Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. SilverLocust 💬 23:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron → Wikipedia:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron – It's a WikiProject.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. {{Short description|WikiProject}}
2. {{WikiProject status|active|sc1=WP:RESCUE|sc2=WP:ARS}}
3. "Welcome to WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron. This WikiProject works toward [...]"
4. {{WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron}}
5. Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron#WikiProject Invitation
6. "Wikiproject Article rescue squadron's main focus is"
7. "The Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject is about"

  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, WP:CVU is a wikiproject without wikiproject in the name, and it doesn't need to be changed. Just because it's a wikiproject doesn't mean its name has to say it's one. TheWikipede^talk 18:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Neutral - Given our general naming of WikiProjects with the prefix, makes sense for consistency. Given the long standing time at the previous title though, we probably do need to have the redirect so old links don't break. Raladic (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  small addendum - the page Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list needs to stay where it is, due to a bug regarding subscriptions (see invisible note at the top of that page for details), until that bug gets fixed. (so this note is mainly for the page mover that may close this RM). Raladic (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ammending my vote to neutral per the below opposes, which make sense, in line with the possible technical challenges that I aleady pointed out above. Raladic (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mild oppose. Typically, WikiProjects are focused on a topic area, rather than on a task. (I realize the Guild of Copyeditors is an exception.) This project has had such a long history under its present name, that it feels "off" to me to change it just for the sake of some sort of consistency. (Consistency is more important in mainspace, whereas project space isn't really more efficient if we insist on it everywhere.) However, I don't feel strongly about this. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not organized as a Wikiproject. WP:Wikiproject has been around since 2001 and ARS since 2007, and in 17 years of existence overlap, this wasn't previously enacted. Why might that be? Jclemens (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Was wondering the same thing. Our ARS page says "WikiProject" in various places, and is in the category. Some of that was done in the past couple years. I thought maybe this was a clever attempt to delete the project by putting it under WikiProject rules and regs, but actually it looks like deleting a WikiProject is not commonly done. Stale and abandoned projects are supposedly kept around. Possibly a WikiProject would give it more protection, possibly not. WikiProjects I don't know much about. -- GreenC 23:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Quoting Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron: "Welcome to WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron. This WikiProject works toward [...]".   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks like the WikiProject wording may have been added in 2012 by User:Northamerica1000. Special:Diff/472425951/472426031 .. maybe they can recall why it was done? -- GreenC 21:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  NA1k was heavily involved with the WikiProject around that time, taking up more than a full history page's worth of contributions. {{WikiProject status}} was added by them in 2011.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Still, that was the view of a single editor, and the edits were not so conspicuous that others would necessarily see them as needing reversion. Editors can have different opinions now, more than a decade later, without being bound by the opinion of that one editor. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Per WP:SPADE. Its current name makes it sound like an official Wikipedia process like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, when it is more of a group of like-minded editors. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's actually not a group of like minded editors. It's more like a noticeboard to bring attention to certain cases, with noticeboard members independently making their own decisions. The people who participate here run the gamit from inclusionists to deletionists. -- GreenC 00:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: It's a wikiproject and has always carried itself as such. BusterD (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Always? I checked the history, I could be missing something but it seems like only recently the wording "Project" was added, and not sure under what consensus even that was done. Why in so many years has no one ever brought it into Project namespace until now? And it's being done via this RM and not a general discussion. It's never been discussed before. Seems odd. -- GreenC 21:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As a long time "member" I have concerns, per my comments above. If other members want to do it, let's all agree and just do it, no RM required. Otherwise it feels forced. -- GreenC 21:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per WP:OVERPRECISION. The proposal would also be ungrammatical with two competing nouns -- Wikiproject and Squadron. The title doesn't have the same format as a thematic project like WP:WikiProject Anthropology. It's more like WP:Counter-Vandalism Unit or WP:Did you know which have a different style of title. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The proposed name is both boring and esoteric when compared to the current one. Names are important, and this is an excellent one, and well chosen by the participants. To impose a different name on them has justification neither in policy nor in improving Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 08:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the above argument presented by Andrew Davidson. I see no benefit to this proposal, and if anything will likely cause the technical issues as seen previously. Not broke, don't fix. ResonantDis_tortion 09:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]