MakeSense64 (talk | contribs) →Template:Rescue: comment |
→Template:Rescue: Keep |
||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
*'''Comment.''' I think the problem isn't so much with the template, as with the documentation: "If an article has been tagged for deletion (the Afd tag) and you feel it meets the guidelines for rescue then add <nowiki>{{Rescue}}</nowiki> below the AFD tag as shown in the example below..." Wrong. Just wrong. If you 'feel' that something meets guidelines, find some evidence to back up your 'feelings', improve the article, and ''then'' add the template. Anything else is just a meaningless !vote, regardless of whether it constitutes canvassing or not. I'd suggest that the documentation should be revised to state that the template ''must not'' be added until a contributor has made a constructive attempt at article improvement - and without evidence of this, deletion of such abuse of templates should be expected behaviour. If an article deserves rescue, then rescue it - don't just say it needs rescuing... [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 07:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC) |
*'''Comment.''' I think the problem isn't so much with the template, as with the documentation: "If an article has been tagged for deletion (the Afd tag) and you feel it meets the guidelines for rescue then add <nowiki>{{Rescue}}</nowiki> below the AFD tag as shown in the example below..." Wrong. Just wrong. If you 'feel' that something meets guidelines, find some evidence to back up your 'feelings', improve the article, and ''then'' add the template. Anything else is just a meaningless !vote, regardless of whether it constitutes canvassing or not. I'd suggest that the documentation should be revised to state that the template ''must not'' be added until a contributor has made a constructive attempt at article improvement - and without evidence of this, deletion of such abuse of templates should be expected behaviour. If an article deserves rescue, then rescue it - don't just say it needs rescuing... [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 07:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
*'''Integrate''' some of the instructions for improving an AfD'd article into {{tl|afd}} (as its own paragraph within the {{tl|ambox}}, e.g. "If you think the article should be kept, improve it by..."), then '''delete''' as redundant. I don't see why this information should be on some pages but not others, and the canvassing opportunity is obvious and significant thanks to [[:Category:Articles tagged for deletion and rescue]], which IMHO is the real problem here. --'''''<font color="red">[[User:NYKevin|N]]</font><font color="green">[[User talk:NYKevin|Y]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/NYKevin|Kevin]]</font>''''' @355, i.e. 07:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC) |
*'''Integrate''' some of the instructions for improving an AfD'd article into {{tl|afd}} (as its own paragraph within the {{tl|ambox}}, e.g. "If you think the article should be kept, improve it by..."), then '''delete''' as redundant. I don't see why this information should be on some pages but not others, and the canvassing opportunity is obvious and significant thanks to [[:Category:Articles tagged for deletion and rescue]], which IMHO is the real problem here. --'''''<font color="red">[[User:NYKevin|N]]</font><font color="green">[[User talk:NYKevin|Y]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/NYKevin|Kevin]]</font>''''' @355, i.e. 07:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' The major arguments to delete this template, as I see it, is that the ARS tag serves as a canvassing tool to vote stack, as opposed to an attempt to rally a cadre of editors to improve articles that may have questionable notability due to lack of citation or content. This argument relies on the assumption that administrators do not know or follow Wikipedia policies when closing AfDs, such as [[WP:NOTVOTE]]. This assumes bad faith, and perhaps presumes incompetence, on the part of closing administrators because they have come to a conclusion on an AfD that differed from the nominating editor's opinion. IMO, this is a thoroughly inadequate reasoning to AfD this template. The other argument is that the template is placed in the main article space. This is an interesting consideration, but I know of no existing policy or guideline that prohibits such display, particularly when other tags have been deployed (e.g. AfD or Notability tags). While it may be good to discuss whether or not this template is indeed appropriate to display in the main article space, as opposed to say, applying a tag somewhere on the Talk page where other Wikiproject tags typically reside, I do not see how it is grounds for the deletion of this template at this time. In the end, if this is an attempt to have a referendum on ARS, then the community should do so. Afterall, they don't need to tag articles with templates in order to create a list of articles that are deemed possible for rescue. [[User:Crazypaco|CrazyPaco]] ([[User talk:Crazypaco|talk]]) 08:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep''' There doesn't seem to be a case to answer here. The suggestion that this is the only project-related template allowed in mainspace is false. For example, the {{tl|Orphan}} template is associated with [[WP:ORPHAN|WikiProject Orphanage]]; the {{tl|copyvio}} template is associated with [[WP:CCP|WikiProject Copyright Cleanup]]; &c. There seem to be hundreds of banner tags which can be placed on articles by any editor, whether they belong to a project or not. And that includes the {{tl|Article for deletion}} template, of course. To suggest that it is ok to place a template saying that you think an article should be deleted but not ok to place a template saying that it ought to be rescued would be a systemic bias in favour of the deletionist mind-set. Our work in building the encyclopedia naturally leads to a tension between these two schools, as documented at [[deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia]] and in external sources such as {{citation |url=http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=h37N0BvkVSUC&pg=PA379 |title=Wikipedia: the missing manual}}. Deleting this template would send a message to the world that the ARS has been destroyed and that deletionism has won. That would not be politic because deletionism is widely perceived as one of the systemic problems with Wikipedia; making it hostile to new editors and so threatening its future. [[User:Colonel Warden|Warden]] ([[User talk:Colonel Warden|talk]]) 08:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' There doesn't seem to be a case to answer here. The suggestion that this is the only project-related template allowed in mainspace is false. For example, the {{tl|Orphan}} template is associated with [[WP:ORPHAN|WikiProject Orphanage]]; the {{tl|copyvio}} template is associated with [[WP:CCP|WikiProject Copyright Cleanup]]; &c. There seem to be hundreds of banner tags which can be placed on articles by any editor, whether they belong to a project or not. And that includes the {{tl|Article for deletion}} template, of course. To suggest that it is ok to place a template saying that you think an article should be deleted but not ok to place a template saying that it ought to be rescued would be a systemic bias in favour of the deletionist mind-set. Our work in building the encyclopedia naturally leads to a tension between these two schools, as documented at [[deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia]] and in external sources such as {{citation |url=http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=h37N0BvkVSUC&pg=PA379 |title=Wikipedia: the missing manual}}. Deleting this template would send a message to the world that the ARS has been destroyed and that deletionism has won. That would not be politic because deletionism is widely perceived as one of the systemic problems with Wikipedia; making it hostile to new editors and so threatening its future. [[User:Colonel Warden|Warden]] ([[User talk:Colonel Warden|talk]]) 08:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:22, 13 January 2012
January 13
Template:Rescue
- Template:Rescue (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
(Added request for comment, requesting community input. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC))
Per a discussion occurring at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents– Article Rescue Squadron on AfD, several users have questioned the rationale for having this template on Wikipedia. Some users consider use of the template as canvassing, other's state that it's used to notify other users to !vote "keep" in AfD discussions. Therefore, I've started this deletion discussion, as this seems to be a more appropriate place for the matter to be resolved at this time. (I've already posted comments regarding my opinions regarding this matter at the listing above for Administrators' noticeboard– incidents.) Northamerica1000(talk) 04:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Nominator advances no argument for deletion, per WP:SK #1. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- a. I think he does when he says "Some users consider use of the template as canvassing"
- b. Speedy Keep says it applies to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and related pages, as this is Templates for discussion it is appropriate to have a discussion on the template. Mtking (edits) 04:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Delete there is no need for a project to ever put it's own template on an article page, it is also the only template (that I know of) whose instructions proscribe how it is to be removed. Mtking (edits) 04:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Per WP:ATD, the solution to that is to move the Article Rescue Squadron out of WikiProject space, and back as a collaborative project like WP:3O.
More substantively, the template serves an encyclopedia-preserving purpose: to bring attention to content that at least one editor in good standing believes can be improved through the addition of sources.
The removal of the template is predefined as the duration of the AfD discussion, which is the limit of when it makes sense. Thus, it's also one of only two templates (that I can remember, {{hangon}} being the other) that can only be placed on an an article if another specific template is already present. Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Per WP:ATD, the solution to that is to move the Article Rescue Squadron out of WikiProject space, and back as a collaborative project like WP:3O.
- Delete. The legitimate purposes of the template are covered by other less partisan templates - people are notified of a deletion through the normal process of AFD, and articles in need of improvement can be tagged with any number of existing improvement tags. I also echo Mtking's sentiment above that wikiprojects should not have article-space templates, and that of some users in the aforementioned ANI thread that this template seems to act more as a rally flag for a particular group of people with a specific ideology of inclusionism (bordering on canvassing, given the single-purposed nature of the participants of the ARS project) that threatens to unbalance legitimate discussion. An editor demonstrated in the ANI thread that on numerous occasions, the template was used to attract vote-stacking to an AFD and not for the project's stated purpose of actually improving the article. In short, this template serves no purpose that is not more than adequately covered by other more neutral templates, it brings unbalancing attention to AFD discussions, and should be deleted. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - The AN/I discussion includes vastly overblown arguments concerning the misuse of the template, but none for the deletion of the template itself. One wants to AGF, but it would seem the purpose of the attempt tp delete the template is to hobble the ARS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- If the purpose is/was to hobble the ARS then WP:MfD on the project page would have been better. My issue with the template is it it is the only project that gets to add a template to main space, it can't be removed even if other editors agree it was added in a way that did not follow the instructions for it's use and it is often used in ways that appear to be canvassing. Mtking (edits) 05:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Project's don't normally get to place mainspace templates, and further the existance of an "unremovable" template should not be decided at the project level. Additionally, while "Afd is not cleanup," this template is redundant: Anyone who's commenting on and Afd discussion should already be looking for sources, etc. Also, and as the smallest portion of this delete opinion, it's use is associated with sub-par AfD discussions. (I.e. This template is disruptive.) - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete- as has been mentioned above, why is the ARS the only wikiproject allowed to place their template in the mainspace? And why do they get to impose their self-serving rules on whether or not it can be removed on everyone else? This would be inappropriate for a respectable wikiproject. That one with a history of canvassing, battleground behaviour and slipperyness is allowed to do this is staggering. Reyk YO! 05:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - per my comment here, I do not believe it serves a useful purpose. —Dark 06:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Has anyone tagged the template for rescue yet? More seriously, I think the argument about canvassing has a lot of validity - whenever I see that an article has been tagged I can generally list the ARS members who will shortly show up and vote to keep. This behaviour ought to have limited effect because the closing admin should discount invalid or weak votes but the problem is that many of the ARS members who actively campaign in AFD have an overly generous interpretation of RS. What often happens is that an impressive but highly tangential source is presented and a block vote then asserts that the article should be kept. Alternatively an unreliable source is used and the arrival on the scene of ARS stalwarts has the effect of skewing the debate by creating a local consensus that unreliable sources are reliable. If this isn't challenged by a detailed analysis of the sources than this can, and does, distort the outcome of the discussion and allows articles to remain that should be deleted. On the other hand, there is also a valid argument that if you want to have an article deleted then you should be prepared to analyse and refute sources and that its tough kaka if you can't be bothered. Previously, I haven't felt that there is a strong justification for deleting this template because the ARS would just organise in project space and already have pages listing articles that "might" be rescued. The template does have the effect of transparency in that the closing admin at least knows why the ARS voting block turned up at the discussion. The argument that the template is transcluded in mainspace and that this isn't something we allow other wikiprojects to do is new to me and I think it is a very strong argument. On that basis I would go weak delete with the expectation that this isn't going to change anything as the ARS will be able to legitimately organise in their project pages. With that caveat, I still think deletion is valid because it removes the projection of our internal politics from mainspace. Spartaz Humbug! 06:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. I think the problem isn't so much with the template, as with the documentation: "If an article has been tagged for deletion (the Afd tag) and you feel it meets the guidelines for rescue then add {{Rescue}} below the AFD tag as shown in the example below..." Wrong. Just wrong. If you 'feel' that something meets guidelines, find some evidence to back up your 'feelings', improve the article, and then add the template. Anything else is just a meaningless !vote, regardless of whether it constitutes canvassing or not. I'd suggest that the documentation should be revised to state that the template must not be added until a contributor has made a constructive attempt at article improvement - and without evidence of this, deletion of such abuse of templates should be expected behaviour. If an article deserves rescue, then rescue it - don't just say it needs rescuing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Integrate some of the instructions for improving an AfD'd article into {{afd}} (as its own paragraph within the {{ambox}}, e.g. "If you think the article should be kept, improve it by..."), then delete as redundant. I don't see why this information should be on some pages but not others, and the canvassing opportunity is obvious and significant thanks to Category:Articles tagged for deletion and rescue, which IMHO is the real problem here. --NYKevin @355, i.e. 07:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The major arguments to delete this template, as I see it, is that the ARS tag serves as a canvassing tool to vote stack, as opposed to an attempt to rally a cadre of editors to improve articles that may have questionable notability due to lack of citation or content. This argument relies on the assumption that administrators do not know or follow Wikipedia policies when closing AfDs, such as WP:NOTVOTE. This assumes bad faith, and perhaps presumes incompetence, on the part of closing administrators because they have come to a conclusion on an AfD that differed from the nominating editor's opinion. IMO, this is a thoroughly inadequate reasoning to AfD this template. The other argument is that the template is placed in the main article space. This is an interesting consideration, but I know of no existing policy or guideline that prohibits such display, particularly when other tags have been deployed (e.g. AfD or Notability tags). While it may be good to discuss whether or not this template is indeed appropriate to display in the main article space, as opposed to say, applying a tag somewhere on the Talk page where other Wikiproject tags typically reside, I do not see how it is grounds for the deletion of this template at this time. In the end, if this is an attempt to have a referendum on ARS, then the community should do so. Afterall, they don't need to tag articles with templates in order to create a list of articles that are deemed possible for rescue. CrazyPaco (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep There doesn't seem to be a case to answer here. The suggestion that this is the only project-related template allowed in mainspace is false. For example, the {{Orphan}} template is associated with WikiProject Orphanage; the {{copyvio}} template is associated with WikiProject Copyright Cleanup; &c. There seem to be hundreds of banner tags which can be placed on articles by any editor, whether they belong to a project or not. And that includes the {{Article for deletion}} template, of course. To suggest that it is ok to place a template saying that you think an article should be deleted but not ok to place a template saying that it ought to be rescued would be a systemic bias in favour of the deletionist mind-set. Our work in building the encyclopedia naturally leads to a tension between these two schools, as documented at deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia and in external sources such as Wikipedia: the missing manual. Deleting this template would send a message to the world that the ARS has been destroyed and that deletionism has won. That would not be politic because deletionism is widely perceived as one of the systemic problems with Wikipedia; making it hostile to new editors and so threatening its future. Warden (talk) 08:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think this is correct. The AfD template is fairly neutrally worded and also suggests to edit/improve the article. So, there is no need for a "rescue" template as a counterweight to the "AfD" template. Sufficient and neutrally worded rescue instructions should be inside the standard AfD template. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Personally I would do away with the rescue template. It serves no purpose that is not already served by the existing tags that can be put on any article. The ARS can do its job just as well without this rescue template. They can go through the list of AfD just like all of us. In fact, if I were a member of the ARS, then I would consider this template somewhat disadvantageous for their purposes. Without this tag the vote of an ARS member will have normal weight, while if this Rescue tag is on, the votes of ARS members may be considered a "group vote" by the closing admin. Selected rescue instructions can be simply included in the normal AfD tag. Basically every AfD article already has a rescue tag on it, so this template is just redundant and creates unnecessary contention. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Template:UK Diesel Train Technical
- Template:UK Diesel Train Technical (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
The template appears to have only been ever used on British Rail Class 58 and duplicates the function of Template:Infobox locomotive - I've move all the info into the infobox (even that which is uncited) - Template:British Rail Diesel Loco/Info 58 is a related deletion proposal Mddkpp (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Template:British Rail Diesel Loco/Info 58
- Template:British Rail Diesel Loco/Info 58 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
The template appears to have only been ever used on British Rail Class 58 (also see talk page) and duplicates thye function of Template:Infobox locomotive - I've move all the info into the infobox (even that which is uncited) - Template:UK Diesel Train Technical is a related deletion proposal Mddkpp (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)