Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Archive 1

Start of centralised discussion
In the first instance, this page allows a continuation of the discussion commenced here. The preceding link is a snapshot of the discussion at the time this page was created, and subsequent comments may have been made. I suggest consideration of some quick-and-dirty rules of thumb for a) getting articles out of AfD and into the incubator, b) organising improvements and assistance to the article authors, and c) some basic guidance for offloading the pages. The meat and detail of these can be developed in-flight, and anything we decide can be changed, so just some rough idea of what we're doing would be great for consistency of effort.  Fritzpoll (talk) 11:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Watchlisted. I'm off to do stuff for the day, but I'll be back here when it's evening in Europe. -GTBacchus(talk) 11:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, please rewrite this intro, it is not very clear. Ikip (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ikip (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Questions
Ikip (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Will the nominator have to agree?
 * can any article be moved here?
 * Does someone have to request or can it be initiated by admin?
 * contacting editors
 * Let's try for an absolute minimum of, shall we say, "procedure". Red tape grows far too well in the rich wiki soil; it's best to be on guard against it from the start. The model I've got in mind... Does anybody else remember the Userbox Wars of 2004? We undercut them with something, ludicrous on the face, that was unfortunately titled "Der German Solution", which I think is now at WP:UBM or something. I learned a lot that day. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In the case of AfD, the nominator is only a problem because they may need to withdraw the AfD - although any admin could close an AfD if it was incubated...I might go and quickly chat to a couple of other AfD-heavy admins and see how we could fit in without adding a laborious process, which, as GTBacchus says, is to be avoided. The only bit of red tape I'd add would be that someone incubating should supply a brief rationale - what is wrong with it and how does it need improvement.  Otherwise everything will be dumped here, and the whole thing will become wildly unmanageable! Fritzpoll (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if people could just start !voting "Move to incubator" in AfDs, as an alternative to the usual options? Naturally, "move to incubator" would spawn "speedy move to incubator" before long. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

AFD based, necessarily?
I wonder, might it be easier to farm articles, at least at first, from PROD or Speedy Tags? I imagine there are fewer worth saving there, but the red tape is less. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd thought of something similar, which would be to have a project to improve articles that had survived AfD or had been deprodded. See User:Fences and windows/WikiProject After. Still just an idle thought really. I think giving editors the option to flag up an article that had been speedied or prodded to the incubator is a good plan, to avoid them getting dragged straight to AfD. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Incubation will involve a move out on the articlespace though, and people will have to be both aware of, and happy about that. I'm mulling over the PROD/Speedy question GTBacchus poses - the only issue with AfD is that we'd need people to choose incubation over nomination for deletion, isn't it?  And at least to start with that will be tricky until incubation is more widely known, and involve people racing after the AfD noms.
 * I think we can develop a couple of tools here to help people out: a script to make a new tab at the top of the edit window marked "incubate" that will perform the necessary moves and taggings.  And we could also look at a bot to look at the new AfDs as they are posted and selectively send messages to the nominator letting them know about the alternative of incubation (going to AGF and assume they think they've followed WP:BEFORE).  That would circumvent the red tape problem with a little advertising, such as some centralised notices here and there that the service is available.
 * To farm the articles from PROD and speedy (especially the latter) would need us to have people patrolling those continuously - one group who might do such a thing are the admins patrolling the logs, so it would be worth offering the option up to them as well. But a quick automated click to do the job for them will win them over a lot faster Fritzpoll (talk) 08:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Some thoughts:
 * If people start doing something manually, the script will follow. That seems to be a Wikipedian inevitability. Not that I'm discouraging anyone doing it from the start; just sayin'.
 * A PRODded article could be moved directly to the incubator, without having to convince anyone, just by the nature of PROD. The trouble there is, of course, finding the article in the first place. Isn't there an automatically generated list of PROD tagged articles somewhere: a category, or something?
 * I'm concerned that asking nominators to withdraw nominations will be perceived as somehow underhanded. Simply !voting "WP:INCUBATE" instead of "Keep" or "Delete" would advertise it pretty effectively, and the AFD itself is more visible than the nominator's talk page. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're looking for Category:Proposed deletion, but PRODs would have to be moved at the end of the time period by their very nature, otherwise, like AfD, we'd be circumventing a process and possibly annoying the author. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. The nature of PROD is that you can pull the PROD at any time, if you want to improve the article. It says, on the PROD template: "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason." How would removing the message to improve the article be circumventing that? -GTBacchus(talk) 17:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem could be that Incubation involves temporarily moving the article out of article space, which could be seen - unfairly - as tantamount to deletion. Getting the Incubation process accepted will require making clear that the idea is not to circumvent anything, but rather to give editors who wish to a chance to work on improving articles before they are sent back into Article space. Ikip has been contacting nominators to ask them to consider a redirect, userfy or merge instead of proceeding with deletion; asking them if they'd consider Incubation instead would be similar to this. There's a discussion on my talk page about the pros and cons of approaching nominators in this manner.
 * Another thought: should the Article Incubator also tag some articles in user space? This would give editors either the option of centralising the location of the incubated article, or to decentralise it, but both sets of article could be tracked and worked on by the project. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggested template for talk pages
Fences &amp;  Windows  01:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I like it. What kind of critter will that be when it comes out, one wonders. Something better than a non-notable band, I hope. ;) -GTBacchus(talk) 06:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No.... there's a problem. Articles are in the incubator, not their talk pages, not that template, and sure as heck not this page. The list on the project page should be a list of actual articles, no more. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I made some code changes, so this page for example, doesn't show up as an article in the incubator. I hope I didn't break the template. If I did, please revert and explain to me what's up. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Transclude?
Maybe this incubator could be in the form of a transcluded (and annotated) list, with the actual articles on an editor's (usually the article's creator) subpage? That would be easier to set up, right? Abductive (reasoning) 07:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No easier than having it as a subpage here, and the community has a bit more control over the Wikipedia space than the userspace. But in terms of process, the same steps apply, as I shall now demonstrate:
 * Store at Incubator: Move article to subpage + generate list item for central page = 2 steps
 * Store in userspace: Move article to userpage + generate list item for central page = 2 steps
 * So not really any easier, no. I think centralisation is a key benefit of the incubator. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I like abductive's idea, if I am understanding it right.
 * Every userfied article which has a incubator tag on it will automatically show up on this list, similar to the way that AFD pages are posted on the days AFD pages. That way all the admin has to do is move the article one time, to a user page. Ikip (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that it's a pain to control them when they're in userspace, and no easier than moving them here. I'm not sure of the benefit, though I do understand the mechanism described Fritzpoll (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Broaden the scope?
I think this incubator would be even better if all sorts of articles were allowed in: (1) an editor could list something new that has that never been in mainspace, while they are working on in it userspace. (2) speedied, where the creator chooses between hangon and a new userfy-please template (3) post prod-deleted, brought to the incubator by anyone (4) post AfD deleted, brought to the incubator by anyone Abductive  (reasoning) 07:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, in time the scope might be broadened, and we'd still have to develop an idea of how articles are eventually removed from incubation, but these are all good suggestions for future development, I'd say :) Fritzpoll (talk) 08:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, seeing these possible applications for this process, I'm beginning to wonder that we've never set up something like this before. It seems obvious, once you start looking around with this in mind. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL
"An editor preparing to delete a new article" I love it. what is wikipedias facination with cats? Ikip (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the whole Internet's fascination with cats? (Can't you just hear it saying, "Meow! AGF please!") -GTBacchus(talk) 16:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Criteria for acceptance or exclusion
Ok, after some reading and some thoughts, this is what I'd suggest as a working draft for getting pages into incubation Point 3 above seems to follow from some of the discussions going on about nominator withdrawal of AfDs at an early stage - if the main contributors to the article think incubation would be best, we might be able to accommodate that as well, but we don't need rules for every conceivable situation. Thoughts? Fritzpoll (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The Article Incubator accepts all pages where it is at all conceivable that improvements can be made to meet Wikipedia's quality and inclusion standards
 * 2) Articles that could be deleted under speedy deletion criteria G1 Patent nonsense, G3 Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes, G9 Official actions of Wikimedia Foundation office, G10, or G12 Pages that disparage or threaten their subject will not be accepted.
 * 3) Articles will be accepted by consensus from AfD or DRV at the discretion of the administrator closing those discussions.
 * who decides that "it is at all conceivable that improvements can be made to meet Wikipedia's quality and inclusion standards"? Will there be arguments over what articles come here? Ikip (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no harm, I don't think, in articles entering the incubator in a questionable state. Since they would be monitored here, and could be deleted if they turn out to be truly hopeless after a short while, it should be less controversial than userfying borderline articles. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I wrote 1 before I thought of 2 - 2 excludes all the ones I was a little worried about. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Will the AFD arguments simply be moved here? Because once this article is finished inclubating, some editors will argue keep, and others will argue delete. Ikip (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think so - you can't AfD a projectspace page. And since we presently have no mechanisms for deleting pages from the incubator, I suggest we develop those in time and document our best practice. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the transluding idea above, but you have a great point Fritz in wanting all these documents here. So the history of the page will remain here? Ikip (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, GFDL will probably require a full move, not a copy and paste - articles for incubation will be made as subpages to this one Fritzpoll (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see definite pluses and minuses to both.
 * I have userfied three articles today, and I am not an admin. I simply move it to a new page, then request the old link to be speedy deleted. Lets say we have the article Infected (book) I could move the page myself to Article Incubator/Infected (book) then request the link to be deleted. No bottle necks (ie having to wait for admin). Ikip (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would you need to be an admin to move a page into the incubator? The only reference to admins here is to accept articles from AfDs closed with a result equivalent to Incubate.  There are no technical restrictions on moving articles into Wikipedia space Fritzpoll (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, I thought you were considering somehow merging these pages into the Article Incubator. My original concern was about the AFD arguments simply being moved here, you responded, "you can't AfD a projectspace page" in which I interpreted that these pages would somehow become a part of the projectspace, on one long page. So editors can put these individual article pages up for deletion, as MfD. So on my example, people could put Article Incubator/Infected (book) up for deletion.Ikip (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * MfDs have different criteria for deletion because they aren't related to articles - I think an MfD on a userspace page of potentially unlimited is more likely to succeed than one on a projectspace page that has a finite lifetime. You certainly aren't going to import notability arguments to an MfD, so you may rest at ease.  Merging articles onto a single page would be...well, unmanageable Fritzpoll (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks, just trying to understand your vision on this. I am still playing catch up. Ikip (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, an MfD would be very unusual, and generally only motivated by BLP or copyvio concerns. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Help with this page
Can anyone help me write So you made a user subpage draft a page mentioned here: Wikipedia_talk:Article_wizard_2.0/maintenance

In addition, we can maybe work with this group later, when we are more developed. They can have new articles point to the incubator first.

There is a link to this project on many welcome templates now, you have probably seen them before. Ikip (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles in the incubator
I used category tree to create this collapsible list:

I removed the collapsible template but you may want to return it. This way, editors don't have to manually add articles to this list. Ikip (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Intensive Care Unit
This is a former project which is similar to this one, except it did not involve AFD at all. We can borrow some of the language from this project, and learn from their mistakes. Ikip (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this Intensive Care Unit is a great warning. How long will GB and Fritz be the force behind this project? It seemed like with Intensive Care Unit the creator lost interest, and the project died.
 * I think it didn't help that Intensive Care Unit was created and maintained by self-proclaimed deletionists.
 * Also Intensive Care Unit had no real deadline, no real threat of deletion. Ikip (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It seemed to be an unfocussed "let's improve some articles" project, and it never seemed to get going or have a decent discussion about their aims and processes. I think the ARS took some wind out of their sails.
 * We should contact all participants in the WICU and anyone who expressed interest in JClemens' idea of ARSification back in May.
 * We need to make sure that pages don't just languish untouched - should we have a time limit for incubation? At least we need a way to track how long articles have been in the incubator, presumably the Incubation template can incorporate the date it entered. We can also use the assessment criteria to judge how much work needs doing on an article, and have a way for someone to propose that an article is ready to be discharged, probably by adding a tag. We could also have a tag for incubated articles that appear to be terminal. Of course, anyone can at any time boldy move an incubated article back into article space. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * that is my fear, that people (like myself) will actively move these articles to incubation, but no one will work on them.
 * I like your ideas about contacting other editors, I will hold off contacting Intensive Care Unit.
 * We should contact ...anyone who expressed interest in JClemens' idea of ARSification back in May.
 * I missed that one. :) I will contact them.
 * This brings up a really important issue: Do we nominate articles for deletion ourselves if they are terminal? (firghtening you are using the ICU jargon). Ikip (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We could nominate articles that aren't improved after some amount of time, or we could delete them directly from here and save AFD the load. It could probably develop - in its own time, independently suggested - into a new speedy criterion: failed incubation. I'm for a time limit; something like that would ease the minds of many editors, I suspect. Regarding medical terminology... we're already an "incubator", but talking about "killing" articles starts to verge into bleeding-heart territory. I would say that an article whose incubation fails gets "deleted". That's neither a euphemism nor a dysphemism. Somewhere on this page I already said "euthanized"; I'll be more careful. This WICU is a good lesson. I don't want to see that "historical" tag on this page. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The project might not work, but no harm in trying, as the potential is great - it could become routinely considered as an alternative to a deletion nomination. It's no surprise I'm using some of the same terminology as WICU, some of it is obvious and I read through their discussions yesterday. The medical analogy is already used by the ARS, e.g. an ambulance and surgery in the pictures used in templates.
 * We've forgotten a third outcome, which is neither returning to mainspace or deletion, namely userfication. If an article fails to get worked on or the subject needs to wait for sufficient future coverage to become notable, then we can move it to userspace.
 * Ping! I just had an idea. Lots of articles get deleted because they fail WP:CRYSTAL. Why delete them? Why not put them in a holding bay, tagged with the date of when they're less likely to be crystal ball gazing?
 * When the redirect is deleted after the page move, it'll need to be done with an edit summary that directs people to the article in the incubator, so that anyone attempting to recreate the article in mainspace can see that it's been incubated. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I love that idea! Lets focus on it later, after we establish deletion parameters. Great idea. I love it. Ikip (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not too sure about userfication from the incubator, and I'm not sure about trying to "save" WP:CRYSTAL topics. If a subject needs to wait for sufficient future coverage to become notable, then the article should be deleted, IMO. When the coverage comes, the article will follow. Trying to shortcut that process leads to trouble, and upsets a lot of Wikipedians. What's the point is writing about things that might become notable, when there's so much work to do on topics that already are notable? It's not a race to get a new topic in here quickly, and it's not cool to write about topics that are not yet notable. Trying to make that part of this project will draw a lot of criticism, I think. Let's limit the scope to something less controversial, especially at first. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That idea had nothing to do with this project, it was tangential. I wasn't trying to expand the scope of the project to be a semi-permanent holding bay for WP:CRYSTAL violations. I will mull over the idea and possibly raise it elsewhere. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Message to other editors for more feedback
==Article Incubator ==

Creates:
 * ==Article Incubator ==

Listing details
What details should be included in the main listing? Some organization will be required for editors to find articles that they are interested in working on.


 * Sponsor editor(s)
 * Date entered into the Incubator
 * Topic area
 * Improvements required

WP:Categorization can be used, but generating a useful listing is probably best implemented with a bot reading from a template. Flatscan (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * RE: bot, good point. Ikip (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be inclined to start out manual, with a simple template, and then request a bot once we know how it works. That's how we did it at WP:RM. Then again, I tend to be leery of bots, which is probably at least 20% irrational. The trouble with robots is that they're incessant; this is the lesson of everything from The Sorcerer's Apprentice to The Terminator. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's probably not necessary to start, but it would be better to have something before the Incubator overflows and becomes unmanageable. Flatscan (talk) 04:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. It's not as if we have to open the floodgates though. WP:RM got by for quite a few years without a bot. When it becomes clear that there is a need for a bot, then a bot will appear. I'm not remotely worried about that. The first thing to figure out is how the darn thing works, and not how much we can soup it up once it's been working. It's easy to add a bot - harder to know precisely what to tell it to do. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Lets start today
My big question is this:
 * Are these move going to be voluntary, or will it be mandatory, even against the will of the nominator?
 * What about if other editors vote to delete or keep, must they also agree?

Fortunately these questions don't need to be answered right now.

For the past two days I have been userfying or redirecting the very newest posted AFDs, after asking nominators their permission. My success rate in asking nominators to close the discussion has been between an astounding 70-80%. The reception I have received from this nominators has always been cordial and friendly.

We could start this project TODAY. I could have nominators agree to move these articles to the Incubator today, and I could redirect these articles to a sub-page today.

Enough talky-talky. :) Lets learn from doing, and lets see if this will work now. The worst that will happen is that we have to learn from our mistakes. Ikip (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm naturally cautious, but you're right that we need to get this started before naysayers try to kill it. I'm quite excited by its possibilities in giving a safe place for articles to develop collaboratively. I might think about placing a draft article or two in the incubator. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We can start with 7-8 articles coming in a day, noncontroversial moves which nominators for deletion agree with. Thanks Fence. Ikip (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't this need put to a community discussion of a "support" or "oppose" nature before it gets started? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Userfying is routine, and in the old days a few articles were given to Wikiprojects after a delete. Many times, admins say that they will make the text available to whoever wants it as they delete. When a person creates or edits an article, they agree to "irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL," which means we can do whatever we want with it, with the possible exception of a db-author delete. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely does not need to be put to some kind of vote, or !vote. That's a good way to kill any project before it gets rolling. The projects and pages that are most successful on this site - and the site itself - were started without obtaining any kind of prior "permission". I don't like to agree with the swoosh too much, but "just do it" is right on target. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * But this is only after asking the nominators permission, correct? Niteshift36 (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That depends on where the article is coming from. The way I visualize this interfacing with AFD is that "incubate" would become another possible recommendation - an alternative to "keep", "delete", "merge" or "userfy". In that case, it would just be another part of the system. If an article comes from PROD, then no permission is required, because PROD is explicitly allowed to be removed by any editor who ants to improve the article. Articles from NPP are even easier to grab, because there is no "nominator". CSD candidates are moments from deletion anyway, so anything goes for them. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My only comment is to be cautious - please don't make any waves at this stage. If something seems or becomes controversial, don't do it, or at least undo it if the move has already been made.  With that in mind, can you additionally ask the main author(s) for permission before a move.  Your recent activity has made waves because of the premature closure of AfDs.  It is possible that a better place to search for articles in the first instance is at new page patrol and CSDs, because at the moment I don't feel we have the necessary support to interfere in AfDs.
 * I know you may find this timid or disappointing, but the incubator idea is about preventing argument and division - I fear that leaping to using this for AfDs straight off will simply lead to arguments and failure, and prevent the long-term viability of this idea over articlespace. This is based on reflection over the past couple of days of the comments here and comments about similar actions at WT:AfD - let's take it slowly and show people that we can make this work.  Are people ok with a self-imposed New pages patrol and Criteria for speedy deletion limitation for now?  Fritzpoll (talk) 07:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I just got back into town after traveling this weekend. I see I've got some catch-up reading to do. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Already breached the subject here: Wikipedia_talk:TW yesterday. Ikip (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I broadly agree with what Fritzpoll is saying here. There's no need for us to close any AFDs early, or to ask for them to be closed early. When people who aren't even part of this project start saying "speedy incubate", then we're there. Let's not be the ones who say when we're there. (This principle actually applies to a hell of a lot on Wikipedia - wait until others say what you mean, and then you're already right.) -GTBacchus(talk) 20:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the initial scope should be focused on CSD candidates. IMO, the best way to loose a potential contributor is to delete their first article attempt.  If we instead move some of these articles here, we at least have a decent chance of retaining the user.  Much better to (implicitly) say "your article wasn't up to standards so I moved to it a resource to help it develop" than "your article was crap so I deleted it". --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I tidied the page
Ideas for images moved here:
 * Pictures of eggs, and possibly ducklings.
 * Near the bottom, a picture of a healthy, jumping kitten, representing articles that have successfully incubated and may now run and play.

Fences &amp;  Windows  20:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the photo on the right to the talk page, I love the photo, I love the caption, but I am afraid those who prefer to delete would be offended, and we are trying to bring all editors in by this project. Maybe we can consider a different caption?


 * Maybe something much better written like: Be careful, some new editors feel like catfood when they start editing Wikipedia. Ikip (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Something on those lines would be more appropriate, I agree. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with recaption. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Userbox?
Fences &amp;  Windows  20:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * good job, but maybe a different word than "cares"
 * I would say "nurtures" but with 87% of wikipedians being male, that sounds kind of feminine.
 * How about builds, or develops, or strengthens (I like the last one the best). Ikip (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's very much subject to change. Maybe "nurtures" will indicate that working on the Article Incubator won't require an excess of testosterone. I like nurtures. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * your call nice job either way. Ikip (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Love it - brilliant work, Fences! Fritzpoll (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * VN. I like "nurtured." --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I added categorization to the template. It will now place people into Category:Wikipedians who incubate articles --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

other outlet?
This could work. I can find lots of candidates. Folks should consider Wikia as a possible destination of kittens stuffed in this bag. ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If only WR were right - this isn't part of the ARS. Hell, I authored it, and I'm definitely not part of the ARS! Fritzpoll (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've registered an account there to reply to the nonsense that's already being spouted. Should be fun. :) Their criticisms of the text at ARS are valid. We can't write copy like, "should its life be taken?" or "Some writer worked hard on that article." The idea - as I'm seeing it - is not to "save" every article that's "threatened". The idea is to enforce reasonable standards at a realistic pace that allows for development of articles on notable topics. I will absolutely play bad-cop as necessary. I'm no "deletionist", but I don't think a bleeding-heart attitude will fly, and I want to see this baby airborne. There's a line to walk and a balance to strike. If we come across as seeing articles as poor widdle threatened infants, we won't be taken seriously. The current images are cool, but we should probably draw the line before the puppy quotient gets too high. Some puppies need to be euthanized, after all. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, the bleeding heart wording of the ARS is not what we want to emulate. Being depicted as indiscriminate inclusionists will do us no good, but Wikipedia Review is never grounded in reality - what pictures of kittens? There was a picture of a cat, but the cat is a representation of an editor about to delete an article. Maybe we should have a picture of a dog being put down or a granny up in front of one of Obama's Death Panels to show that we're tough as nails? Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Near the bottom, a picture of a healthy, jumping kitten would be ideal, representing articles that have successfully incubated and may now run and play". Do you think we Evil Denizens of the WP:BADSITEs can't read? – iride  scent  23:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed - mercifully, they've been removed Fritzpoll (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, so potential pictures of kittens cause offense too. I don't think WR is a "BADSITE", I just think it's full of trolls and whiners . Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Struck comment.  Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I madz u a kitten piksher, but someonez deleted it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC) (and I'd like it back, please. His name was Barney, he was swallowed by a python.)
 * Mmmm, kitten. Pythons are cute too, you know. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of pythons here; they live down in all of the river valleys. Tons out at the Ayung river, where the tourists like to go rafting. I can haz Barney back? He was on my old user page and went unused for a long time. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I genuinely can't tell whether you're actually asking for a picture to be undeleted, or making a funny. -GTBacchus(talk) 11:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've actually been meaning to ask about that image; the fellow who deleted it seems inactive so I didn't move on it; this thread just reminded me of it, so I commented. You know my history (really clear on user page; click the sockpuppet icon;). It's my image and I believe I tagged it PD. It's just a picture of a past kitten of mine taken a few weeks before his end. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, from your user page, nothing is clear, except that you've got a lot more back story than you're willing to make clear to someone without the spare time to care. If you want something undeleted, post to my talk page with the actual filename, and I'll do what I can. I've no time for cloak-and-dagger bullshit about who you once were. Oh, nevermind; it's above File:KewlKitten.jpg. Anyone who would name anything that deserves anything they get, but I'll see if it's still around. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hell, I almost forgot. Pictures can't be undeleted. I, with my admin buttons, can't recover it. Did you seriously upload a picture you cared about to WP without keeping a copy? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As I've said over there, I am of no -ism. My deletion log would suggest deletionism, I suspect but that's a byproduct of a series of coincidences that I will happily explain elsewhere.  I will have no qualms with removing material from here as necessary - if nothing else, we need to keep a manageable workload. Fritzpoll (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that calling people "Evil Denizens", referring to misguided, dead policy proposals such as BADSITES, or calling anyone "trolls and whiners" is going to help this project. I think I didn't show my best judgment when I wrote those first picture ideas, however fun flights of fancy might be. Fritzpoll is right that we need to be sure we're streamlined so we can be effective. It should also be pretty clear to anyone actually paying attention that this is neither an "inclusionist" project nor a "deletionist" one. There's a line to walk, and being careful will serve us well. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Jack is right to raise the issue of a transwiki to Wikia. A lot of pop culture articles that are poorly sourced or overly detailed by our standards would be a perfect fit for some of those encyclopedias. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's definitely true that there are plenty of other wikis that are potential homes for some articles that don't fit on Wikipedia. Those minding the incubator might want to know of various options that are available, in order to recommend destinations for articles that simply aren't going to be up to Wikipedia's standards. I like this idea better than that of userfying articles from the incubator. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do any of those Wikia subdomains call themselves encyclopedias? It's a wiki for fansites, methinks, and an appropriate destination for a lot of the fancruft that litters this project. Wookiepedia, has occurred to me, but really, *we* aim to be a serious encyclopaedia.
 * It is core to the concept of improvement that culling the low quality/inappropriate material raises the average quality of all articles. This is the essence of 'Deletionism'. Indiscriminate inclusion of material without proper attention to genuine notability, proper sources that actually cover a topic in significant detail (yada, yada; we all know the boilerplate) serves to water down the overall quality of the project's articles; *this* is the essence of the issue with Article-Keepism.
 * I have no problem with well written, well sourced articles about stuff I don't like. Hell, I don't like half the articles on this project, but that doesn't mean I'd ever seek their deletion. There *are* something on the order of hundreds of thousands that I would expect to find inappropriate for inclusion upon inspection with a discriminating eye. If this proposal is ready to sort a significant number of problematic articles, I could be a strong supporter. What I would look for is batches of articles moved to some subfolder where they could be worked on. If some can be improved to the point where they can honestly be said to be above average articles, then back to main space. Those that fail to meet this bar after a while (a month or two?) should be put down with the possibility of their being squirted over to Wikia (or somewhere off WMFville). Cheers. Jack Merridew 05:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a mathematical problem with the idea that articles in the main space need to be "above average". As to whether this proposal is "ready to sort a significant number of problematic articles", that remains to be seen - or rather, to be created. Would you like to help author reality? I'm sure as heck not an inclusionist, and I'm already playing an active role here. Why not edit the page, Jack? My only caution would be that people like to shoot things down. It's best if we start with less controversial tasks, and see whether we can grow in the right direction. Let's walk before we run, eh? -GTBacchus(talk) 06:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I was wondering about this as well, let's say eight articles a day (following the patterns of behaviour here it will be many times more) but people only work on an average of two - how do you stop this becoming just a giant rubbish tip? Do you have some (even vague) deadline or even some vague quality control standard that say some effort must made within a certain period? --Cameron Scott (talk) 06:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Do we have" a deadline or quality control standard yet? No, we don't exist yet. You are one of we; why not stick around and make sure that happens? From what I've seen, looking at this page and into my own mind, a non-vague deadline is absolutely necessary. This is not ARS. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a deadline will be essential, but it is difficult to define parameters before we start work. Defining them early means limiting potential arguments later on but restricts our flexibility - for now, all I've proposed is categories that can be used for incubating articles that someone thinks should be removed by move or deletion - that way things can fall out at some pace. But the criteria for enacting the removal remain unspecified as yet Fritzpoll (talk) 10:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is this - regardless of intention, people are great at saying "save this article!" not so great as actually working on them. if you don't have any criteria, the incubator will simply be loaded up with articles from people who concentrate on saving content not improving it. Then within three months, people like me will try and nuke the project from space pointing out that no improvement work is going on or that the improvement rate is so low that it's a waste of time. This will in turn lead to massive arguments. I suggest that for the first eight weeks you run with no deadlines and at the end of that period, you should have enough data to know roughly what it should be and work towards that. I think in some form a project like this has to (unlike other bits of wikipedia) have some form of firm deadline or it will become a rubbish tip. The other thing is, that the only way out of incubator should be as an article or gone. It should not be a way that once the time is up, it's userified, then moved into article space, then moved back into the incubator and so on... --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree - I just can't work out how to decide what the deadline should be Fritzpoll (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Run it for two or three months, see what percentage of articles are making it back into article space and see what sort of time that those articles take to get upto standard. It would give us some numbers to discuss. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of this. People are better at saying "save the kittens" than they are at saving kittens, we need a deadline, that will be better worked out in practice than on the drawing board, this is not a path to userfication... yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. Another way to deal with low improvement rate is to note what kinds of articles are entering the incubator, and which kinds have higher success rates. Then we can implement filters. This is not to be a catch-all for the whims of inclusionists; this is for articles that have a good chance of coming up to standards. I don't mean a theoretical good chance, either, but an actual verified-by-real-experience good chance. -GTBacchus(talk) 11:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * @GTB; my thinking re getting things to above average was that to have been moved here things would have been reasonably seen as well below average and that this would be a sign of real improvement. The idea would be speedy keep material should anyone AFD something just out of here. Obviously all articles in main space can't be above average; but stuff appropriately moved here would be well below average. It seems a good metric for improvement (note; it *is* a subjective judgment; we've no numbers). I will give the page another read and may do a bit of bold editing to it (although it's a busy week).
 * @all; I am seeing this, in part, as an alternative to outright deletion. That doesn't necessarily mean that a move back to main space will always be appropriate. It seems that much of the objection to outright deletion is that content is "lost"; so let Wikia (or any more suitable wiki) have the content when it really isn't fitting with the goal of high quality sourced content (and some effort is unable to resolve it). I don't know much about the norms on Wikia; I'm assuming there's not much of a bar to inclusion - no 'notability', no sourcing requirements; just stuff people love. The only real 'delete; hereabouts is 'oversight'; our 'delete' is just a hidden bit. I have no issue with most deleted content being available for transwiki (there will be some exceptions; attack pages, BLP vios, copy vios).
 * For articles (topics) that are appropriate for inclusion here, but may just outright suck, this would be a place to get our dirty laundry out of view and worked on to a point where it is fit for public viewing.
 * Masem proposed something a while ago; a 'deletion pending' AFD result (link, someone?). This could be a refinement of that. There are many complaints that seven days is not long enough; hence the 'month or two'. If no one cares to make an above average article out of a moved-here page, then delete with a possible transwiki to an appropriate place is only costing us some highly problematic article (and raises our average quality).
 * This has to entail an actual move out of main space; just adding a category will be about the same scenario as template-tagging (only at the bottom;)
 * Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All good stuff. I get the "above average" bit; it just reminded me of Lake Wobegon, so I had to comment. ;) -GTBacchus(talk) 11:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Pablo, that is the spelling I meant, but I prefer for my spelling errors to stand until I catch them. Thanks, though. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Seconding?
One possible filter on articles coming in, that would be simple to implement, is that articles could be nominated for incubation by any editor, but the nomination would have to be seconded by someone else to go ahead with incubation. Would this be useful, do people think? -GTBacchus(talk) 07:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It could be a reasonable filter on abuse, but could also be a slippery slope to hang on sorts of stuff. And we really want to avoid the whole 'WP:Article for Incubation' bureaucracy. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we can always add filters as they seem necessary in practice. Who's going to pick the first article to start up this pizzah? -GTBacchus(talk) 08:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"Everyone" can move articles?
Hi there. I have remarked similarly on WT:Twinkle that I find it a huge problem with this otherwise good idea that the process can be started by everyone. Since such an action can be equally BITEy as userfication against the creator's will or speedy deletion, allowing everyone to initiate the process is a huge risk that mistakes will be made on a large scale, equally as mistakes are made with speedy tagging daily and far too often. I would suggest that this part of the proposal is revised to require review instead. My suggestion would be a CSD like process where NP patrollers can tag articles with incubation suggested instead or together with a speedy or PROD tag and an admin can decide whether it should be moved here. Since the process has the same risk for BITEing newbies as CSD, it should be equally restricted in overview imho. What do you think? Regards  So Why  09:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That seems reasonable to me as long as the "review process" is very light. Like someone suggests it with the tag & any admin (or possibly even any project member) says "OK" and does the move.  (This of cousre would only apply to articles coming from CSD/NPP and not AfD which would already have community consensus of sorts.)  The check is probably a good idea for two reasons: 1) it would help prevent blatantly inappropriate stuff from here and 2) it would help prevent moving of items that don't really need moved. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it can be easily combined with SD. Articles could be tagged as such and will show up in CAT:SD and admins would then decide whether they should be moved or not based on a similar strict set of criteria (i.e. move only if they 1) meet a speedy criterion (because this should be an alternative to deletion, not a new form of it) and 2) there is an indication that it might be improvable). Regards  So Why  13:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the concern.
 * That said, can't we simply educate editors about what is and is not approriate on a individual basis, much like how almost everything else is done on wikipedia?
 * Since any editor can nominate articles for deletion, which is much, much, much bitier than incubation, I don't think adding restrictions on incubation for the rest of us who are not admins is a good idea.
 * I think a lot of editors would never start using the incubation method if we created barriers to entry. I think editors have grown accustomed to instantaneous results on wikipedia, not having to wait in a bottle neck for admins to approve our actions. That is why Flagged revisions has met such resistance.
 * We can look at this later if the need arises, but I would prefer less centralized control over this entire process, and focus on troubles when they arise, on an individual editor basis. Ikip (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The point is that incubation results in the article being removed from the main space while a deletion nomination does not. In that way, it's similar to deletion itself and that is limited to admins for obvious reasons. I understand your concerns but educating editors will never work equally good. Just look at how many mistaken speedy taggings exist despite all efforts to educate taggers. No, making the process equal to speedy tagging means that there are no more barriers to incubation than there are to deletion.
 * If an article may meet the SD criteria and may be incubated, it should be decided by a reviewing admin. If it does not meet speedy criteria but other reasons for deletion, then there should be a discussion here whether to incubate the article or not. Allowing everyone to do so without consensus and overview will carry the risk of being massively BITEy to newcomers because some inexperienced users are bound to be overenthusiastic and incubate articles on a large scale even if they are not meeting the requirements. And it's usually to late to educate people when the mess has been created already... Regards  So Why  15:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I appreciate your concerns.
 * Like moving an article here, redirecting articles, merging articles, and current policy on userfying articles consists of moving materials.
 * Incubation is not the same as deletion, the article and the article history is still available on wikipedia. Anyone could move the article back to article space, whereas with deletion only admins can recreate an article. I am not asking to give every editor the deletion button, I am simply asking that editors get the same freedom with incubation that they have with nominating articles for deletion, current userfication, redirecting, writing articles, creating articles, and merging articles.
 * Will their be problems with editors incubating articles that should not be incubated? Of course. Just like there are people who put articles up for deletion which shouldn't or merge or redirect articles that shouldn't be.
 * But I trust the vast majority of editors will not misuse incubation, just as the vast majority of editors currently do not misue the tools they already have. So it is unfair to the majority of editors to put restrictions on them because of what is now hypothetical problem makers. Ikip (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's see what happens. If there's abuse, we can easily stop it. We've got admins here on the team. There's no sense inventing problems that might happen, because we're all here, alive and paying attention. If and when abuse occurs, then it will become clear what its nature is, and how to deal with it. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Point is, incubation is like userfication against or without the creator's consent, a removal of the article from the article mainspace. And as such, it has the same effect on a newbie creator as deletion. They do not care whether the article is still available somewhere, they will notice it gone from where they left it and may be bitten by it. Because the problem is that we, as experienced editors, usually forget that new users do not know what a namespace is and will equal removal from mainspace with removal from the project, even if that's not really the case. This system might not be called deletion but its effects can be quite the same for inexperienced editors (who are most likely the most affected group by this process) and as such, the same rules as for deletion should be established. Contrary to some beliefs here, userfication without the user's consent is not allowed by any policy and all other options (merging, redirecting, rewriting etc.) do not remove the article from mainspace like this proposal plans. Regards  So Why  19:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I hear what you're predicting. I'm just saying, let's see if that actually happens. I think that it's nothing diplomacy can't overcome, but I don't want to discuss what might or might not happen. I want to get to the future, and see what does happen. At that point, you may say, "I told you so." At that point, I promise I'll be willing to break it all down if it turns out not to be good. Since this is an alternative to deletion, I can't see that we're making anything worse. Is that fair? As far as what's "allowed by any policy", see WP:IAR. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In other words, we're not taking anything out of the mainspace that had any chance of staying there. If you'd prefer that these articles simply be deleted... that's the alternative. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Which brings me back to my point: Normal editors cannot delete articles either, can they? There is a reason for that. I am not saying it should be made more complicated than deletion but I am saying that it should also not be simpler because the effect is the same for the new editor affected. I see no reason not to have a second set of eyes mandatory from the beginning. There is a reason we have similar rules in other areas which affect new editors, like CSD or RFPP. Regards  So Why  19:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see that there's any incentive for people to incubate things that aren't actually in danger of being deleted. Why would someone do that, and why would we accept such articles into the incubator? I see this place as a "last chance farm" of sorts. It's not for articles that will survive in the main space. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think SoWhy's point here is that things that wouldn't be deleted will get incubated since many (likely greater than 50% based on my experience) of articles tagged for speedy deletion aren't actually speedyable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, but who says we'll incubate articles that aren't speediable? What's happening now with those 50% of speedy-tagged articles? Do they end up in AFD? Super, once there, if the discussion is leaning to "delete" or "userfy", we can snap 'em up, because incubation is preferable to either. If the AFD discussion is leaning to "keep" or "merge", then we'll leave well enough alone. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (←) Yes, what Thaddeus says is my point exactly. I do not object to articles that are otherwise being deletable to be moved to the incubator. But if we allow everyone to make those moves (again, deletions, no matter where, can only be done by admins), we will invite those people who now mistag for speedy deletion to mis-move to the incubator, thus removing good articles from the mainspace because they do not meet someone's personal set of criteria but which are otherwise not deletable. Regards  So Why  19:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, but I don't see the incentive. Why would someone start moving articles here that have been inappropriately speedy-tagged? What's the motivation? Further, if that happens, why can't we take notice of it and do something about it? Nobody's signing any suicide pacts here, are we? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Another point - any registered user can userfy articles now by moving them to user space. Is there a problem with people who now mistag for speedy mis-userfying? If not, what would make this different. I've been trying to push incubation as a "last chance farm", and an alternative to deletion or userfication. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Incentive? The same as for incorrect speedy tagging: Too much enthusiasm. They may not do it to harm someone but harm they may still. Userfication is nothing that most inexperienced users (those who mostly mistag) know about, heck, even some admins don't know what it is. So they do not see it as a alternative. Ikip suggested such an option for Twinkle and Amalthea correctly pointed out that this would be an incentive for such mistakes. The point of incubation is to remove articles that are deemed "unfit" from mainspace, isn't it? Would you not agree that the decision whether an article really is "unfit" should not be made by a single editor alone but be reviewed before being made to avoid mistakes? Yes, they can be reversed but it's more time-consuming to move and undo a move than to simply have an experienced editor (like an admin) reviewing the move before it gets done. Last chance farm is fine when it comes to AFDs where incubation is a potential outcome because then there was discussion but when it comes to articles that would otherwise be speedy candidates, it's just prudent to apply the same procedure and I see no reason not to be careful before initiating the process. There is no need for a lengthy discussion maybe, but what is to say against a second set of eyes before doing it? We don't let everyone speedy delete articles for the same reasons after all. Regards  So Why  21:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If these inexperienced editors don't know what userfication is, why will they know what incubation is? It's no more high-profile. Until there is just one single case of incubation abuse, I don't see the need to worry about it. As soon as there is just one single case, I will personally be there fixing it. I've got the admin buttons, and I've got the time. Can you trust us a little bit, that we'll nip abuse in the bud? I don't know how to stop people from moving pages, because the software is set up so that anyone with an account can move an article to a title that isn't blocked. Most people can't push the delete button, but everyone can push the move button. There is not widespread userfication abuse, despite userfication coming up as an option every single day in AFD. Incubation will not be more well-known than userfication for a long time. I can undo moves very, very quickly. I've completed so many move requests, I can push those buttons in my sleep. I promise to be on strict guard against what you're worried about. Can you please give us a chance? I promise that I am alive and alert to your concerns, and that I will not tolerate incubation abuse. Can you please trust me to try it? You ask, "The point of incubation is to remove articles that are deemed "unfit" from mainspace, isn't it?" Absolutely not. That's close to the opposite of the point. The point of incubation is to take articles that are going to be deleted, or that already have been deleted, and to keep them on the wiki and on a path into the mainspace. I won't tolerate anything being moved out of namespace that was not doomed. The first article we moved in had already been deleted. I promise you, this is not a method of getting rid of articles, in any way, shape, or form. Incubation is only for articles that were otherwise certain to be deleted or userfied. Can you trust us, just until we see what happens? Please? You've got my word that I will nuke this page from orbit if this becomes a problem, ok? Keep an eye on us, and let us know if you see abuse, okay? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The objection stems from this Twinkle discussion where it was suggested to add a userification to Twinkle. The discussion then turned to Incubation button instead.  I have to agree with SoWhy that such a button would encourage abuse and I don't support such a button without admin review (or something similar).  However, if this remains relatively obscure - like userification is currently - then I don't foresee any problems.  My personal vision is that incubation will one day be offered as a real alternative to CSD (as discussed by SoWhy), but there is no reason why we can't start slow. In fact, I'd say we have to start slow as we clearly don't have the resources to fix every legit A7 that is in reality notable.
 * So, for now we should probably focus on AfD transfers. If at some future point we are offering this as a real option to NPPers then we'll need to use a CSD-like procedure (i.e. probably include it into the existing CSD protocol.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggesting an incubation button is painfully premature, and a bad form of advertising that we didn't need. I'm sorry it ever happened, but fortunately the incubator is not run by people who think that way. Ikip can work on articles, but he's not in charge of PR. I hope he stops "advertising" us. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

← Some general comments: I agree that SoWhy's concerns should be considered in the long run, but the slow rate of manual incubation makes addressing them less urgent. I'm satisfied if the incubated article's major contributors receive notifications (hopefully personalized) from a mini-mentor. Taking articles from AfD – either during the AfD or after deletion – may be wiki-politically sensitive. Flatscan (talk) 04:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that there's no need to go stampeding into CSD. I don't like the "taking during AFD" strategy. Let AFD decide on its own that incubation is a viable alternative to userfication. Use suggest incubation. Gently and slowly let people know that incubation is just userfication with advantages. What's really safe, right off the bat, is to rob graves. Seriously, articles that have already been speedied are fair game. That's where the first one came from, really. It was a post-speedy post-mortem. The concerns above are valid to an extent, but seem to ignore that this project is being run by humans whose goal is the opposite of "taking articles out of the mainspace that are deemed to be unfit". If someone starts doing the crap that SoWhy is worried about, I'll personally block them for disruption, so I really don't see where the fear comes from. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

test case?
Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/James Randall (serial killer)
 * Let's see how the AFD goes. It occurs to me that, in the AFD setting, it might be best to suggest incubation for articles that look as if they're going to be userfied by AFD. It seems that would be the least disruptive, in a way. -GTBacchus(talk) 12:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

From user talk:ikip

 * This might be a candidate

The article Eddie Kilroy (producer) was tagged for speedy, speedy was denied. Then it was prodded and the author blanked the page (I'm guessing he was getting frustrated). I initially tagged ot for a speedy G7, since the author blanked it, but then I thought about the incubator thing. If what was said in the short article was true, the guy is probably notable enough for an article. But that article had no sources and didn't assert notability very strongly. I'm not going to pretend like I'm going to try to rescue the article, but someone else might want to take a stab at it. If nobody does, then a G7 is probably in order. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If anyone wants to work on this one, just let me know and I'll undelete the content to an Incubator sub-page. If anyone wants to look at it in order to decide if you want to work on it, just say the word. -GTBacchus(talk) 12:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Could we ask the author if they want to work on it and then bring it here if they do? Fritzpoll (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Suits me fine. I'm going to make that template, and then if you or someone else hasn't contacted the author, I'll do it. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Since my name came up in it.......It looked like a candidate. And, to be honest, I felt a little guilty for my talk page response to the author. (He said that he'd find some sources later and I asked why he didn't find sources before putting the article up). Anyway, like I said, if the article was accurate, the subject should pass notability and I thought maybe someone would like to see what they could do with it. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hell yes: Article Incubator/Eddie Kilroy (producer) ...please make that red link blue. Lets get started. Ikip (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Tada! -GTBacchus(talk) 15:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Now, I've moved it to Article Incubator/Eddie Kilroy, as there's no need for disambiguation. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I also threw in another one Article Incubator/DESC that's been in a subpage of my sandbox, neglected for two years. That, my friends, is the danger of userfying. It's an organization that has received plenty of local press in Seattle; I'd be surprised if it's non-notable, but in its current state... yeah. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I might make a template for this
Here's something I've just posted at Articles for deletion/Freiwilligen:

I think that's a good format to post in AFDs where userfication has already been suggested. If it's a template, it could have variables to make it a little more versatile, e.g., the name of the editor who suggested userfication. Thoughts? -GTBacchus(talk) 13:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not online a lot today, so this will be brief: looks great. When we start adding articles over, I suggest that we make a brief announcement in some related locations so that we can attract some more editors to help with the required improvements Fritzpoll (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome. I'm going to learn how to make a template with a variable now! :) -GTBacchus(talk) 13:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's easy to find candidates, by the way. Go to the page of AFDs that are 1 or 2 days from being closed, and search for the text "userf". That will get you discussions where userfication has been suggested, with very few false positives. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so if you type:, you'll get:


 * Comment - If userfying is being considered, as was suggested above, I submit that it might be better to move this article to WP:INCUBATOR, a new project that is essentially the same as the userfy option, except it's in a central area, in the project namespace. The advantages of incubation over userfication are that more eyes will see the article, and that it won't sit there indefinitely out of sight if no improvement occurs. Thanks for your consideration. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If you type XYZ, you'll get:


 * Comment - If userfying is being considered, as was suggested above, I submit that it might be better to move this article to WP:INCUBATOR, a new project that is essentially the same as the userfy option, except it's in a central area, in the project namespace. The advantages of incubation over userfication are that more eyes will see the article, and that it won't sit there indefinitely out of sight if no improvement occurs. Thanks for your consideration. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Questions: Is substing it the right idea? Any other features it should have? How about documentation? I'm new at this. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, a template like this should be subst'd. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There are already 4 templates on WP:Userfication which you can draw inspriration from:
 * Nn-userfy, for A7 article namespace posts
 * Userfied, for other than A7 article namespace posts
 * Userfied2, talk page message box for other than A7 article namespace posts
 * Userfy warning, warning for conflict of interest (Vanity)/user pages in article namespace identifying an autobiography article in namespace
 * Also: Template:Userf which I adapted from the WP:Userfication talk page.

Ikip (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Template to inform author
Another template we definitely need is one to inform the article's creator where their article has gone. It should have two forms - one for an article that was tagged for speedy but moved here instead of deletion & one for an article that was never tagged speedy. I'll work on it later today or tomorrow if no one jumps on it first (but feel free to beat me to it. :)) --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good call. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See above, Ikip (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ See Template:Incu-notify & Template:Incu-notify-del --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Bot for local administrative purposes
I'm going to quickly slap a bot together to handle some admininstrative tasks in this part of the world. The bot will patrol our subpages and ensure that Just to help us keep track of the articles and undo editing mistakes that may remove these tags. I'll shove it up for BRFA over the weekend Fritzpoll (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Pages stay NOINDEXed
 * 2) Pages stay in Category:Articles in the Article Incubator


 * If its not too much trouble, the bot should also comment out categories. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea Fritzpoll (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The NOINDEX and Incubator category can be added to a single template such as Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Template. On a related note, NOINDEXing all subpages here using MediaWiki:Robots.txt was suggested at WT:Twinkle. Flatscan (talk) 04:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I added these pages to Robots.txt as this is a far better solution than adding the param to every incubated article (& possibly talk page) only to remove it again later. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to move Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Template to a more standard title, such as Template:Article Incubator? -GTBacchus(talk) 14:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes & done. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I also modified it so it will appear properly on articles (which I assume was the intention all along) rather than just talk pages.
 * Oh thank you. I couldn't figure out how to do that, and I agree that we want it on articles, not on talk pages. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To review/update, a maintenance bot would need to: 1) place this template on the page if it isn't already there and 2) comment out any categories. The other tasks no long apply. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorting
Once we have a significant number of articles incubated and it becomes clear that this project is working, it may be a good idea to sort the articles. One method of doing this would be to add one or more Wikiproject tags to the talk page (these would be useful when placed in the main namespace anyway). But we would need some extra parameter in those (|incubated=yes), which would need to be added to every wikiproject tag we would use. Any other suggestions to make this sorting easier? Something like deletion sorting? The sorting is wanted to get knowledgeable / interested editors over to help with some of the articles. Fram (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think of stub sorting when I read this. Editors interested in specific topics can look at Category:Brazil geography stubs or whatever. That grew out of a need, though. At first, I think we can just have one location, like we do at Requested moves. As the population of the incubator grows, if it seems manageable, we can start to sort them by subject area. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Categories
I've created two category pages: Category:Article Incubator for the project page itself and other supporting pages, and Category:Articles in the Article Incubator for the actual articles we're working on. Is there a way to edit the template so that it only sorts articles into the article category? Some kind of clever use of tags? -GTBacchus(talk) 15:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In other words, this page is not an "Article in the Article Incubator", and yet look down. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I edited the code, so nevermind about looking down. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Keeping track of time
With the list of articles in the incubator being auto-filled from the category, how do we keep track of how long articles have been in there? -GTBacchus(talk) 17:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a really good point, we also need to track (if possible) how many edits articles are getting and some way of tracking how many make it back to article space. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I could use the bot to generate these statistics, if that would be helpful? Post them onto a subpage... Fritzpoll (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The article's log will always have the date it was moved. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be really nice if the list on the project page had that information. Look at WP:RM. You can see immediately how long pages have been there. That's the ideal setup. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I was just (failing) to point out that the data is easy to pull. Ideally I would like a table that shows all current articles, the date they got here, the date last modified, and some sort of categorization.  This set-up would be ideal for both facilitate removing stale entries and for finding articles of interest to the potential editor. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that sounds very good. I assume that, if we can dream it up, it's technically feasible, no? Other cool columns to put in the table would be something that keeps track of how the article's doing, like maybe number of independent sources, number of words... that sort of thing. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I made a few suggestions above at . Information can be scraped from the page history or specified in the Incubation template. Like RM, the listing should be a subpage transcluded to the main page. Flatscan (talk) 04:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No-Index rather than move
I'm happy for testpages to be userfied to sandboxes and non-notable autobiographies to be userfied to userpages, but I disagree with moving potential articles out of mainspace. If the subject is notable enough for an article why should a potential rescuer edit the article in an incubator when they could restart it in mainspace? The mainspace is the logical place for articles, its where our editors expect to find them and its where links from other articles are liable to point. If we have a problem with over enthusiastic new page patrollers lets deal with that instead. What we could have for an article incubator is a category, and make the articles in that category no-index so they don't show up in google. That would give us a virtual article incubator which would still get edits from those who found the article through links etc, and in the longterm might help our credibility with Google.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  19:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The incubator is for articles that can't be edited in the main namespace because they're going to be deleted if they aren't moved. Rescuers claim that they can't edit the article during the week of AFD, because they feel the need to argue in its defense instead. I find that insane, but apparently this can address that need, by moving articles that are about to be, or already have been deleted to a place where would-be rescuers can work on them without so-called deletionists breathing down their necks. Does this help? I see little difference between your suggestion of a category with NOINDEX and what we're doing here. To your point: "If we have a problem with over enthusiastic new page patrollers lets deal with that instead," I say do it. Deal with that problem. That's been tried again and again, without success. If you can make new-page patrollers less zealous to delete, I'll nominate you for a Wiki-Nobel prize. Until then, I'm going to work on something that doesn't assume I can change the habits or attitudes of others. Nobel prize. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

First graduate
Article Incubator/Eddie Kilroy

It ain't pretty, but it meets basic notability requirements, with 10 references, mostly books. Lets get it out of incubation, and move onto the next article. Ikip (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am giving Niteshift36 the first WP:INCUBATOR medal for suggesting it, similar to good article, WP:Article Rescue Squadron and featured article medals:
 * Incu-userpage
 * Incu
 * Maybe we can promote this or another article as a DYK candidate for the main page to advertise this project. For the long term, what would be incredible is if we can move an incubator article to good or even featured status.
 * We need a tag to put on the article talk pages of recovered articles, stating that the article was once in the Incubator. Ikip (talk) 03:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I created User Incubator Graduate which is basically the userbox equivilent of the medal (just like GAs). --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think let's go easy on the advertising, please. The work you want to put into promotion, put into improving articles. We're already seeing some bad reactions from people on this page. Let's be very, very, very, very careful, please. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the appropriate time to promote is after we've successfully incubated 50 articles, not 1. Even better, let others promote us when they notice the good work we're doing. Self-promotion rubs a lot of Wikipedians the wrong way, and as is clear from the conversation above with SoWhy, people will understand this project to be the opposite of what it is based on words. Actions speak infinitely louder. What we really need now is more articles to work on. Articles that AFD is on the verge of deleting or userfying are good targets, as are articles that have already been speedied in a suspicious A7 application. Incubation is just userfication with advantages. That makes switching from userfying to incubating a very natural and easy move. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Apart from other reasons not to promote this yet, the article is still far from DYK standards (in particular, the length of prose standard). Another remark: when moving this to mainspace, it should be named Eddie Kilroy, not Eddie Kilroy (producer), since there is no need for the disambiguation. Fram (talk) 07:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are we sure it's ready for mainspace? What's our vetting process for that? -GTBacchus(talk) 07:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Some quick decision - an admin check, a short-term vote, a short discussion...the possibilities are endless. The first is very fast, but may unnecessarily disenfranchise editors Fritzpoll (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, of the endless possibilities, which one would you like to have a go at applying to Mr. Kilroy? It's live; make a call. I'll follow your lead. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say the process should be anyone nominates it & then any established user (possibly excluding those who've worked on it) reviews it & moves it back to mainspace if they agree or declines otherwise. Or if we don't want the redirect left behind, limit it to admins doing the actual move. If one established user's opinion is good enough to make an article a GA, we certainly don't need more than that here.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, what do we think of leaving a redirect behind. I consider Ikip an established editor, so I'm ready to move it to mainspace, unless someone says why I shouldn't. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Lol....who would have thought that someone considered a deletionist by most people's standard would get the first one. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone who realized that this isn't the ARS, maybe? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright guys, I am moving it to main space. Ikip (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Second graduate
Okay: Article Incubator/Downtown Emergency Service Center.

Again, it isn't pretty. We could add a hell of a lot more references, and the editing is pretty rough, but it meets minimum notability guidelines. No objections, I am going to pull the umbilical cord. Ikip (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Why don't we keep track of graduates (I like that term) on a subpage? We could have a chart indicated when they entered, when they moved out, and whatever else seems helpful. Then we can more easily track whether any of them are nominated for deletion later, or... dare we dream it... achieve GA status? -GTBacchus(talk) 06:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I created Incudone which will provide a list in a category. Ikip (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 2nd article done. Ikip (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Completed articles, what should we call them?
Do we want to call articles that leave incubation "graduates" or should we stick with the incubation theme and call them "hatchlings?" I ask now, because I'd like to work on "formalizing" (i.e. creating a template & writing it into the project page) the de-incubation process today and need to know which term to use. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I kind of like "graduates" because it makes them sound grown up, ready for the real world. Hatchlings are fox-food. I'm open to hearing other opinions... -GTBacchus(talk) 15:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My only thought was "graduate" seems kind of like "the article is done", but I'm fine with either. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done? You aren't a... high school teacher, are ya? ;) -GTBacchus(talk) 21:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont care for hatchlings, but I would welcome new suggestions. Ikip (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Graduate" is quite good - I think anything else might be found to be a little twee :) Sorry I've not been around, I went on holiday for a couple of days and forgot to tell anyone before I left. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Graduate it is. I've renamed incudone to incu-grad and started to use the language "graduate" where applicable.  I'll start "formalizing" the incubation process tonight. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That'd be great - needs doing. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Why move?
Reading the above, I do not see any justification for moving such articles. This seems unhelpful in that, by removing the article from main space, this action seems likely to reduce the numbers of editors working upon the article rather than increase it. It will also result in the creation of numerous forks as other editors will recreate the article in main space. It is our clear and long-standing editing policy to maintain new articles in mainspace so that our millions of readers may develop them as they encounter them. We already have the stub concept to manage seed articles by providing categories which steer editors towards them, if they want to mother them. This concept thus seems redundant to existing practises and so fails WP:CREEP. I can't see it actually working in practise either as it will be soon overwhelmed by many thousands of articles - 99% of our 3 million articles are of less than good quality. 10:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But if they're on track for deletion or userfication anyway, then most of the assumptions you make fail as the article will not exist without incubation. This is an alternative to deletion, not simply a random plucking from the articlespace. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What he said. Wwe have no desire to remove articles from mainspace. Our articles so far include one that was already speedied, three (or four) that were already userfied, and one that had never been outside of userspace. Why do people think we're taking articles from mainspace, and how can we clarify that our goals are the opposite of that? Perhaps we should stick to grave robbing for a while, i.e. taking articles that have already been deleted or userfied... -GTBacchus(talk) 11:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, this too: if this process is overwhelmed or abused, I will personally nuke it from orbit. What further assurances can I provide? Just ask. -GTBacchus(talk) 11:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If article has sufficient potential to warrant incubation then why are they being deleted?     It is usually trivially easy to make a viable stub of any worthwhile topic and the stub can then grow in mainspace. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know why it happens in general. Sometimes, it's a brand new user who doesn't have a clue how to bring the article up to snuff. Sometimes people are just lazy. Sometimes AFD voters don't bother to notice improvements that happen in 7 days, and sometimes admins close the discussions without even looking at the article. The fact - observation - is that articles on potentially notable topics are being userfied and deleted. If you can stop that from happening, then there will be no need for this page. If you can inspire people to improve articles within the 7 days, or do it yourself, then you're a true-blue hero who has succeeded where many have failed. If you can change the behavior of people in AFD, then you're a genius. Personally, I find it incomprehensible that self-styled "inclusionists" make the following perverse claim: They say that they don't have time to improve the article because they have to defend it at AFD. I find that completely put-my-head-through-a-wall bizarre, but I've failed to convince them that they can just improve the damn thing instead of arguing at AFD and claiming that they have to argue. I tell people they don't have to engage "deletionists" in discussion, and they come right back and tell me that I'm saying they have to have long discussions with deletionists! Here's a thing about Wikipedia, Colonel. It doesn't always make sense. People here don't always make sense. Solutions that make no sense end up working! I've seen it happen repeatedly; if you're interested in history, I'll spell it out in detail for you. We're trying something that some people think has promise, because AFD is getting more and more acrimonious, and many Wikipedians are claiming that good articles are getting deleted. You find another solution to that problem - implement it and make it work - and I'll give you a Wiki Nobel Prize. Others have tried and failed; the road is stained with blood, sweat and tears. We're trying something here that carries zero risk, because as soon as it starts going wrong and we can't control it, the plug is pulled, articles are moved back to mainspace, and anyone trying to keep the abuse going gets blocked. I'm guaranteeing that, personally. Now, can you tell me why this isn't worth a try? If you're going to convince me, make it good. What I won't accept is the following, "well, people shouldn't do such-and-such, so the solution is that they need to stop". Show me the money - show that you have the power to make those people change - or else let us give this our best. Trying to shoot this horse before it's out of the gate seems like a real pointless move. Zero risk, Colonel. Zero. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, Colonel had a two sentence question. Garnering a very long and slightly defensive response. GTBacchus, congratualations, it is working, article Incubation is a reality. I appreciate so much your efforts in vigourously selling this idea to make it a reality. I sense you are fatigued after so long selling this idea.  Try to take it easy.   Ikip (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I know I'm verbose. In this case, I had a few things to say. I think Colonel Warden's question is a very good one, and I think it deserved a thorough answer. I am a little frustrated that we seem to be projecting a strange impression that we're about removing stuff from mainspace. In particular, Colonel W made this allegation in an AFD, where I'd already answered him, and that was after I answered SoWhy above. In about 36 hours, I get in a taxi, and then on a train, then a bus, then 3 airplanes (one crossing an ocean), then a car, and then I drive 40 miles home. That will all take a healthy chunk of time, and when I get home, I'm going to study mathematics with my friend until she's tired (no, that's not a metaphor), cuddle up with my pet ferret who I've been missing terribly, and go to sleep. Point is, I'll probably be of Wikipedia for a good long while, and that'll be cool. I like airports. While I'm gone, I'm sure the incubator will be fine. There are good hands on deck here. I thank you for your concern, Ikip, which is almost certainly well-founded. I really throw myself into a project when I'm helping create something I believe in, and sometimes, yes, I get a tad over-wrought. I hope I didn't upset the Colonel. I'm probably calmer than I sound (I type fast, and 6 paragraphs are like nothing to me), but... yeah. Maybe I'll study some math and chill out for a while. I've only got today and tomorrow left to enjoy the Adriatic beach. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I know how you feel - I raced across to the other side of the country from my computer for two days to get away from our hare-brained scheme! Fritzpoll (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

How should editors find the incubating articles? We should have a refence or link from Wikipedias mainspace to the incubator. This would also allow users to find the incubating article (with a highlighted warning). Peter Mulvany 22:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulvany (talk • contribs)

Another template
Ok, before I get offline, I just want to mention that I created Incubate from userfied for notifying editors that the incubator is interested in taking pages out of their user space and into our page here. The template has two variables, so if you type

ArticleX

you get:

No, you don't get the quotation box. That's just for here. Have fun with it! I think that getting userfied articles from new user accounts (who are unlikely to get the article up to speed in their user space) is a good source for us. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I updated the template to make the second parameter optional. If ommited, it will simply use the current user.  E.g. placing it on User_talk:Example whichout a second parameter will automatically fill-in "Example" as the user. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Previously userfied articles
What happens when we get an article from someone's userfied version, and then end up deleting it anyway? There seems to be a diplomatic issue there - the newbie writes an article, it's thrown back, someone comes along and says they want to save it, and then.... See what I mean? Thoughts? -GTBacchus(talk) 06:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Most people will be happy that other people tried to help them. If they are still interested in working on the article, it can always be returned to their userspace. Then they can always ask an admin to move it into mainspace without our imprimatur. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think you're right. I considered leaving copies behind in the user space when I move userfied articles here, but the editing history has to be in one place, so that's tricky. -GTBacchus(talk) 10:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Makes sense—but shouldn't you be enjoying the last few hours of your vacation...? - Pointillist (talk) 10:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not really vacation. I'm on lunch-break at the conference, which just happens to be occurring in northeast paradise. :) I've only got time now to check my Interwebs, eat lunch, and then attend the last two lectures, of which I hope to understand at least part of the second one. I got some nice sunset/sea photos last night. Maybe one of them will appear at Miramare soon... although checking it out, they've already got lots of good ones. Oh wait... I know what I can photograph! runs off... -GTBacchus(talk) 10:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops: I misunderstood the reference to "beach". Hope your return journey isn't too exhausting, anyway. - Pointillist (talk) 10:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think it will be pleasant enough. Deep south accents (I lay over in Atlanta) never sound quite as welcoming as when you've been off-continent. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 13:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably just summarising some points about, but it would be simplest just to chat with the user in advance of deletion and explain why it's being got rid of. Then we can come to some kind of understanding about it. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah... when we can do that, let's. I think a lot of articles are deleted so quickly, and the newbie so quickly feels bitten and leaves... but then in that case, I guess they don't care what happens, and they did give away their work, for us to do our worst best with. If they're actually part of the community, then they can see the lay of the land, I reckon. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Template change?
I notice that articles in the incubator get the message "This article is being edited by the Article Incubator, an effort to improve articles at risk of deletion." even when those articles were not really "at risk of deletion", like the second graduate above (taken from GTBacchus user sandbox). Perhaps another template is needed for articles in the incubator that were not threatened by deletion? Fram (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Would it help if I said I was thinking about deleting it? ;) I happened to be cleaning out my userspace and noticed I had that sitting around. On point though, I wonder if the incubator will be used much for drafts like that. It might not come up much. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I might use it for drafts, there's a couple I'm thinking of. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no reason not to be open to it, I reckon. Who knows where this boat is headed? (Someone at WR gave us 6 months, tops. rolls eyes) -GTBacchus(talk) 21:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

We could just change it to "This article is being edited by the Article Incubator, an effort to improve articles that may not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards." - then it would be a jack-of-all-trades. Just a thought Fritzpoll (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, something like that could work. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "This article is being edited in the Article Incubator, an effort to improve articles that may not currently meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards."  Abductive  (reasoning) 22:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I like that.-- SPhilbrick  T  23:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I updated the language. Feel free to tweak further as needed: Template:Article Incubator. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Fram (talk) 10:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Bot
I'm working on this tonight - the tasks I have lined up for it are trawling our subpages checking that Anyone got any other tasks that they'd like it to do in our little domain (while it lasts :) ) Fritzpoll (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1)  it is appropriately templated (I edited our template to include the NOINDEX tag automatically - I think!)
 * 2)  that the mainspace category templates are commented out


 * If you want to make it grab some stats... date moved here, size when moved here, left date modified (& modifier), and current article size would be useful. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, that should just be in the history - I'll collate the data in a central page Fritzpoll (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add a  parameter to Article Incubator so if you could make the bot pull that parameter and add it to the stats, that would be great.  When placing the template for the first time it should add  .  Thanks! --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: The bot should be finished by Wednesday Fritzpoll (talk) 09:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Any update? --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Have been caught out by RL writing work and other bot requests - getting there! Fritzpoll (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The real question
We've talk a good bit about to to get articles into the project and a good bit about the process. Both fine and necessary things to do. The big question we haven't addressed yet is how do we attract editors (those who will improve the incubated articles) to the project? (When we are ready to kick it up a notch, of course.)

I like the "GA-lite" model the Ikip (inadvertently?) introduced and have run with it by creating User Incubator Graduate which parallels User Good Article. This should help keep people motivated once they arrive. Now, how do we get there here (again, when we're ready)? --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It might just happen. I figure that's how we can tell it's working. (Taxi arrives in 55 minutes.) -GTBacchus(talk) 01:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, since we've now got some process in place, we could tentatively make an announcement at the community noticeboard, and suggest it as a line in Signpost. That would attract a few over here... Fritzpoll (talk) 09:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete?
See Wikipedia_talk:Article_Incubator/Eie-manager. I've started Category:Article Incubator candidate for deletion. Fences &amp;  Windows  22:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Bacchus suggested waiting. I think these articles should be put in the deletion process. Ikip (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Halton Bus Services. At this rate, I'll have cleared out the incubator shortly, and I'm no deletionist. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This is more like it. Sierra Kusterbeck might not be notable outside VersaEmerge, but I've found some possible sources in the shape of interviews with her. See Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Sierra Kusterbeck. Should be enough to tidy, expand and merge. Fences &amp;  Windows  23:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * wow, you found something for Sierra Kusterbeck? I couldn't find anything. I agree with your about Halton Bus Services and Eie-manager. Lets put them up for deletion. I like the idea of redirecting them better, but if necessary we can put them up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 23:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there are lots and lots of music magazines that don't show up in Google News. Whether they count as reliable or not is another matter, but I do make sure they don't take user contributions. One of the interviews in a Kerrang! podcast. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * How do we delete from the incubator? MfD? Back to articlespace and an AfD? Something else? Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

First, let's not rush to delete anything. Keep in mind this in an alternative to userification. Second, there is no need to use a community deletion discussion here. If is not uncommon for admins to deleted userified articles that aren't touched after 30 days. (If they feel a need to classify them, they use the "routine maintenance" CSD criteria.) We should adopt a similar system here. I'll start working on the language shortly - which of course will be up for modification & discussion. I've been fairly busy so far today, but I can will probably get to it later tonight. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the status of the article before and after incubation should be considered. An article CSD'd but no longer qualifying for CSD may stand at AfD. An article deleted at AfD without significant and relevant improvement may be speedied, possibly G4 recreation or G6 maintenance. Regarding the specific articles, both Eie-manager and Halton Bus Services were userfied from AfD. Flatscan (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For those wanting to tag with a G6 - non controversial, be sure to add a valid reason, otherwise admins will just be perplexed as to why it should be deleted, or why it is non controversial. Some policy should be established here so that there is a process that can be justified. Then it can be show to be non controversial. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I made a first draft of policy last night. In a nutshell, deletion will be a two step process - 1) an editor tags the page for deletion.  2) an admin makes sure the page has been here for 30 days without improvement or is a normal speedy candidate (for example vandalism).  This process is of course subject to change since this is only a first draft. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Taking advantage of space and time
Before we delete things out of the incubator, I'd like to know that they've been given the best shot possible, and we're not in a hurry. If we can't find online references, why don't we encourage ourselves and others to check offline sources - an actual bricks and books library, for example? Lots of books and journals full of great, reliable information are not online. I would oppose taking an article out of the incubator before a month or so has past unless we know there's been an effort to look for sources in ways that really are less feasible in a week-long AFD framework. I'll bet a lot of us are on university campuses, for example. I could start making a weekly trip to the library to run through a list of searches, and see what I can find. Maybe we can set up some kind of "list of offline search requests", to assist people who want to help in that way. We've been given enough community confidence to use increased more space and time developing these things, so let's take advantage of that opportunity. I think that would do a lot to ease the minds of our cautious and conditional supporters, and maybe even win over some of the detractors. The detractors are the ones we need to listen to the closest sometimes... -GTBacchus(talk) 15:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * the "list of offline search requests" is a great idea GtBacchus. I support waiting a month too. No harm in waiting. Ikip (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Question re NOINDEX
First, I love this idea, and plan to support it. I've tried to read all the background but there is a lot. At some time consider a nutshell summary, so new people don't have to read this entire thread to know the current status, but that's not a top priority at the moment.

However, I do have a question, minor in the overall scheme, but important to me. One of the aspect of this project I see as critical is the NOINDEX attribute. Halton Bus Services is a perfect example of what the incubator project is all about—a page that required a fair amount of work by an editor, but not meeting the standards of Wikipedia. Without the incubator, the likely options were either delete, or find enough editors to get it up to snuff tout de suite. (or usify, which I like, but probably means that no one else sees it, so a sole editor needs to fix it). We want to allow these not up to snuff articles to exist for a time, we don't want them visible to the outside wold, obviously the point of NOINDEX.

However, a Google search for "Halton Bus Services" shows a link to the incubation article on the first page. (Ironically, Wikipedia Search does not find it). Perhaps this is because it was indexed before it was rescued, but I wonder if someone who follows this process more closely than I could comment on whether this is a one off situation, or a problem requiring addressing. If virtually all are found by Google, there's not much point in move them to an incubation section.-- SPhilbrick  T  00:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * AFAIK adding Article Incubator to an article is supposed to add NOINDEX and Category:Articles in the Article Incubator. Is that right? Pointillist (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does add them. I find on Google a link to the page when it was userfied, i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tomtelf/Halton_Bus_Services. That's probably normal for userfied pages; this example shows why incubation is preferable! Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My Google search returned three hits: the userfied User:Tomtelf/Halton Bus Services including preview text, the cross-namespace redirect Halton Bus Services before it was speedied R2, and Category:Articles in the Article Incubator including the page title only. Flatscan (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As noted, it is the userified version that was indexed. That page happens to redirect to the project version, so when someone clicks the link they end up on our version.  However, when Google next indexes the page it will be dropped from their database entirely.
 * I added this entire project to the Wikipedia robots.txt file, so none of all pages should be indexed even if they are missing the project tag. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Flatscan, thanks for flagging this up. You and others who spot potential glitches will help us iron out the wrinkles. ThaddeusB, great thinking with the robots.txt file. Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * While I followed up with a confirmation, SPhilbrick was the first to note this. I'll keep an eye out for bugs. Flatscan (talk) 03:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

First draft of "How it works" policy
Check it out at Article_Incubator and discuss anything you disagree with here and/or edit the text to fix any problems you see. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Article Incubator
How about we have a tool box included in Template:Article Incubator. An example to follow is the WP:AFC in template:AFC submission and could include instructions, log of original article, move to article space, search on a popular search engine or WP for refs, a Last edited x hours ago, put in incubator x days ago, AFD link, put it out of its misery link. What do people think? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that is a wonderful idea. If I am understanding 100% what you are proposing. Ikip (talk) 06:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely. I'll work on this today. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * likes what he hears.... :) -GTBacchus(talk) 15:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I added a very basic toolbox (see below for examples). I'll add some more stuff tonight. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Move button added to toolbox for article with "status=eval" --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

New status parameter for Template:Article Incubator
I've added a new status parameter to Article Incubator the available option are as follows:

Feel free to tweak the wording as needing or ask me to do so if you are uneasy about editing templates. General comments and suggestions for additional classifications are also welcome. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * produces:
 * produces:
 * adds the article to Category:Article Incubator candidate for articlespace and produces:
 * adds the article to Category:Article Incubator candidate for deletion and produces:
 * Nice, very nice. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Requirements to delete
This switch on the template is cool. I really like the first three texts, and the fourth one brings up the issue of what it takes to delete a page from the incubator. The wording: "and/or the article doesn't meet Wikipedia standards and is unlikely to ever do so," sounds to me like what must be going through the head of an AfD "delete" voter. I think we want to set a higher bar than that. One month of stagnation is a great requirement. That's a high bar - anyone wanting to fix it up has had a month. If there's to be an alternative to the month-of-stagnation, I propose the following:

Offline sources should exist for almost all notable topics. Per an idea in another thread above, we can keep track of pages with no sources yet, and make a list available to editors who want to help with brick-and-books research. If someone tries that, says they've failed, and nobody even offers to pick up the ball within a week, I think we can say we've given it a fair shot. I dunno, whaddya you guys think? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the one month minimum. My intention with the language was to 1) include early deletions done b/c of "excluded article types."  And 2) leave open the possibility of keeping it around longer if the reviewing admin believes there is reason to keep it longer.
 * So basically we have a semantics problem here. :) I'm sure there is a better way to outline the general "one month minimum" principle, while still making it clear there might be exceptions.
 * In regards to the "online tried but offline not tried yet" type articles, perhaps a fifth option for the status parameter could capture this possibility? --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with GTBacchus' approach here of pretty bright lines in the sand, especially in terms of "stagnation" - this is a metric we can actually test for (at least in the former case) to shift material, which will become important as the incubator becomes more crowded. My only question on the latter is keeping track of such comments - I'm pondering an addition to my (as yet lamentably incomplete - curse you, science!) bot to track stats like last talkpage edit.  Fritzpoll (talk) 08:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages at a glance
Is something like this useful? I've put together a collapsed list of all the talk pages of the articles in the incubator. I did this manually; could it be done by a bot? Fences &amp;  Windows  20:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * moved to Article Incubator/All talk pages

It has carried across the categories of the talk pages, it there a way to suppress this? Fences &amp;  Windows  20:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's also invaded the TOC. Otherwise, I like it. Maybe a subpage? -GTBacchus(talk) 15:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * nice job fences. Ikip (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I moved it to Article Incubator/All talk pages to avoid causing issues with this page. A bot can very easily be made to keep it up to date.  There would then be two options... 1) transcluding the pages as is done now or 2) having the bot copy the text from each.  The advantage of option one is obviously that is is always up to date and allows direct editing of subsections of the individual pages.  The advantage of option two is that is would allow up to suppress categories & such.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Transclusion's better, with the direct editing. If it's not possible to suppress the categories, and a bot is involved, could the bot be persuaded to comment out the categories with ?  pablo hablo. 22:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If the talk pages are included in its categories via a template, could the category inclusion on that template be told to include only if it's in the Wikipedia talk: namespace? When transcluded to our Article Incubator/All talk pages, would the categories still show up, because they're transcluded via a page in Wikipedia talk:, or would it be suppressed because its actual rendering is occurring in Wikipedia:? Or, does that question even make sense? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes his would be possible, as template behavior is based on the page it is transcluded to, not the page it is placed on. However, it is again a question of trade offs.  Another editor moved the "all talk" page to Wikipedia_talk:Article Incubator/All talk pages to prevent the "this template should be placed on a talk page" warnings that came from those same templates being on a non-talk page.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it might be less elegant coding-wise, but perhaps the categories could be included only if they're not on that particular page? It should be just as easy to check the page's title as to check its namespace. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be possible. It could either be done for the "all talk" page only, or across the entire project.  Not sure which is preferable.  (I.E. do we want WikiProject banners adding pages in our space to their respective Wikiproject categories or not?) --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Doing that would be one way of letting WikiProjects know that there are incubator pages in their areas. On the other hand, I don't know how WikiProjects would react. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible incubation candidate
User:LivingWell4U/Immunocal, recently userfied following an AfD in November 2008. A Nobody had adopted the user, but is now taking a wikibreak (available via email, User talk:A Nobody). I believe that the user would benefit from an active on-wiki mentor (I'm not sure about the article), but given my involvement with A Nobody's present situation, I am submitting it here for wider input. Flatscan (talk) 04:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"Eval" status
Copied from Template talk:Article Incubator for greater visability

Not sure I get the point of this status. I just fixed and incubated article, and rather than set it to "eval" I just took it back to mainspace (poker run). Under what circumstances should an editor set this status rather than just taking care of it themselves? Maybe if they're the original article creator, and they don't do much work on it before mainspacing it again, but still...what's the worst that could happen? Stevage 05:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The thinking is that normally items are only moved into the project when they are in serious danger of being deleted. Thus, we want to be rather sure before moving back to mainspace, or else the article might just go right back to AfD.
 * In the formation process, there was some discussion about what exactly the "exit process" should be, with opinions ranging from "just move it out" to a "reverse AfD process". We selected the "anyone who hasn't worked on it says OK" model as a middle ground.  That said, I'm not against re-evaluating whether this is the "correct" level of checks & balances. --ThaddeusB (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can understand how that was the consensus. My argument is thus:
 * If the article does go back to AfD, that's not the end of the world. Nothing is lost, just some wasted effort.
 * I'm an experienced editor. It's unlikely that an article I move to mainspace will get AfD'ed or prod'ed. Not impossible, of course.
 * There is a certain cost in getting the article evaluated again, and I'd rather just dump the article in mainspace and move on.
 * Therefore, it seems to me that the cost of going through the evaluation cycle is bigger than the small risk of the small possible cost of not doing it...so I suggest not doing it. Or at least, not requiring editors to do it.
 * (I also don't see on what grounds the incubation team can really insist. Anyone can make an article in mainspace, right, and that article survives or is deleted on its own merits. I can't think of any other situation where an established editor needs to get approval from other editors in order to create an article.) Stevage 02:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me answer the last point first - of course the project has no authority to force you to do anything. Just like the rest of Wikipedia, there are no real "rules" just strong recommendations backed by good sense.
 * Personally, I think having a independent check before the article heads back to mainspace is very much in line with the project's goal - to produce good quality articles. It is very hard to catch one's own errors and a quick check by an independent party like is "strongly recommended" can be quite helpful in this regard.  In my own articles, I am often surprised to see another editor catch errors when I thought my article was perfect.
 * For a more concrete example, let's look at poker run which you moved into mainspace while skipping the evaluation step. Certainly, the article was up to minimum Wikipedia standards when you (copy & paste) moved it.  It was on my watchlist, so I took a look after the move and made a few improvements.  If you had instead set the "status=eval" I would have made these changes before the move.  If it hadn't been on my watchlist, it may have been a long time before anyone noticed it had two stub tags, for example.  Of course this improvement could happen in mainspace, but so could any of the activity done by this project in theory.  The point of the project is to gain the benefit of collaborative editing in a more direct way than conventional editing.
 * Additionally, since articles in the incubator will normally be right on the cusp of notability it is beneficial to have a second pair of eyes to say "yes I agree that notability has been established." The evaluation phase also gives a chance to award credit for improving the article, as I did for you with poker run, and also to make sure the incu-grad template gets added to the new graduate.
 * Finally, there is another process that uses this "evaluated before mainspace" system - WP:Articles for creation. Certainly, no one is forced to use AfC to create new articles, but those who choose to do so gain added benefit from doing so.  Similarly, anyone can remove an article from incubation, but by doing so they lose the benefits the project provides. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Other aspects: incubation will probably be seen as a "final chancve" for many articles. Premature "excubation" into the mainspace may lead to a new AfD where the article is outright deleted (I can imagine that many AfD regulars will accept incubation once, but will see re-incubation as a kind of mockery of the AfD system). Worse, institutionalised swift excubation (i.e. as an accepted standard practice) may soon lead to the shutdown of this project, as then it will come across as a method to easily recreate articles which would otherwise have been deleted. I know that this is not the purpose of the people involved in the incubator, but many people may not look at intents and mostly at results, and if the result of the incubator is a cycle of AfD-Incubator-near identical recreation, then it won't last long. So, in general, I believe it is best that articles in the incubator get a second opinion before they are sent out in the cruel world of Wikipedia again. Fram (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, ThaddeusB makes a good point, which I will summarise as "Incubation is a concentrated dose of article improvement. Rapid excubation reduces that benefit." But I think Fram is incorrect in his argument: no one is suggesting that the original article creator should excubate their own article. Nor would it be acceptable to excubate without making significant changes. That seems like a weak slippery slope argument.

In conclusion, I think I would make the policy recommendation something like this: "If, after making significant improves, you are confident that the article passes notability and quality criteria, you may move it back into namespace. However, we recommend that you instead set the template status to "eval", to let someone else make that assessement, and give them one last chance to participate in the incubation."

Fair enough? Stevage 12:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Offering sources help
Partially because of this project, I have started making regular trips to the library. As a result, I have discovered I have access to some pretty good premium resources including the full text LexisNexis and Factiva databases for the past twenty years or so. In other words, I can get the full text to most major newspapers' and many medium newspapers' articles even when Google links them to a pay service. I also have access to a very extensive microform collection and over 100 subject specific databases.

So, if you need something specific to write an article but can't get it, drop me a line and I'll see what I can do.

Others who are willing to help in a similar fashion, can add their details here. :) See also WP:LIBRARY. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's cool. I wish WP could get a lexisnexis account for its editors. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I work in a University, so have pretty extensive source access. I'll make a similar offer to Thaddeus here. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

NOINDEX
Having just moved my first page in here, I find myself unsure - are pages automatically NOINDEXED by being moved into the incubator, or do I need to add something, and if so what? JohnCD (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * All articles in our space are automatically noindexed via the global robots.txt file. Additionally, the Article Incubator template adds a noindex tag to the page.  In other words, any web crawler following best practices is doubly excluded from the page automatically. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinking to incubator articles from mainspace
Should articles in the incubator be wiki-linked from the mainspace or do they fall under the same rules as userspace where User page says "One should never create links from a mainspace article to any userpage...?"

The situation at hand is I added content to the mainspace article Association of Nigerian Authors and wanted to wikilink from that to Simbo Olorunfemi which is presently incubating at Article Incubator/Simbo Olorunfemi. For now, I wikilinked from the mainspace directly to incubator-space article.

An alternative is to #REDIRECT from the mainspace but a sticky aspect to that is that this incubation was created out of an AFD. Would adding a #REDIRECT be be construed as a recreating a deleted article? Of the 19 articles currently in the incubator
 * 4 were never in the mainspace and there's no redirect.
 * 14 are from a deletion process with the mainspace name being deleted and a delete-close note added about incubation.
 * 1 (Sakabatō) is a redirect to another mainspace page and there is no note about the existence of Article Incubator/Sakabatō on either the redirect or current mainspace target.

I have a similar issue in that I'm working on an article in userspace. In that case I made the mainspace name a redirect to another mainspace article and added a note to the redirect page's talk page about the userspace version I'm working on. A tricky aspect to doing it this way is if I moved the article into mainspace that I would need to either delete the mainspace version (with the redirect) first. We'd loose the edit history of the redirect page though I could preserve the talk page via copy/paste. A benefit of this method though is that if the subject of the article is not be notable then I can add a note about my findings to the redirect's talk page. It preserves the research should someone else want to take up the project. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 22:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * My immediate reaction is no linking, no redirects. The Article Incubator does not exist for readers but for editors.
 * As for getting around making a better version in userspace to replace one in articlespace, you can move the existing page to a similar plausible title, get an admin to delete the redirect, then move your userspace version into the articlespace and turn the old page into a redirect. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Fences. A cross-namespace redirect or wikilink is probably a bad idea.  Among other things, it may lead an unsuspecting reader of of article space without realizing it. If an article is unfit for mainspace, than it is unfit for linking from mainspace either (although linking from Talk namespace is certainly fine.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the feedback. I removed the link from the mainspace article. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 06:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Soft redirects?
I look at some of these articles, which will never be wikipedia articles, and I wonder if we can export these articles to other wikis.

A hard case, for example: Article Incubator/Halton Bus Services Where would this go? Ikip (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've proposed reworking that article into Bus services in Cheshire. As it stands, the article is redundant to the current bus timetables for Halton. Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)