Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 November 28

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< November 27 November 29 >

November 28 edit

Template:Rescue list edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Related TfDs and DRVs:
Template:Rescue list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Sorry, but we've allowed this template for nearly ten months, and it's basically being used in the same manner Template:Rescue was. Three successive discussions on Template:Rescue each produced a strong consensus that the template should not only be deleted, but SALTed. Since {{Rescue list}} is being used to the same ends as {{Rescue}}, it should be deleted as well pbp 20:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC) pbp 20:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So? It's duplicating the functions of a template that was deleted pbp 02:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still, the group is active and we shouldn't inhibit its operation. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 02:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? It was determined to "inhibit its operation" by deleting Template:Rescue, and this is essentially the same thing, so it should go as well. WikiProjects don't get to do whatever they want; this one has had a history of doing controversial and contentious things pbp 17:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Purplebackpack89, could you please substantiate your claim that the WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron "has had a history of doing controversial and contentious things." - ʈucoxn\talk 20:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the first Template:Rescue deletion request above, and also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article Rescue Squadron. The point is this is a copy of a deleted and SALTed template pbp 20:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion discussion of Template:Rescue is quite clear. The RfC is less so. Still, essentially I'd have to agree that the nominator's argument is correct. Debresser (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Purplebackpack89, thanks. Reading Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article Rescue Squadron was very educational. - ʈucoxn\talk 21:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure pbp 21:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the template that is used to alert participants of a discussion that the article is question is included on the new "reformed" rescue list, yes? If so, I can see why it's rather useful, since it lets participants and the closer know why the tone of a discussion may change (especially if canvassing was involved, as can be the case with the ARS)--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: This seems terribly ham-handed to me. What's wrong with letting AfD participants know that a particular discussion is on the ARS radar? That doesn't hurt anything. Many articles get deleted despite it. For that matter, so what if you deleted and salted its predecessor? That decision may have been wrong, you know. Recall the Fifth Pillar of Wikipedia is WP:IGNORE. Faustus37 (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read the discussion before you go off calling other editors "ham-handed". Many articles get deleted, but a disproportionate number tagged with the rescue tag get kept (and on the ARS page, the way AfDs are tracked seems to indicate that keeping is their favored option). As for "that decision might have been wrong", that was twice argued, and the decision to delete it was reaffirmed twice. The tag isn't about letting AfD participants know, like its predecessor, it's about letting ARS participants know that there's something another ARS particpant doesn't want deleted pbp 14:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"...a disproportionate number tagged with the rescue tag get kept" - And did not occur to you that this is because of the nature of articles tagged with the Rescue tag? It is used for articles that are likely to pass WP:GNG to begin with; we don't care to tag articles that clearly don't have a chance of passing notability or that should be deleted by a different WP:NOT policy. What you're seeing is a not a nefarious plot by the ARSers . Wielding this natural selection as proof that the ARS is significantly altering AfD outcomes is the confirmation bias fallacy. Diego (talk) 09:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I echo Diego's sentiments. So we're clear, I'm not calling any editor ham-handed. I'm calling this deletion proposal ham-handed. The template is used quite sparingly when its use is compared to the number of AfDs created. Many ARS regulars (myself included) cast "Delete" votes on a regular basis. Faustus37 (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: It's being used as a tool for canvassing. FurrySings (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is totally unrelated. The old template was placed in articles nominated for deletion, and that was what was deleted, and a simply list to appear only on the wikiproject page added immediately to replace it. It is not used for canvassing, as many discussions have already pointed out, evidence showing no one goes to every single thing nominated and says keep, and members do say delete at times as well. It is just like any other wikiproject. Dream Focus 15:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the nominator did not inform the Wikiproject of this nomination. Dream Focus 15:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, in AFD discussions it is standard to list what wikiprojects were informed about the discussion. This template is used to do that.
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 16:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on inappropriate rescue tag use: Dream Focus' tagging of this for rescue illustrates perfectly what's wrong with this template, and what's wrong with the ARS in general. For starters, it's tagging a template for rescue by the article rescue squadron. Seems like misuse of the template to me. Why, pray tell, is this being tagged? Do Dream Focus and other members of the ARS intend to improve the template, as they improve articles? No! Dream Focus tagged it so that other ARS members would comment on this TfD, and get it kept. This illustrates perfectly the canvassing that goes on by Dream Focus and other members of the ARS, reaffirms the reasons why Template:Rescue was deleted and SALTed, and illustrates why this has to go as well pbp 18:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So if another wikiproject had their thing being discussed for deletion, you don't think anyone should tell them? Or is it just us you are after? As I have said, the other thing was totally unrelated to this one. And if you look at the AFDs currently up for discussion Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Article_list you'll find there is just one active one, and I did vote delete in it, after first questioning to make certain the guy wasn't notable. There has never been any proof found of canvassing, so kindly stop making ridiculous unfounded accusations. Dream Focus 19:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stick to the issue at hand, and answer the question, "Why did you tag this for rescue?". I can see no plausible reason for you doing so other than to canvass the folks at ARS. Again, I repeat you misused the tag here because it is only supposed to be used on AfDs Furthermore, how you happen to vote on your last AfD is irrelevant. How you and others have shown up to AfDs in quick succession to them being rescue tag, and voting keep a ridiculous percentage of the time, is pbp 19:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I undid your removal of someone else who commented it was here, restoring their comments since I agree with them it should be there. And its not just for articles. Its been used for other things before. Anything that involves a Wikiproject, should be something that Wikiproject is told about. If you don't understand that, there is no hope explaining it to you. Dream Focus 19:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't "undo my removal of content", because I didn't remove any content. I moved it to "resolved entries", because the tag was inappropriately used, as I explained above. pbp 19:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever. [1] I put that guy's thing back in the top area. Doesn't matter. You shouldn't been moving it like you did to begin with. Dream Focus 19:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It shouldn't have been tagged to begin with! You need to understand how highly inappropriate using a tag meant just for articles is in this situation pbp 19:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong or Speedy Keep Purplebackpack has absolutely no understanding of this template. CallawayRox (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prove it. Until you can, it's a personal attack pbp 20:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you prove why it's a personal attack? CallawayRox (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The above !vote offers no reason for deletion other than claiming that I the nominator doesn't get it. As such, it should be stricken as an NPA pbp 20:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably because they didn't feel like bothering to explain the obvious. You are confusing this template with something totally unrelated, as I have already pointed out to you. Dream Focus 20:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Right on, DF. I saw PBP harassing DF on the Rescue List‎, nothing to do with the template here. CallawayRox (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec)Re:Allegations that Template:Rescue list isn't related to Template:Rescue: "Template:Rescue and Template:Rescue list are unrelated". You've got to be kidding! Template:Rescue list was created almost the minute Template:Rescue was deleted. Both are placed on articles inclusionists feel should be kept (regardless of the merits of the article); other inclusionists somehow magically show up to AfDs as a result of tagging with either template. Oh, they're related. pbp 20:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • BZZZTT!! Template:Rescue goes on articles and Template:Rescue list goes on AFD's. CallawayRox (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So? What's that got to do with the price of eggs? The difference between being on an AfD and being on an article is meaningless if all the template does is attract the inclusionist hoarde and create drama, which it does pbp 20:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:Rescue was hooked up to a bot or something. Explain how Template:Rescue list notifies prospective rescuers? CallawayRox (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, Callaway, that's personal attack #2, and you still haven't offered a pbp 20:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No proof of canvassing was ever found, because there is no one that goes around just saying keep everywhere, and it brings in deletes as well as keeps. The other thing was deleted because they didn't want it on the main article page taking up that much space. People knew this new list was created to be used instead, and no one had any problems with that, they seeing it as a different issue. Dream Focus 20:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You are nominating the wrong thing for deletion. This template is just an AfD notice that the article is on the rescue list. It will have no impact on the actual listing of articles for rescue. What you want is to nominate the list page itself at MfD.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GAME. --Jayron32 20:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:POINTy nomination without any meaningful rationale. If you have a grudge with ARS, don't participate to it. Easy. --Cyclopiatalk 21:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GAME. Jayron32's point is well taken, and really is the guideline equivalent of the original deletion rationale: the template exists to perform the same function as a deleted template, and does essentially nothing to address the problems that caused the initial template to be deleted. It was created specifically to do that, and serves no other purpose.—Kww(talk) 21:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KWW, the template nominated here is just letting people know in the AfD that an article has been listed at ARS for consideration. I don't know how the notification template would be used for canvassing. Its not he same thing as Template:Rescue was. In fact, anybody is free to examine Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list to judge the propriety of the listings. And in fact, typically we record how the AfD turns out and what was done, so much more accountability is created than under the old system.--Milowent • hasspoken 23:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • <ec>Question Is there a specific problem being addressed by the deletion? I liked the old tag (and used it) but it was deleted. This seems to be a different beast. Could someone identify examples of issues this template is causing? Hobit (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Kww. The problems of Template:Rescue still exists in this one. Nymf hideliho! 21:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. It's a bit unclear to me how this is being used, though perhaps that's just because I'm not well-versed in how these "Has been listed with..." templates work, generally and in this specific case. Does someone put this template on an AFD, which then causes the article to be listed for rescue by the ARS? Or does someone list an article with the ARS, and then someone comes along and puts this template in place to disclose that? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • These templates are essentially just notifications to AfD participants that a discussion has been listed at a WikiProject page. With this template, it means notifying AfD participants that an article has been listed for rescue. The actual listing occurs at an ARS project page.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • So then it would appear to be the case that this template does not do the "canvassing" (should there be any canvassing involved here, which is a whole 'nother issue), but rather another page is where the "canvassing" happens, and this template is actually used to inform AfD participants that the AfD has been mentioned to the ARS? In that case I'm a bit confused why this template (as a useful disclosure) is being XfD'd rather than the listing page itself (as the source of "canvassing" if that's what goes on there). Surely it would be a bad choice to leave the "canvassing" but delete the disclosure? I'm fighting the urge to try to make air-quotes with my fingers as I type all these "quoted" "possible" "thoughts"... A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wonder if an admin that tried using WP:CSD#G8 on the list following a deletion of this template would be viewed as overstepping. Probably.—Kww(talk) 22:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are correct Sandwich. The concern is with the page at the WikiProject, not this template. Looking back, during a discussion on my talk page in October, pbp suggested this course of action, but I do not believe I noticed the error or I just presumed that he meant the project page.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the purpose is to notify appropriate projects of the potential for deletion of an article, that's what Article Alerts are for. If the purpose is to be able to slice into a specific subset of topics in deletion, that's what Deletion Sorting is for. Either this template is purpose A or it's purpose B. I express my consternation to attempt to define what subject matter this template is appropriate for. I predict we'll have the knights pirouetting on the head of a pin to explain away this logic, but as has been suggested several times, if the opposite side had formed (A group deliberately organized to delete content) we would not tolerate the same behavior and re-creation of the organizing mechanism. Hasteur (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hasteur, the purpose of the template is not to notify anyone except the participants in the AfD that the ARS is looking at the article. That way the closing admin, and everyone else, can make sure nothing improper happens. I mean, I guess ARS could target articles without notifying anyone about it in the AFD, but that seems wrong to me, transparency is better.--Milowent • hasspoken 23:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any list created by a group organised to delete content would overlap almost entirely with the AFD and the deletion categories. The majority of that content is not being considered for rescue, so a group of editors created a separate list for the articles that are. Peter James (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Rescue list is intended to identify the particular subset of articles at AfD with unclear notability. The notification was specifically worded to be neutral, and everyone interested in notability is invited to follow the list; so the Rescue list is not intended to "selectively notifying editors" - those editors leaning towards deleting articles can equally follow the list and state their opinions. So yes, this tag is a form of deletion sorting (based on article status instead of topic, but I can't see anything wrong with that); and it can equally be used to keep articles or to delete them. Diego (talk) 10:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article Rescue Squadron, I'm really shocked that PBP would just plop the template by itself up at TFD. The outcome of that three month long RfC, among other things, was that ARS was not shown to be canvassing to an improper extent. Its much more complicated than that of course, but PBP's nomination just disregards the history. In any event, the template at issue is simply intended to let AfD participants know that an article has been identified by an editor as a potential candidate for rescue at ARS. The template is for transparency, the list is at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list. And the list has been kept at AfD and endorsed at DRV. By the way, I believe Template:Rescue was a template posted on article pages below the AfD notice, its not the transparency notice (which I think was created to alleviate concerns of the ARS' loyal opposition, so its crazy that that would be claimed to be improper.--Milowent • hasspoken 23:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If previous discussions are going to have any weight as precedent at this discussion, then this one is also relevant, and it's more recent than that infamous one. Diego (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. I meant the RfC on the Article Rescue Squadron was more recent; that particular deletion discussion is not. Diego (talk) 10:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just don't see a problem with it. Cardamon (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the reasons template:rescue was deleted was because it was used in article namespace, unlike other wikiproject or deletion sorting templates. If editors are using the new template in articles, don't delete the template; just inform them of the template's correct use. As the rescue list was kept, the only reason to delete this and not the list is that it makes people aware of the ARS - would that be seen as canvassing? Peter James (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along with Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Rescue_list Some ARS members are fairly open about the fact that they canvass: To my comment "You didn't vote in the AfD, and you did improve the article, but neither warden nor dream edited the article and just voted. This seems consistent with ARS being used as a canvassing tool" was given the response "Wolfie, Dream did in fact make a minor formatting improvement, but you’re basically correct."[2] ARS member FeydHuxtable said, "Possibly not all active members share your perspective on what we should be doing. Though sadly youre probably right, in the sense that if we want to avoid attack, we should minimise the number of times we vote without making substantial improvements." [3]. Some ARS members list without even using this template: Warden consistently lists topics at ARS without adding notification to the respective AfD discussions, despite being asked to provide the notices [4][5][6]. It's been used as a canvassing tool, always has been, and now they are doing it even without this template. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Template doesn't appear to be doing what nominator thinks it's doing. While the problem of the ARS using internal lists incorrectly might still exist, it doesn't appear that this template is the instrument of that. In fact, if anything, this template is a good thing to have as long as the ARS is using internal lists, because this template notifies AfD participants and closers that extra ARS attention has been called up. If the ARS's rescue list were to be deleted (an AfD I would be quite interested in seeing, if canvassing charges are true), it would make sense to delete this template, but as long as the rescue list persists, this template should stay in use. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea is that this template should be deleted along with the rescue list, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of the nom is that it's the template only. If PBP wants to nominate the list as well, that's not made clear as things stand, and s/he would be well-advised to start a new XfD for that, since few people here seem to have dealt with keeping/deleting the list in their !votes (and since we're here at, you know, Templates for deletion and not Miscellany for Deletion). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think pbp does not understand that deleting this template will not have any effect on the list itself. Like I said, the discussion should be taken to MfD with the list page being put for deletion. Were that page deleted then this template would be a routine G8 candidate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, which I'm sure will be surprising to some, but as I said in the rescue template TfD, "If the ARS wishes to flag AfDs they're interested in, fine, let them tag the AfD itself with something that will make it sort on their project page". All I wanted then was to rid article-space of their flag-waving. Really, how is this any different than Gene93k tagging AfDs for Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators, among many others? I have to say though that certain keep votes here, e.g. Callaway and President-whatever, are so mind-numbingly terrible and devoid of anything approaching sound judgement that I almost voted to delete simply so I would not be seen alongside them. Care must be taken by the ARS'ers to not simply show up to vote keep in a lump without ever touching the article itself to address why it was nominated. If I see one more "Keep because I saw it in reliable sources and deletion is contrary to our editing policy", I will rip out my intestines with a fork.1 Tarc (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The fact that this TfD is being canvassed by being added to the rescue list (and yes, it was canvassed - users were not solicited to "rescue" it in any way but rather to vote keep) is almost mind numbingly hilarious.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And its completely transparent; there's really no defense to it for this discussion except as humor, but there's also little defense to PBP's nomination. To wit, you can also review the archives of everything added to the rescue list, including listing rationale, discussion, and resolution, to judge the value of the list, there is no reason to rely on subjective claims of canvassing in general anymore when it comes to ARS, its all transparent. E.g., Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Rescue_list/Archive9. Even PBP has listed things he wanted rescued (And we worked on them!), e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gravity (Sara Bareilles song). Did we think he was abusing us at the time for dirty canvassing? Amazingly, we did not, because the article was kept because it was improved and subject shown to be notable. So the levels of hilarity go round and round.--Milowent • hasspoken 04:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Erb? If a template associated with a wikiproject were up for deletion, I'd expect that project to have some kind of notice, yes? I don't see how this is different. Hobit (talk) 06:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. But it would be put on the talkpage as a neutral notice, not on the "things to save" list.--Yaksar (let's chat) 10:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the nominator had cared to notify the involved project with a neutral notice, the project wouldn't have been """canvassed""" with the tag. So what was the point of your comment? Diego (talk) 11:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To note that this was a misuse of the rescue list?--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Recreation of a deleted template used for canvassing. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep A) The other template was deleted in large part because it was in mainspace--this one isn't. Further, no one has really made a case or shown examples where the template use was disruptive (I did ask above). I'm not seeing any real case for deletion at this time. Hobit (talk) 06:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Bad faith nom. Jtrainor (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list is the problem, then MFD that page. Deleting a template which serves to notify other discussion participants and closer that the discussion has been listed on a particular WikiProject serves to only hide any alleged problem with the ARS list. -- KTC (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Noticed this discussion at AN/I, the nominator seems to have some (long)standing problems with some members of the project (and probably viceversa)... at any rate, no evidence of how this template works as "canvassing tool" has been provided, so AGF keep appears the most obvious option. About the project, I found that having a group of "researchers" or however users of goodwill that try to improve articles listed for deletion is fine. If some of the members use the project improperly we should individually dealt with them, even topic banning them, but this is a different question. Cavarrone (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Note that I've put Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Rescue_list_(2nd_nomination) up for deletion. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GAME. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep bad faith nomination. why do we allow editors to be so disruptive? Spoildead (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this was bad faith. It gives me the impression that ARS will attempt to suppress any opposition. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Kettle, meet pot. :-P Diego (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What is that supposed to mean? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Who's !voting to suppress the primary tool for coordination of the ARS, just because they don't like the results? Diego (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fluff & Tarc. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is no different from the various deletion sorting templates that notify participants in discussions that the discussion has been listed in a wikiproject list of AFD discussions. If we delete this, then by extension, all those should also be deleted (and those are not ARS templates, they are templates for various wikiprojects). Further this isn't a recreation of a deleted template, since this template is used in AFD discussions while the deleted template was an article-page banner (like {{NPOV}} etc). Also, Article Alerts only works on properly bannered talk pages, if the page isn't properly bannered, it doesn't inform anyone. (such as an article tagged with WPChicago, but is about a ship in the Brazilian Navy built in Chicago, so should also inform WPSHIPS, MILHIST and WPBRAZIL, not just WPCHICAGO) ; as long as the rescue list exists, this template should exist. If the rescue list is deleted, this template loses its purpose, and then can be deleted. If this is deleted before the list is deleted, then all you get is not being informed that ARS has listed an AFD discussion. -- 70.24.245.16 (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is just a deletion sorting template, which can't be used for canvassing. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This template isn't part of deletion sorting. I suggest you look again. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it's really similar to them at least. {{Deletion sorting}} says: "Note: This debate has been included in the list of FOO-related deletion discussions." and {{Rescue list}} says: "Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration." Armbrust The Homunculus 09:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't understand the argument in favor of deleting this template. How could this template possibly be used for canvassing? Doesn't it just notify people already participating in an AFD that the article has been posted on the rescue list? Isn't that a good thing? It's completely different from template:rescue, which was placed on article pages themselves. Fagles (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is used by an active Wikiproject to improve Wikipedia, it ruffles feathers of a certain vocal minority who don't seem to feel any acknowledgement of the Rescue Squad is permitted. Luckily more calm heads prevail and the Wikiproject carry on despite the attacks. Hopefully this will boomerang against those who are so very critical of these editors and their efforts. Insomesia (talk) 04:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's nothing but an end run around canvassing rules. Just gaming the system. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - you've nommed the wrong template, bro. Claritas § 14:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. The rationale for deletion (recreation of a deleted template) has been clearly shown to be flawed, as this template is not a recreation. It performs a valid and accepted function for an active wikiproject, and does so in a transparent and indiscriminate manner. The similarity to the templates at {{Deletion sorting}} cannot be overlooked, either. I know, I know, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But my point is that the nominator has not in any way demonstrated how this template and its use are different from the widely used and accepted Deletion Sorting system of lists/templates. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per fluffernutter, Hobit and others. This template is different and used differently from the deleted template, it is perfectly appropriate and there is no evidence that it is being used for canvassing (and even if it was, there is nothing to suggest such canvassing is inherent in the template rather than a behavior issue of the editors supposedly doing such canvassing). Rlendog (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for as long as Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Article list exists.
    This nomination is based on a gross misrepresentation of the purpose of the template's purpose and usage. The deleted Template:Rescue was placed on the top of an article which was being discussed at WP:AFD, and was deleted because of a widespread perception that it was being used as a canvassing tool. However, {{Rescue list}} is the opposite of a canvassing tool: it is used as a transparency measure, to notify participants in an AFD that an article is under discussion at the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Article list. It is not used on article pages; it is used on AFD pages, and the nominator has misled the discussion by claiming that it replicates the deleted template.
    Editors may have varying views on the merits or demerits of the ARS in general and of its rescue list in particular, but this template is useful to those of any perspective. Whether editors approve or disapprove of the rescue list, it is important that participants in an AFD should be aware that the ARS is working on the article: those in favour of deletion may want to monitor the ARS's activities, while those opposing deletion may want to assist the ARS. Either way, both should know.
    I have been a strident critic of many of the ARS's activities, but I supported and assisted the development of this template as a parallel to {{delsort}}. I hope that other critics of the ARS can distinguish between a) their views on the ARS's substantive work, and b) the ARS's courtesy in using this template to notify others of their work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The nomination is nonsense as it misunderstands this nature of this template. But I don't care for this template as it encourages pointless busywork contrary to WP:CREEP. If people want to know the other pages to which a discussion has been linked then they can use the standard feature what links here. Warden (talk) 12:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This argument could be made for nominating {{Deletion sorting}} at TFD. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Deleting that template would be fine by me too. But if we're going to have such templates then let's have the most important ones:
This debate has been mentioned on Jimbo's talk page.
This debate has been mentioned at WP:ANI.
This debate has been mentioned on IRC.
This debate has been mentioned at WP:BLP.
etc.
It's mentions on these pages which seem to generate huge spikes in attendance at an AFD discussion. The rescue list is nothing by comparison. Warden (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, for once the Colonel and I come perilously close to agreeing on something. I've been tempted to build an edit filter which simply doesn't allow people to include links to xFDs at WP:AN or WP:ANI for precisely that reason.—Kww(talk) 21:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This template lets editors in an AfD discussion know that the article has been added to the ARS list, which is especially useful to know in cases of canvassing.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This template lets editors in an AfD discussion know that the article has been added to the ARS list, so that all participants in the discussion know that some editors have come to the discussion because of being on the list. Some of those participants may be ARS members, like myself, and some may be opponents of the list who want articles deleted rather than being improved so much that an Administrator may decide there is no consensus (and therefore kept), or that the article has been improved, referenced, copy edited, and polished enough that it should be kept on Wikipedia. Having this template in an AfD discussion works both ways, attracting attention both for and against, and therefore the template should be kept. I say that we can rely on the judgement of the Administrators in weighing the Keep and Delete entries and the effect that various templates may have had on who is entering the discussion. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Metro Crenshaw Line navbox edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Metro Crenshaw Line navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, many red links. –Dream out loud (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:List of National Football League Kickoff Returner (Touchdown Percentage) edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of National Football League Kickoff Returner (Touchdown Percentage) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't have a source to keep this up to date and as such it is sort of WP:OR and meaningless. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:German language edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:German language (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and mostly redundant to {{German grammar}}. Frietjes (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_28&oldid=1187818078"