Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 06:51, 19 March 2011 (Archiving 2 thread(s) from Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

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:

now in mainspace
now in mainspace
recently expanded now in mainspace
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

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:

Template:User Incubator Adopter

See: {{Template:User Incubator Adopter}}. Thanks..     Eclipsed   (t)     14:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

COI Safe Harbor

  1. I have a declared Conflict of Interest, in regards to all my contributions to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation.
  2. 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.
  3. 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. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 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. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 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. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 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.
/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 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)

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_Incubator/Archive_3&oldid=419592017"