admin can delete it w/o further notice and perhaps put the title only on a list of previous failed incubation which can be restored upon request. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

incubated article created in mainspace

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)

It would seem like multiple people trying to create the article independently would indicate a certain level of notability.... but that is something else to be discussed in another forum. What I've done in the past is to even encouraging salting the article if necessary in that situation, but when the incubated article is ready to be released (having met notability and other issues mentioned in previous AfD discussions because of changing circumstances like several newspaper accounts or other reliable sources publishing new information about the topic) to perform a Deletion Review and asking for the article to be restored to the main article space... unsalting as necessary and restoring from the incubation. That at least is the path of least resistance at the moment and keeps most people happy who may or may not care about the incubator and can enlist some help from administrators as necessary too.

Another alternative might be to redirect from mainspace to the incubated article, but that is much more controversial even if there is a huge banner at the top suggesting it is an incubated article, thus not to be trusted. In the meantime, if you are working on the incubated article and notice the mainspace article creation, you might want to quickly glance through the sources (if any) of that article and try to merge them into the incubated article as appropriate if they aren't in the incubated article. Certainly try to contact the author of that new article on their talk page and enlist their help in maintaining or updating the incubated article. --Robert Horning (talk) 09:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

A redirect doesn't work, because it would be too easy for people to arrive at the article without knowing they have left mainspace. Most projects have portals, which is an accepted path to bring readers from mainspace to Wikipedia space. Unscintillating (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

@@ Line 183: / Line 183: @@
 ::Related to [[Wikipedia:Paid editing (policy)#Safe_harbors]], but broadened to include other forms of COI (autobiography, etc).  <span style="color:#000000;background:#FFFFFF"> &nbsp; &nbsp; [[User:Eclipsed|Eclipsed]] &nbsp; [[User talk:Eclipsed|(talk)]] &nbsp; [[User:Eclipsed/Code of Ethics|(code of ethics)]] &nbsp; &nbsp; </span> 23:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
-:::I think there is potential for discussion of this. My experience on Wikipedia is that many (most?) editors have some form of COI. We are inclined to edit articles on topics for which we have some form of attachment; and this attachment may make our editing slanted. Most articles on bands and musicians are edited by fans. These fans don't declare they have a COI - indeed, most are not even aware that they have such a thing. They think that writing enthusiastically and favourably about their favourite band is acceptable, especially when they note that most Wikipedia articles on bands are written that way. I think we should be concerned about COI; and the first and best way of addressing COI is not to hide it away, but to openly declare it, and to keep being aware of it in ourselves and in others. We shouldn't make people afraid to declare their connections and interests. If an article on a company was moved into the incubator because the main contributor was the company owner and the article failed [[WP:NPOV]], but it was felt that the company was notable, and the main contributor was keen to write a balanced article according to Wikipedia policies, but didn't know how, and wanted assistance, then that seems a good use of the incubator. And I'm always more comfortable working with someone who is quite open and honest. I prefer to know people's real names and occupations. It makes me feel more comfortable. I understand that some people have issues that mean they would rather not reveal themselves, and that's fine. It's just that on a personal level I prefer dealing with real people. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<font face="Script MT" color="#1111AA" size="2">SilkTork</font>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>YES!</sup>]]</span> 01:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
+:::I think there is potential for discussion of this. My experience on Wikipedia is that many (most?) editors have some form of COI. We are inclined to edit articles on topics for which we have some form of attachment; and this attachment may make our editing slanted. Most articles on bands and musicians are edited by fans. These fans don't declare they have a COI - indeed, most are not even aware that they have such a thing. They think that writing enthusiastically and favourably about their favourite band is acceptable, especially when they note that most Wikipedia articles on bands are written that way. I think we should be concerned about COI; and the first and best way of addressing COI is not to hide it away, but to openly declare it, and to keep being aware of it in ourselves and in others. We shouldn't make people afraid to declare their connections and interests. If an article on a company was moved into the incubator because the main contributor was the company owner and the article failed [[WP:NPOV]], but it was felt that the company was notable, and the main contributor was keen to write a balanced article according to Wikipedia policies, but didn't know how, and wanted assistance, then that seems a good use of the incubator. And I'm always more comfortable working with someone who is quite open and honest. I prefer to know people's real names and occupations. It makes me feel more comfortable. I understand that some people have issues that mean they would rather not reveal themselves, and that's fine. It's just that on a personal level I prefer dealing with real people. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="font-family:Script MT; color:#1111AA; font-size:small;">SilkTork</span>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>YES!</sup>]]</span> 01:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 ::::I think this goes back to the article writer's ''intent'': if they write out of a desire to get money and promote the company, the article will inherently be spammy and such. But if they write an article with a COI out of a genuine desire to write an ''encyclopedia article'' out of their own desire, and want to be neutral (but may not "get it" about NPOV/tone/RS/etc. at first), I see much more potential for a valid article to exist, assuming the subject of the article is notable. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/[[User:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">ƒETCH</span>]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">COMMS</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">/</span>]]'''</span> 02:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 :::::I agree with much of what's been said here. I firmly believe that humans primarily act in ways that are rationally selfish, even though the motivations might be subtle.  That said, I don't think the incubator should be a permanent refuge for a lot of crap.  Even without indexing, people can still link to their "Wikipedia article" (which is actually incubated) using a URL on their website, and ride our credibility.   We should monitor the incubator for any articles with unusual traffic patterns to help combat this type of thing. [[User:Gigs|Gigs]] ([[User talk:Gigs|talk]]) 02:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
@@ Line 205: / Line 205: @@
 :*We shouldn't link mainspace to unfinished drafts.
 :<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/[[User:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">ƒETCH</span>]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">COMMS</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">/</span>]]'''</span> 00:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
-::As regards incubating forever = [[Wikipedia:Article_Incubator#Time_limit]]. I looked at all the policies and guidelines and recent discussion on this matter. There is no consensus to delete simply because of an arbitrary time limit - there needs to be some rationale. However, there is also wide consensus that dodgy stuff cannot be kept forever. So the typical Wikipedia compromise is that if something dodgy has been given a "reasonable" amount of time to be straightened out, and it hasn't been, then it is appropriate to discuss deleting it. What is reasonable will vary, so any talk of fixing a time at one month, three months, one year, seven days or five minutes is not going to get consensus. Some stuff can be reasonably taken to deletion quite quickly, while other stuff can reasonably be left for much longer. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<font face="Script MT" color="#1111AA" size="2">SilkTork</font>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>YES!</sup>]]</span> 00:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
+::As regards incubating forever = [[Wikipedia:Article_Incubator#Time_limit]]. I looked at all the policies and guidelines and recent discussion on this matter. There is no consensus to delete simply because of an arbitrary time limit - there needs to be some rationale. However, there is also wide consensus that dodgy stuff cannot be kept forever. So the typical Wikipedia compromise is that if something dodgy has been given a "reasonable" amount of time to be straightened out, and it hasn't been, then it is appropriate to discuss deleting it. What is reasonable will vary, so any talk of fixing a time at one month, three months, one year, seven days or five minutes is not going to get consensus. Some stuff can be reasonably taken to deletion quite quickly, while other stuff can reasonably be left for much longer. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="font-family:Script MT; color:#1111AA; font-size:small;">SilkTork</span>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>YES!</sup>]]</span> 00:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 :::I don't think consensus on a time limit is as intractable as you imply.  Consensus on a hard drop-dead limit may be impossible, but there seems to be a rough consensus for 3-6 months or so, with some exception for articles that have a good reason to be kept longer.  At MfD we regularly apply 6 months as a time limit for stale userfied articles, unless it's an exceptional case that warrants keeping longer. [[User:Gigs|Gigs]] ([[User talk:Gigs|talk]]) 02:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 == The egg ==
@@ Line 211: / Line 211: @@
 Why did the egg logo go away? [[User:Gigs|Gigs]] ([[User talk:Gigs|talk]]) 02:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
-:As part of tightening up and clarifying this project I am looking at using a more appropriate logo. The cracking egg is suggestive of something new emerging - such an image is compatible with [[WP:AfC]], but not for a project which is about taking care of (semi-)deleted articles. I have used an image of a bin with a no symbol to suggest that these are articles which have been saved from full deletion. I think that a better image can be found, but it'll do for now. The egg image gave a misleading impression of the project as it stands, and was more in keeping with the original intention (which we now know is better served by [[WP:RESCUE]]). <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<font face="Script MT" color="#1111AA" size="2">SilkTork</font>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>YES!</sup>]]</span> 09:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
+:As part of tightening up and clarifying this project I am looking at using a more appropriate logo. The cracking egg is suggestive of something new emerging - such an image is compatible with [[WP:AfC]], but not for a project which is about taking care of (semi-)deleted articles. I have used an image of a bin with a no symbol to suggest that these are articles which have been saved from full deletion. I think that a better image can be found, but it'll do for now. The egg image gave a misleading impression of the project as it stands, and was more in keeping with the original intention (which we now know is better served by [[WP:RESCUE]]). <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="font-family:Script MT; color:#1111AA; font-size:small;">SilkTork</span>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>YES!</sup>]]</span> 09:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 :: I concur with the logo change, since it seems we're going towards a clear definition between AFC and AI. <span style="color:#000000;background:#FFFFFF"> &nbsp; &nbsp; [[User:Eclipsed|Eclipsed]] &nbsp; [[User talk:Eclipsed|(talk)]] &nbsp; [[User:Eclipsed/Code of Ethics|(code of ethics)]] &nbsp; &nbsp; </span> 13:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
@@ Line 240: / Line 240: @@
 :::::::I'd rather err on the side of caution, and transparency. That's why I reviewed my contribution history for AI and tried to list all the (major) contributions that have not yet been removed and/or edited.  <span style="color:#000000;background:#FFFFFF"> &nbsp; &nbsp; [[User:Eclipsed|Eclipsed]] &nbsp; [[User talk:Eclipsed|(talk)]] &nbsp; [[User:Eclipsed/Code of Ethics|(code of ethics)]] &nbsp; &nbsp; </span> 09:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 {{out}}
-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. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<font face="Script MT" color="#1111AA" size="2">SilkTork</font>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>YES!</sup>]]</span> 10:49, 25 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. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="font-family:Script MT; color:#1111AA; font-size:small;">SilkTork</span>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>YES!</sup>]]</span> 10:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 == Incubator ==
@@ Line 253: / Line 253: @@
 *****Well, I don't see it being restricted to deleted articles only, and I don't see any discussion about it on the relevant talk page, because that's where this discussion belongs. If you would say exactly which edit(s) cause you concern, then ST can probably explain the changes he made and the rationale behind them. --[[User:Ohconfucius|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 8pt kristen itc;text-shadow:cyan 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Ohconfucius</span>]] [[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>¡digame!</sup>]] 15:31, 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. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<font face="Script MT" color="#1111AA" size="2">SilkTork</font>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>YES!</sup>]]</span> 16:50, 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. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="font-family:Script MT; color:#1111AA; font-size:small;">SilkTork</span>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>YES!</sup>]]</span> 16:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 :So you want to unilaterally redefine the nature of the incubator, and then hold an RfC about whether your newly defined incubator is worth having or not?  I specifically challenge every edit you've made that implies that the incubator is only for previously deleted material. [[User:Gigs|Gigs]] ([[User talk:Gigs|talk]]) 16:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 ::I've reverted to the last consensus version that existed before the recent changes. [[User:Gigs|Gigs]] ([[User talk:Gigs|talk]]) 17:07, 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? <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<font face="Script MT" color="#1111AA" size="2">SilkTork</font>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>YES!</sup>]]</span> 01:35, 30 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? <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="font-family:Script MT; color:#1111AA; font-size:small;">SilkTork</span>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>YES!</sup>]]</span> 01:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 *Your changes were all boldly done without consensus, it's up to you to justify them, not for me to justify what was the status quo for over a year before the changes were made.  There was a banner inviting community participation for quite a while on the page while the processes were being formulated. [[User:Gigs|Gigs]] ([[User talk:Gigs|talk]]) 02:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
@@ Line 273: / Line 273: @@
-*I think we need a broader RfC to look at the purpose of the incubator, if it is working, and how we can make it work. We also need to consider if it's purpose is confused, out of policy, and redundant to other working and successful processes, such as [[WP:AfC]] and [[WP:Rescue]], and if we should close it down. I have been working to clarify the process, reduce redundancy, and bring it back in line with existing deletion policy. My next intention is to analyse the articles that have been through the process to see what impact the incubation process has had, because I've become aware that some users are disappointed that the expected help has not arrived (and their articles may be about to - or may already have been - deleted without them being notified), and part of the problem may be that once incubated, the articles are ignored as they are not linked from anywhere, and are dependant upon a willing body of editors who are prepared to work on any article that is moved to the incubator. I haven't started this analysis yet, and it may be a while before I complete it. I would prefer to comment more fully at that time. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<font face="Script MT" color="#1111AA" size="2">SilkTork</font>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>YES!</sup>]]</span> 18:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
+*I think we need a broader RfC to look at the purpose of the incubator, if it is working, and how we can make it work. We also need to consider if it's purpose is confused, out of policy, and redundant to other working and successful processes, such as [[WP:AfC]] and [[WP:Rescue]], and if we should close it down. I have been working to clarify the process, reduce redundancy, and bring it back in line with existing deletion policy. My next intention is to analyse the articles that have been through the process to see what impact the incubation process has had, because I've become aware that some users are disappointed that the expected help has not arrived (and their articles may be about to - or may already have been - deleted without them being notified), and part of the problem may be that once incubated, the articles are ignored as they are not linked from anywhere, and are dependant upon a willing body of editors who are prepared to work on any article that is moved to the incubator. I haven't started this analysis yet, and it may be a while before I complete it. I would prefer to comment more fully at that time. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="font-family:Script MT; color:#1111AA; font-size:small;">SilkTork</span>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>YES!</sup>]]</span> 18:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 :*AfC is for ''creating'' articles, not saving potential articles. Yes, AfC submissions can be declined and re-submitted later, but it's not really a "community collaboration" process like the incubator is supposed to be; AfC was made as a way for IPs to create articles after we started letting only registered users make articles some years ago. The rescue squadron is for "saving" legitimate articles at AfD; they don't deal with previously deleted material AFAIK. I am of the opinion that the AI is sort of ineffective, as many articles are abandoned and unedited for months (and for unsourced or poorly sourced incubated BLPs, this is not acceptable), but that it has the potential itself to be effective. I don't think the issue is with which articles to incubate (why bother limiting them?) but how to integrate the AI with established and widely used processes, such as AfD. Not that the AI is not yet established, but it's really just a lack of interest to helping not-ready articles that may have little chance at success. I suspect the issue is really just that no one wants to write articles for someone else (many of the original creators never edit the article after incubation) about someone/something they don't care about or know about. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/[[User:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">ƒETCH</span>]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">COMMS</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">/</span>]]'''</span> 20:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 *I'd like to see a better articulation of what's to be gained by changing things here.  If we're moving toward an environment where nothing gets "deleted" unless it's impermissible (not simply non-notable and/or unimproved), and where salvageable wrecks of articles can languish out of mainspace and out of the sights of search engines which honor NOINDEX, where there truly is no deadline, then I support it.  If it's an attempt to curtail or restrict the use of non-mainspace for storage of good faith yet insufficient-quality articles, then I'm opposed. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 02:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
@@ Line 288: / Line 288: @@
 ::And that is ridiculous. At any rate, I delete poorly sourced/unsourced and untouched BLPs in the incubator without MfD, just like the BLP prod process. If no one wishes to work on it for two months, leaving unsourced BLPs lying around is not helpful to anyone. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/[[User:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">ƒETCH</span>]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">COMMS</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">/</span>]]'''</span> 13:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
-*The exit route out of the incubator is tied into the entry route. We have existing procedures for dealing with deleting material, such as only being able to Prod an article once, and only being able to summarily/speedily delete material if they fit certain criteria. Mixing the entry routes would mean having more complex guidelines regarding the exit routes. The question needs to be asked as to what people are expecting of the incubator. The idea that it is a community alternative to single user userfication is attractive, though it depends on there being a body of people who are willing to work on the article moved here. I haven't finished my analysis of articles moved into the incubator, but early indications are that there was a small body of users who were very active when the incubator was set up, but who are no longer involved. Currently articles are being moved into the incubator inappropriately because once moved here they are ignored, which is not what people who are !voting in AfD are !voting for. Looking at AfD discussions where the result was Incubate, the belief is that the article is notable, but that it needs a clean up/more sources, so the decision is to move it here in the belief that people will work on it. The reverse is true. Even the main contributor tends to ignore the article once moved here. If the article had been left in mainspace it would have stood more chance of being improved. I think we need to be clear as to what we want to do with notable articles that need more sources or a clean up. Is hiding them away in the vaults the appropriate route? If the article is really a mess, and people are not willing or able to clean it up during the AfD period, then perhaps a decision needs to be made as to if the mess is so great that a clean delete is better, or if the notability and possible interest in the topic is enough to allow us to keep it a bit longer in mainspace. Perhaps there could be a time-limit imposed on dubious articles. Keep in mainspace for another 3 months, and then bring back to AfD for a second review, and if not cleaned up sufficiently, delete. I am moving more and more to the view that Incubation doesn't work, and is geared up not to work. Out of sight = out of mind. At least with userfication there is an individual who still retains some interest in the article. I'm going to finish my analysis and then call for a RfC in the new year. We need to either reinvigorate Incubation, or mark it historical. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<font face="Script MT" color="#1111AA" size="2">SilkTork</font>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>YES!</sup>]]</span> 17:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
+*The exit route out of the incubator is tied into the entry route. We have existing procedures for dealing with deleting material, such as only being able to Prod an article once, and only being able to summarily/speedily delete material if they fit certain criteria. Mixing the entry routes would mean having more complex guidelines regarding the exit routes. The question needs to be asked as to what people are expecting of the incubator. The idea that it is a community alternative to single user userfication is attractive, though it depends on there being a body of people who are willing to work on the article moved here. I haven't finished my analysis of articles moved into the incubator, but early indications are that there was a small body of users who were very active when the incubator was set up, but who are no longer involved. Currently articles are being moved into the incubator inappropriately because once moved here they are ignored, which is not what people who are !voting in AfD are !voting for. Looking at AfD discussions where the result was Incubate, the belief is that the article is notable, but that it needs a clean up/more sources, so the decision is to move it here in the belief that people will work on it. The reverse is true. Even the main contributor tends to ignore the article once moved here. If the article had been left in mainspace it would have stood more chance of being improved. I think we need to be clear as to what we want to do with notable articles that need more sources or a clean up. Is hiding them away in the vaults the appropriate route? If the article is really a mess, and people are not willing or able to clean it up during the AfD period, then perhaps a decision needs to be made as to if the mess is so great that a clean delete is better, or if the notability and possible interest in the topic is enough to allow us to keep it a bit longer in mainspace. Perhaps there could be a time-limit imposed on dubious articles. Keep in mainspace for another 3 months, and then bring back to AfD for a second review, and if not cleaned up sufficiently, delete. I am moving more and more to the view that Incubation doesn't work, and is geared up not to work. Out of sight = out of mind. At least with userfication there is an individual who still retains some interest in the article. I'm going to finish my analysis and then call for a RfC in the new year. We need to either reinvigorate Incubation, or mark it historical. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="font-family:Script MT; color:#1111AA; font-size:small;">SilkTork</span>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>YES!</sup>]]</span> 17:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 I'm willing to delete long-unimproved articles when necessary. Feel free to ask me at my talk page anytime. <p> 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.  -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]<sup>([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]])</sup> 20:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)