Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion | Log

< December 23	December 25 >

1 December 24

[edit] December 24

[edit] Template:Classic Rock Radio stations (West)

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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

too large and can be done with category. Makes more sense to do at state level.— PorchME (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Fully agree with nominator. Happy Holidays!! Malinaccier (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. Ridiculously oversized for the purpose and navigation amongst the included articles is unlikely to be necessary. JPG-GR (talk) 00:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nominator.--Rtphokie (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete - redlink farm, minimal utility, overly large and unavoidably inelegant. Categorise if desired. Happy‑melon 22:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete state level makes more sense for these. SkierRMH (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

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.

[edit] Template:Classic Rock Radio stations (East)

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

too large and can be done with category. Makes more sense to do at state level.— PorchME (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Fully agree with nominator. Happy Holidays!! Malinaccier (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. Ridiculously oversized for the purpose and navigation amongst the included articles is unlikely to be necessary. JPG-GR (talk) 00:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nominator.--Rtphokie (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per my argument above. Happy‑melon 22:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete state level makes more sense for these. SkierRMH (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:History of the Chinese

The result of the debate was delete --Rifleman 82 (talk) 08:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Duplication of Template:History of China. Creator appears to have created it simply for the purpose of pushing the use of AD/BC year labels rather than CE/BCE, thus making it really just a POV fork. (For what it's worth, I use AD/BC usually when writing articles; the use of CE/BCE, however, is not a good reason to simply create a POV fork of the template without discussion.) Delete. — Nlu (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I agree with Nlu. --Neo-Jay (talk) 23:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete fork. Even if there is consensus for to use both labels, one template can handle it. –Pomte 23:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. SkierRMH (talk) 08:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. POV-pushing is unacceptable, even though I am personally disgusted by the very concept of BC/BCE. Happy‑melon 22:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Classic Rock Radio Stations in Delaware

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This template is not very useful, especially in a state as small as Delaware. Categorization by format is normally done on a nationwide basis, not at the state level. See Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Radio_Stations#format_specific_navboxes. Rtphokie (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. A template which links to only two articles in three different ways does not qualify as a template. JPG-GR (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom; "see also" would work just as well here. SkierRMH (talk) 07:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete, although this runs exactly counter to PorcheME's argument above (he argues that categorisation should be done at state level). I feel that whatever system is considered preferable, categories are the prefered solution rather than an awkward, maintenance-intensive, redlink-filled category. Happy‑melon 22:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Pokeanime

The result of the debate was mark as historical. This cannot be deleted per GFDL reasons. If proof that this template has not been substituted into articles can be provided, then it can be deleted. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Pokecruft template for copy+pasting cookie-cutter text. Delete per precedent of Pokestart — TheBilly (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Hardly a template at all. JPG-GR (talk) 00:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom & precedent. SkierRMH (talk) 07:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete completely useless and cruft--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 01:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete - templates do not exist to obviate the need for creativity in writing articles. Precedent has been established. Happy‑melon 22:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Can't be deleted. If this has been substituted in articles, which I'm guessing it has been, it can't be deleted unless proper attribution has been documented at each article. I doubt this has happened, so this should be kept and tagged as historical. I didn't even think of this in the prior discussions for other similar templates. Some of the others may need to be restored for this reason. --- RockMFR 06:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I'm not related to the article or its corresponding WikiProject, but the creation of this template appears to have been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Pokémon Collaborative Project/Archive 8#Potential_Project over a year ago; not that that in itself is a reason not to delete, but it might be worth bringing the this TfD to the notice of the participants of that discussion. --Ciaran H (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I notified the WikiProject when this discussion began, though not the specific individuals. –Pomte 10:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Rescue

The result of the debate was to keep, reversing mainspace usage restrictions. If this turns out to be a bad decision, have another TfD. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Template was intended for mainpage usage and per last TfD has been targeted for banishment from its intended use. Thus the project using it has lost momentum for rescuing (improving articles) and the entire project is stalling. Either the template (and likely the Rescue project itself) should be dismissed as not improving Wikipedia or the template should be freely used on mainpage AfDs as intended so the related project(s) can go about their work.. — Benjiboi 21:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. TfD notice has been placed on talk pages of all editors and commentors of template's article and talk page as well as the talk page of the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron, the project linked to this template.
Comment. Previous TfD at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_September_24#Template:Rescue. The result of the debate was Keep, but with caveats on usage, wording, and an eye to how it's used in practice.
Comment. Template is currently vandalized to read This template is intended for talk pages only.

Not vandalized, since restriction to talk page was the consensus on previous TfD.Taemyr (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:VAN and vandalism both seem to disagree with that and there was hardly consensus on the last TfD; it was quite split. Benjiboi 21:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly not vandalized, and, although I'm not sure there was consensus on the last TfD, the proper resolution would be Deletion Review or trying to obtain consensus on the template talk page, rather than ignoring the result. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree as at least a few folks have mention here that they couldn't see the template when looking for it and instead saw the subtle message added by detractors that the template is for talk page usage only. Seems vandalistic to me. The project has been in ongoing discussion as the best way to deal with the concerns raised and then the template was repeatedly altered without consensus or project input. Hard to AGF when the project's template is being sabotaged. Benjiboi 01:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Athough I agree that it is problematic that users can not see what a template looks like without actually placing it somewhere the template does work as intended. It displays the message you object to only when it is placed outside of the talk: namespace. Per WP:Vandalism vandalism is acts intended to hamper wikipedia. I have difficulty seeing how an editor going along with what was the stated consensus on the previous TfD can be construed to fit. I have even greater difficulty seeing how WP:V applies, or how WP:V can be used to brand anything as vandalism.Taemyr (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I meant WP:VAN and have corrected my comment as such (apologies for the confusion) and sabotage might be more precise although I still think altering a template in such a manner seems to fly in the spirit of consensus building and collaboration. And there was not a stated or other consensus on the last TfD so you can stop reiterating that now. Opinion was quite split with the project left to deal with resolving the issues which has mostly been done. However concerns that the project no longer exists would seem to be hard to satisfy wouldn't it? Benjiboi 01:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Previous TfD clkosure included the caveat; This template should be applied to talk or (perhaps even better) AFD pages only. Whilst a template saying "I think this AFD candidate could be encyclopedic if researched - please urgently help" is a good one, mainspace is the wrong space for it. That's one of the main concern of the "Delete" views. Appropriate use would meet template namespace criteria, support improvement over deletion where possible per deletion policy, and not give the incorrect appearance of warring or excessive article tagging.Taemyr (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Indent reset. Well if we wish to accurately characterize the last TfD and its implications presently...

“

"the "Rescue Squadron" are absolutely correct in their interpretation of AFD. Indeed, AFD anticipates and hopes for improvement to articles during the process, if encyclopedic...a page template is noticed by passers-by far more than an entry on a project page or AFD comment would be... The usage also parallels other "fix me" [maintenance] tags used in article space. So there is at least a rationale for a template to be employed. The arguments presented in the TFD itself polarize around two major reasons for deletion, and a large number of views (around 2/3) towards keeping...the main delete views are..."Gives the appearance of warring" and "Move to talk page" "Vote stacking" and "inclusionist-pushing" concerns."

”

Pretty much all of which have been thoughtfully addressed by the project in response to concerns. Benjiboi 21:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep both the template and the project, but yes, it should be on the main page and not the talk page. We are here to improve an encyclopedia and build and revise articles. We are not here to destroy people's factually verifiable work and exclude elements of mankind's collective knowledge. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Comment I am not part of the project nor do I care what happens to this template, however, I disagree with the nominator's rationale. Why can't this continue to be used on talk pages? Things change over time. Many templates were originally created for use on the article page itself and are now use exclusively on talk pages. Look at all the "article issue" temps. that were moved. This is not a reason to delete at all. As for the status of the project itself—I can not comment. That's why I'm not voting "keep", I don't know if this template is even wanted anymore. Rocket000 (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

From the prior TfD discussion a partial quote from Kelly Martin- Keep, without any restriction on its use other than that it be used in conjunction with the AFD template (as is presently the case). This template is designed to be used to facilitate improving the encyclopedia. Deleting it will not improve the encyclopedia, therefore deleting it would be erroneous. Similarly, restricting its use to article talk pages would diminish its ability to be used to improve the encyclopedia, therefore that suggestion is also inappropriate and should properly be ignored. In short banishing the template from the article page to either talk or AfD page mitigates its usefulness. Only a fraction of users visit either the talk or AfD page and this templates intended use is for an AfD so is limited to less than a week's time which seems a minor inconvenience to those who deem it inconvenient at all. ~~A good example of this is Fingerskate where there have been no usage of the talk page despite several years of the article's existence.~~(talk page has been restored but is still underutilized.) Putting the template there would seem to have no effect on alerting general users thus its possibility for communicating is rendered impotent. Every effort to ensure the template was reworded has been made yet it's opponents are still wanting to see it expunged from main page. Let's see if the template can be left as intended or if it, in fact, should be deleted as its detractors think is appropriate. Benjiboi 22:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete should never have been in existence on article pages, and is consistently used improperly on article talk pages. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Could you please illustrate how the template has been "consistently used improperly on article talk pages"? Benjiboi 22:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. It encourages vote stacking and it simply is a way for people to say "look at this AFD and vote keep" which is a way of canvassing in my view. Le Grand basically abuses the template by placing it on almost every article in AFD that he posts in. It's no secret he is anti-deletion (with the exception of a tiny amount of articles). This nonsense about "destroying people's work" needs to stop. Wikipedia simply isn't the guide to everything. There is policies and guidelines in place for good reason, but he chooses to ignore them and not even read many of them. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Could you please expand on how the template encourages vote-stacking and/or canvassing? And if so, is there a better way of wording so those concerns are addressed? Also, Le Grand's use of the template and behaviors should probably be addressed on a user level unless you're suggesting that they're part of the Rescue project-wide abuse or widespread template abuse. Benjiboi 00:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Robj please limit discussion to the template and remember to Assume Good Faith. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Encouraging work to be done to improve articles that might otherwise be deleted is a praiseworthy endeavor. This template is a good and easy way to do so. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep, for use in mainspace as opposed to talk-space, per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. To an extent, I agree with the nom that the system is relatively useless when the template is used in talk-space. Few people notice the tags except those who browse the category, and the category is no longer active enough to attract many browsers, thanks to the previous TfD -- now we have positive feedback going on. Hence the reason I favored keeping the template in mainspace last time. I don't think there was any consensus to restrict the template to talk-space in the previous TfD, and the template talk page, where the issue was discussed in more depth, seemed to be heading in the direction of keeping it to the mainspace. Perhaps the talk-space system was worth a try, but it doesn't seem to be working, and the previous TfD clearly favored keeping the old system over getting rid of it entirely (for reasons I won't repeat). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 00:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. If someone is misusing the template, that's no reason to delete it. People misuse the editing box, too -- shall we freeze all of Wikipedia? The rescue project explicitly states -- several times, and at such great length that people lose enthusiasm midway through -- that it is not about voting on AfD pages. Period. It has never been about that. It is about improving article pages. Please assume good faith. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 01:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. the template is a more positive way of framing 'cleanup', and thus more conducive to morale. Improving articles is a key part of wikipedia building. Also, articles are not voted upon at AfD on quality, therefore, if deleters are voting correctly, a 'rescue' tag should have no bearing on how anyone votes there. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Please discuss specific problems with this template on the template talk page and help fix them. The Rescue project was only started in July 2007. Like articles, projects may start out as, effectively, stubs or proposals. Sometimes it can take time to get going. Deleting projects quickly is a way to practically ensure that they fail. --Abd (talk) 02:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep, in talkspace.. Template has a legitimate place as highlighting articles currently up for deletion where the deletion rational ought to be fixable. Argumets about votestacking would be a issue if AfD discussions where votes. As it is aimed at editors the template is inapropriate to mainspace. Taemyr (talk) 02:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Please explain why a template "aimed at editors" is "inapropriate to mainspace". Benjiboi 02:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Because the article space is what we are presenting to our readers. Comments to editors belong on the talk page. WP:TMP is fairly clear on the subject.Taemyr (talk) 03:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm not seeing anything that states that templates can't go on mainpage and, in practice, have seen pretty much the opposite. Also if you check out Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles there's even a column saying where on the mainpage some of those templates go. And by your logic wouldn't the AfD template have to be on the talkpage as well? Benjiboi 03:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The guideline says; Templates used in pages from the article namespace provide information to help readers. These can include navigation aids, or warnings that content is sub-standard. Templates that provide information only of service to editors belong on an article's talk page. We are a verifiable encyclopedia, our sourcing is thus an important part of the package we deliver to our readers. The AfD is perhaps more strenous but it tells the user that the article might be either sub-par or unencyclopedic. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, it tells the reader that the article might not be there in a couple of weeks. Taemyr (talk) 03:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, bearing in mind that templates that are "warnings that content is sub-standard" are allowed in mainstace, wouldn't it be a logcial choice to put a template that warns editors and readers that content is encylopedic, but because of writing style or lack of source, is about to be deleted, also be placed in mainspace? Fosnez (talk) 11:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The AfD template should already be telling people this. Taemyr (talk) 13:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

And yet an entire project and template were put into effect - apparently with much success, apparently because many articles that, per WP:AFD policies, should not have been sent to AfD because if an article can be improved through regular editing it is not a good candidate for AfD. So, ironically, this template and project exist because Afd template is being abused yet that is being overlooked and the remedy for a flawed system is instead being targeted. Benjiboi 02:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not read WP:AFD that way. The strongest I can see there is that I should not put an article up for AfD if I can fix the problem myself. This is obvious, since the AfD would be moot, an article should not be deleted if the problem can be fixed. The reason an AfD is a discussion is in part to ascertain if the problem is fixable. If an article is beeing put up for AfD for concerns that the nominator knows are fixable then it is a bad faith nomination and ARS and the rescue template is not a good way of dealing with the problem. Because ARS are about saving the article, and when the AfD nomination is done in bad faith then the problem is the editor. Taemyr (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Outdent. Well whether the problem is the editor/nominator or not it's the article that gets deleted so this would seem to bolster the need for the rescue template to help alert that the AfD in question may be flawed. Benjiboi 02:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

But the AfD is not flawed when the rescue template works. When the result of an AfD is that the problem is fixed then that is an excellent result. Taemyr (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually that fact that an article was saved from AfD is proof that the article should have been improved through regular editing rather than sent to AfD. So the AfD is flawed in those cases, intentional or not. Benjiboi 02:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No, there should never be any reason for a user to wonder "does this topic pass WP:NOTE", notability is a demonstrable claim. And articles that can not demonstrate notability should be deleted. If we are not allowed to test this you are saying that you should not demand that topics comply with WP:NOTE. Taemyr (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that AfD is not clean-up and using it as such abuses the resources of this volunteer community. There are many routes one can take to improving an article and even the AfD page encourages folks to do so but those suggestions are routinely ignored so the Rescue template is one remedy for that ongoing problem. Benjiboi 02:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. And as such it is of use to editors and belongs in the talk space. Taemyr (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

As such it is useful to readers who may wonder why a potentially good article is being deleted and many editors simply don't utilize the talk pages, they simply edit the article. Segregating the template to article space only hinders the productive use of teh template and just like Wikify, References and other clean-up/maintenance tags should have no restrictions on its use on mainpage. Benjiboi 20:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Deindenting. The template does not give any hint as to why an article is beeing considered for deletion, as such it is not of use "to readers who may wonder why a potentially good article is being deleted". Taemyr (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. This template is used with the AfD template as gives as much detail as to why an article is been sent to AfD; both correctly send interested parties to the AfD discussion. You still have not addressed why an extra template in addition to the AfD template (and likely others) on the mainpage somehow is such a bad thing to our readers, who I still think are easily able to overlook the inconvenience of an extra tag. In addition please address why such an alleged inconvenience is so offensive when it lasts mere days on an article that is headed for deletion anyway. I think we can have much more credit to wikipedia readers who are likely well used to seeing articles littered with all manner of tags and templates and somehow able to still find information and get on with learning and following wikilinks to still more information. Benjiboi 23:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The template is a boilerplate and gives no information about why an article is sent to AfD. I am not saying that it is a bad thing for our readers, I am saying that the template is irrelevant for our readers. Taemyr (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Template has a legitimate place highlighting articles currently up for deletion where the deletion rational ought to be fixable, ergo is perfectly relevant for our readers, many of whom are editors. All of whom will no longer ne able to read the article if it's deleted. Seems relevant enough to me. Benjiboi 18:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep, preferably in mainspace. If a template telling readers that the article has been proposed for deletion is allowed on mainspace, then a template telling readers that people are working to improve and thus rescue the article should also be allowed in the same place. It means that if someone's made a mistake in nominating, say, Southern African Hedgehog, for deletion, the hedgehog fandom will be told that they needn't get up in arms about the Wikipedia system being hopelessly inept/corrupt/whatever, because someone's already working on making the article better and preventing its deletion. And, more importantly, just as an AfD template tells readers that the article might not be there in a couple of weeks, a Rescue template tells readers that the article might be much improved in a couple of weeks. --Zeborah (talk) 05:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

As it stands the rescue template tells the reader very little. Taemyr (talk) 13:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The rescue template, per the last TfD was simplified and made more concise to ensure it was NPOV and as least intrusive as possible. If one needs an essay they can follow the links provided for more information. If you have suggestions as to information that should be added I'm sure constructive comments are welcome. Benjiboi 02:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The links on the rescue template is in order of prominence; Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron, the Afd, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and Wikipedia:Notability. No essay. And most noticable link is to ARS project page, which does contain useful references if you are setting out to establish notability. But little that I would judge usefull to casual readers. The AfD link shoud ideally give a casual reader an indication of what the problem is, but often things will tend to drown in an ongoing discussion. The policies is the most common reason for an article beeing on AfD, and it is possible for a reader to get what needs to be fixed by reading it, but I would still judge these as beeing less than newbie friendly.Taemyr (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well the last TfD asserted that the template was too prominent so a concerted effort was made to trim and make the template concise. I would post the text of template here but it's been vandalized out of use so I can't see what the text is. Regardless, if the AfD process had been followed the article would already have clean-up tags in place and the AfD discussion should quickly address the main issues to be addressed. In general AfD are resolved by addressing notability and citing sources so it seems those links are correctly on target. And pointing to the Rescue Squad also makes sense as it explains the project and basic steps one can follow to assist an article tagged or the project in general. Benjiboi 02:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mainspace I've witnessed this template in action causing several notable articles to not be deleted upon the closing of AfD. Since most people end up at an article on its related mainspace, that's where the template should be used. We use all these other templates about sources needed, conflict of interest, on and on and on in the mainspace and I see no reason why this template shouldn't be used in the mainspace as well. It's purpose is to draw attention to the fact that the article needs attention and immediate editing. To draw that attention to the most people, mainspace is the place. -- ALLSTARecho 07:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mainspace - (full disclosure: ARS Member) This template, when used in mainspace, alerts both people checking the article out from viewing the AFD and also just general passers by that the article may infact be encyclopedic. In no way is this detrimental to the content of wikipedia, and infact is well within the scope of the projects rules. I.E. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. The apparent rule that project templates cannot be in namespace is preventing us improving wikipedia. Here are some facts:
- If the template is used in mainspace, the maximum it would appear on any page would be 5 days (the length of a standard AFD)
  - If the article is deleted, the tag obviously disappears, no harm - no foul.
  - If the article is kept, the tag is removed along with the AFD, again, no harm - no foul.

Bearing in mind the fact that the ARS is there to improve articles to prevent encyclopedic content from being deleted, this template should be allowed to be used in mainspace, weather this requires a special dispensation or not i don't care, but the short answer is that casting this template to the talk pages will not help improve the wiki any where nearly as much as if it were allowed in mainspace for the limited time that an AFD is active. Fosnez (talk) 10:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact the rescue template does not and IMO should not do this. Articles flagged should be articles that are put on AfD for concerns that are adresable. Ie. the template does it work when the concerns raised on the AfD are real but fixable. This means that the article does not currently meet our standards for encyclopedic content. Taemyr (talk) 13:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems to support exactly what the template does do - alert interested editors that an article has been sent to AfD, perhaps in violation of policy - if an article can be improved through regular editing it is not a good candidate for AfD. Will it always be effective or used as intended? No. But neither is the entire AfD process which is why this template exists and should be left unfettered to assist editors in improving articles that have mistakenly of purposely been sent to AfD in error. Benjiboi 02:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say that? I find If you can fix the article through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. which is an entierly different issue. Taemyr (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

How is If you can fix the article through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. and if an article can be improved through regular editing it is not a good candidate for AfD entirely different?

Because I will always know if I can fix a problem. If I know that someone, but not me, can fix the problem then it's still a bad AfD. But I can never know that a problem is unfixable. Taemyr (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This may be getting off-track but whether or not you think an article is fixable shouldn't prevent others from freely using this template to try to get help to Rescue it once the article has been sent to AfD. The Rescue Squad then has less than a week to try to save it. Benjiboi 02:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mainspace. Useful, and does no harm whilst an AfD tag is also on the article. WP:RESCUE is a helpful project - just look at Fingerskate.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep, and use in mainspace or talk pages as appropriate. In mainspace, it is in fact an indication that there are major problems with the article & is therefore neutral, not saying "keep me" . Most of the time it is used, the article is in fact rescued due to the improvements in the article.If the article isnt improved to the satisfaction of the people at AfD, then the article gets deleted by consensus. People on the relevant Project do not vote all the same way on articles--far from it. if we keep unreferenced tags on articles, or wikify, then this makes as much sense. they all attract those reading he article to improve it. That's the unique genius of WP: anyone who reads can edit. I wish more people did. If they have things to add they can do so; if they see junk, they can remove it. We want to call the need for editing and the possibility for improvement to the attention of every reader. Some possible opposition to the template may be because some think that some of the articles improved are on topics that can never be encyclopedic. People thinking that way should argue this at AfD for the article--not give the impression that they are trying to discourage the articles from being improved so they won't be kept. AfD is very sussceptible to deletions or keeps based on unrepresentative presence of editors; wider participation there should be encouraged. I continue to AGF in this repeated nomination, but it's getting difficult. Odd to nominate something basic like this when many people are away , also. DGG (talk) 08:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep in talk space ARS is, at the end of the day, a Wikiproject. Wikiproject banners belong in talk space. I'd also like to see a history of pages nominated for rescue, perhaps with a template for the AfD. That would at least make it easier to prove or disprove claims of vote stacking. I suspect a bit of "gaming the system" is happening here - is this TfD really about deleting the template, or overriding the previous consensus to keep the banner in talk space? --Phirazo 19:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the burden of proof that the project is vote-stacking is on those accusing them of same. And in simplified terms this TfD is to address the concerns that weren't resolved in the last TfD, there didn't seem to be strong consensus and there were multiple issues; despite the closing admin's decision the project made a good faith effort to re-work the project and template yet the template has continually come under target of what I consider harassment. As the Rescue effort is to improve articles and the template in the mainpage is a integral component then it should be left on mainpage as created and intended without those using it, again, to improve articles, in fear of it's premature deletion or removal until the AfD process for that article is complete. It stuns me that an article that someone deems should be deleted anyway should somehow be considered compromised by an additional tag that also will go away within days. The template is to be used in conjunction with the AfD template and as such should be removed when the AfD has been closed. I think our readers can live with that minor inconvenience in the last week of an article's existence if the AfD template is there as well. Perhaps we should overhaul the process of sending articles to AfD thus rendering this template unneeded but until then this an an elegant solution to counter abuses of the AfD process and seems well within the spirit of producing encyclopedia articles. Benjiboi 02:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep As the unfortunately named ARS has shown, some articles can be rescued, others simply cannot, or editors "simply cannot be ARS'ed" into rescuing the thing. As a member, I can certainly say that it's not so much a vote-stacking group, as much as it is a "hey, scarred WP battle veterans, can you help me/us make the article pass muster?". With some articles, it's quite easy, with other articles, well, the ARS is currently made of folks with with quite a few years of WP experience, and pleas can (and do) fall on deaf ears. The way I look at it, ARS requests are a plea to help wiki newbies navigate the byzantine policies we have created for ourselves. In the spirit of WP:AGF, and WP:BITE, the function of ARS is to help those new to the convoluted worlds of wikipedia-politics, and the entrance point is a template. 07:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep for use on talk or AfD pages or strong delete. The purpose of this tag is to assist in the activities of a valuable WikiProject. This tag serves no informational purpose to the casual reader, which we have to remember are (1) who we write main pages for and (2) the silent majority: far more of them are out there than us editors, and they certainly aren't going to show up in THIS debate and voice an opinion. None of the arguments above give any reason to think that this is of any interest at all to readers, especially when an AFD tag is already on the article. Rather, putting it on the main page is a way, mainly, to advertise the WikiProject's activity, but we don't find that acceptable for any other WikiProjects so we should not here either. There are lots of ways for ARS to organize its list of articles that might need rescuing, including having this template on the talk page, the AFD page, or even nowhere at all: just maintain a list at a subpage of the project page. And let me point out that this is a bad faith nomination: the nominator has done this because they are upset that technical measures were taken to enforce the prior TFD decision, and they in no way want to see this deleted. Mango juice^talk 19:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

From the prior TfD discussion a partial quote from Kelly Martin- Keep, without any restriction on its use other than that it be used in conjunction with the AFD template (as is presently the case). This template is designed to be used to facilitate improving the encyclopedia. Deleting it will not improve the encyclopedia, therefore deleting it would be erroneous. Similarly, restricting its use to article talk pages would diminish its ability to be used to improve the encyclopedia, therefore that suggestion is also inappropriate and should properly be ignored. If indeed an article is so unworthy of being on wikipedia to warrant the AfD tag the temporary coupling of the Rescue template with that will be a minor burden at best. And, although your abilities of mindreading are admirable I would rather the entire project and template be abolished if they are not allowed to work unfettered and, in my opinion, harassed by detractors who use their advanced skills to disable templates they don't approve of. If the template is deleted I likely will turn my attention to the overhauling of the AfD process to stem what i see as the many abuses as is evident by the many articles myself and those in the Rescue spirit have saved from the clutches of deletion because it was easier to delete an article rather than do the right thing and simply fix it. Benjiboi 21:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Kelly Martin's comment doesn't address the point about whether or not the tag is of value to readers, which is the main source of the objection. As for you and your motivations, I think that comment makes it perfectly clear. You claim to want the template deleted (and the project closed down) because you don't like them "not [being] allowed to work unfettered"? You don't have to use the template or be part of the project, but calling for the project to close down if you don't get your way is pointless. You are trying to generate extra drama in order to make your position look more reasonable by comparison. See WP:SPIDER. Mango juice^talk 23:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe Kelly Martin's comment speaks for itself quite nicely and arguing that an extra template added in addition to the AfD template (both quite temporary) somehow will devalue an article deemed unworthy of wikipedia, seems silly, IMHO. Let's give our readers credit that they can read and ignore both templates at will or decide to click on one of the links if it interests them. Please note I didn't call for the project to be closed down if I didn't get my way nor would I think such an odd demand be taken seriously. What I did state, and let me quote myself here, "I would rather the entire project and template be abolished if they are not allowed to work unfettered and, in my opinion, harassed by detractors who use their advanced skills to disable templates they don't approve of." I hope the second reading of that is clear enough and will be seen by others as well as your alleging my actions are "trying to generate extra drama" with the clarity this TfD deserves. I remain quite simply stunned that anyone is, in any way, thwarting the efforts of the Rescue group and the use of this related template. Their goal is to save articles worth saving in the pressured environment of the AfD process, which lasts for less than a week. If the article is deleted then the article and tags are all removed; if the article is rescued the tag is also removed and the article was thus improved thus was never a good candidate for AfD. I fail to understand how our readers are somehow compromised by suffering the visibility of a single additional temple on the article mainpage. Indeed they would seem to benefit if the article is improved and if the article is deleted then they will be spared suffering as soon as the article is deleted. I'm unsure how you're applying WP:SPIDER to all this as it states "Users scaling any public building dressed as any popular comic book character may be blocked for disrupting Wikipedia to make a really stupid point." Are you suggesting I'm disrupting wikipedia, should be blocked, making a stupid point (if so, what) or all three? Benjiboi 00:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment I feel that in many ways the main problem is the AfD template. As it stands it encourages people to weight in in the ongoing discussion, but it gives no hint that the best way of preventing a deletion is to edit the article to adress the issues raised. Taemyr (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. That may be true however this TfD is only addressing the deletion and use of this template. Benjiboi 20:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Unfortunately, I can't actually see the template at the moment for some reason, but I know roughly what it is and what it is for, and I have no problem with it. Many articles nominated for deletion are clear hopeless cases; but some can be improved enough to be kept, with a little effort, and this template is useful for noting that and encouraging people to work on them. (It could be said that other cleanup templates have the same purpose, but I expect this one is probably more effective.) I admit it's not strictly necessary - the AfD template itself ought to be enough to alert readers that an article risks being deleted in its current state, and should be improved if they want to keep it. But if this gives an additional impetus to get certain pages improved rather than deleted, then it's served its purpose. I have no real preference for its placement on talk pages versus articles. Terraxos (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The reason you can't see the template is that a few editors who disagree with teh template in whole or part have vandalized it thus rendering it useless. Benjiboi 20:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the "vandalism", making the template invisible in place, was done by an editor who agreed with your interpretation of where the template should be placed. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was you who reverted my correcting that error so you are now the one who did it. Benjiboi 01:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment, use Template in Mainspace Reviewing what has been written to the contrary, I see a flawed concept, a rigid division between readers and editors. Every reader is a potential editor, especially with specialized articles. That reader may have the piece of knowledge needed to improve the article to establish notability, and may have the independent magazine review or article everyone is searching for, sitting on his or her lap. Originally I thought that the Rescue template might become part of the AfD template, but, in fact, that could be soliciting useless edits, multiplying bad feelings. Rather, it should be a separate template, placed because some editor suspects that the article can be improved. The active editors are a very limited group compared to the readers, the necessary knowledge (knowing where to look for reliable source) to establish notability is *much* more likely to be available from the general readership. Members of the Rescue squadron, then, might watchlist such articles and, as experienced editors, stand ready to assist new editors in meeting Wikipedia criteria. As has been pointed out, the Rescue template is only an extension of the AfD template (were it not for AfDs for articles that can't be improved, in the opinion of anyone who knows policy, it would be part of the AfD template), and if Rescue does not belong in Mainspace, neither does AfD --Abd (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that the rigid division between reader and editor it is a division that is used in current policy, see it as one person with several hats. Also note that the template does little to help new editors with improving an article. Actually, I do feel that the rescue this article message should be made part of the AfD template, by making the AfD template incorporate the reason for deleting in the same way the prod template does. The AfD template belongs in the mainspace because it does an important job in informing non-editors. The rescue template does not. Taemyr (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually it pretty clearly does so. It says to "read this article's deletion discussion for specific concerns that need to be addressed" and continues "If you can help by citing sources and establishing notability please edit this article." Arguably these would be improvements to any article and the template also correctly refers to the AfD discussion for specific concerns. Seems like that would be quite helpful. Benjiboi 18:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep, should be in mainspace The regular afd tag does not help readers improve articles so that they are not deleted, it only encourages them to do things such as votestacking since they think it is the only way to keep an article. The rescue template engages both readers (who may know more about the subject) and editors together so that they can seek out the problem with the article and actually improve it rather than arguing at AFD. --Hdt83 ^Chat 04:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is how the template looks; [1]. In my opinion it does not really do much in pointing out how to improve an article. What it mainly does is point out the existence of the ARS project. As far as I can see it has neer given much in the way of hints as to how one should go about improving an article.Taemyr (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep in Talkspace only. I see some (minimal) evidence that it's helpful in talk-space, but it would be clearly inappropriate in mainspace. Alternatively, delete all traces of the Wikiproject, and allow in mainspace, although talk-space is still more appropriate. No trace of the Wikiproject should be in mainspace. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree wholly that usefulness in talkspace is likely minimal that's why its intended use is for mainpage. And one need look only at the many articles that have been rescued as evidence that the project and this template should be left in peace to use the template as intended and has they have shown is effective in improving wikipedia. Suggesting that we "delete all traces of the Wikiproject" seems to clearly show your disdain for its work and thus your alterations to the template it helps administrate would thus be unlikely welcome, or as has been shown, unhelpful. There are many useless items on wikipedia that may benefit from your unique skills but this template is not one of them. Benjiboi 01:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No, he is saying that the mainspace is not the place for wikiprojects to advertise for themselves. Taemyr (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. The Rescue project is hardly advertsing by stating, correctly, that the article in question "has been flagged for rescue". Again i defer that such an advertising scheme would seem rather doomed as it would only be in place for a few days and only on articles that are marked for deletion. Benjiboi 01:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Not nonsense at all. The rescue template does far more in advertising the ARS project than it does in giving help to actually improve an article. Taemyr (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I suppose you can cite the huge number of folks joining the Rescue project because of this stealth campaign or were you going to reflect on all the articles saved as really not improving wikipedia? Benjiboi 21:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:One Fine Day!

The result of the debate was delete CSD G6 housekeeping --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This template should be deleted because it is no longer in use in any articles. Its parent article was deleted as a result of the following discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Fine Day! Obviously the creator had a plan for a larger set of articles, but there is no need for the template now. — Darkspots (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete housecleaning. –Pomte 00:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete, entirely unnecessary. Terraxos (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom - there are no properly applicable CSD criteria, but this should be fairly uncontroversial. Happy‑melon 22:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. SkierRMH (talk) 07:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per nom. jj137 ^♠ 17:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:1990 Chicago Cubs season game log

The result of the debate was subst and delete. The templates which were used were substed and then deleted, feel free to remove the red links if it so suits you. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I came across these moster templates on Wikipedia:Templates with red links, which is apt because each contains over 160 of them, the largest having 204. The templates purport to link to individual articles for each game of the respective Chicago Cubs seasons. These red links will never turn blue, as individual baseball games are generally not notable enough to rate individual articles. Turn them into articles (if anything) and delete them all. bd2412 T 05:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete per BD2412. This is an article in template form, not a template. JPG-GR (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Yeah it's a nice idea but excessive. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete I normally stay away from sports related (except Skiing) but these are just too long & redlinked. Good idea (make into articles?) SkierRMH (talk) 07:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Convert to articles/lists if necessary, and delete. Happy‑melon 22:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep there are complete game logs on tons of articles (including all 2007 and most of 2006). They are just included in the respective article. jj137 ^♠ 17:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- They already are articles; that's the point. The problem you have with these huge tables in articles is that it's hard to figure out where one begins and another ends, and I'm spending a few minutes fixing the table closure at 1990 Chicago Cubs season. The red links are not an issue as they can be trivially removed. –Pomte 00:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have no objection to complete game logs as part of an article, but there is no need for a template to do this. Where else would these possibly transclude besides the lone article on that team's season? bd2412 T 04:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:The Simpsons Christmas Episodes

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a very loose grouping of episodes. There have been several others that have partially been centered around Christmas but didn't air in December. (ie. Dude, Where's My Ranch?, Mr. Plow and Homer vs. Dignity . In fact, these episodes were even included on a Christmas themed DVD release some years back, but none of them first aired in December) and some that are included here aren't actually Christmas episodes, they just aired in December. (ie. Eternal Moonshine of the Simpson Mind). There's really no need for the template, because the Christmas episodes are not like the Treehouse of Horror episodes, where they are all definitely Halloween episodes and there is use for easy navgiation between the epiusodes. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom...even if we deleted the non-Christmas ones, people would add ones back in with brief Christmas theme in them Ctjf83 ^talk 01:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete, agree with everything said above. Cirt (talk) 05:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC).
Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 00:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Gran² 07:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom SkierRMH (talk) 07:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Martarius (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nominator.--Rtphokie (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete - no utility. Category would make an alternative (although it would be just as unmanageable). Happy‑melon 22:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep - As for utility, this has about as much utility as the Treehouse of Horror template - easy navigation between a particular theme of episodes. Regarding everything else, I've edited this to include the episodes actually featured on the 2 Simpsons Christmas DVDs, so the list is pretty official now -- with the exception of Marge Be Not Proud and Simpsons Christmas Stories, 'cause they're centered around Christmas but not on the DVDs (I'd be fine with getting rid of them though if need be). I implore everyone to take another look. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree, the list still has episodes with partial Christmas themes, such as "Dude, Where's My Ranch?" which only has maybe 5-7 minutes of Christmas in it, "She of Little Faith" focuses on Lisa's Buddhism mostly, I don't remember any Christmas at all in "Homer vs. Dignity" so I don't even know why that is on the list, "Skinner's Sense of Snow" has very little Christmas in it too. "Mr. Plow" never once mentions anything about Christmas, so this template is very flawed. So, I've already cut the list in half. Also, these are different then the THOH template in that those are all 100% Halloween Ctjf83 ^talk 19:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)