Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 June 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 4 June 6 >

June 5

[edit]

Template:Rescued

[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. JPG-GR (talk) 03:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rescued (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is being used in the middle of AfD discussions but has two major problems IMHO; (i) It's disruptive to a consensus discussion and if there is a slippery slope here of potential other AfD discussion templates when instead editors should simply add a comment note. If the good folks at WP:AfD think is the way to go then lets have a discussion on what templates would be helpful and NPOV; (ii) Article Rescue Squad does not operate as a group at AfD or even in concert on articles. We coordinate identifying articles that may be rescuable and directing editors interested in such work to tagged items. This template suggests we have now deemed the article saved or fixed when we actually do not do that. The creator is likely well-intentioned but perhaps didn't realize the posible negative connotations this template may have including the disruptive and possibly counter-productive effect on consensus building. I tried speedy but was told it couldn't apply and then I simply redirected but that was reverted so here we are. -- Banjeboi 19:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - despite being well-intentioned, having a template like this in the middle of a discussion is going to break up the discussion and confuse inexperienced editors. It's official-looking and claims "Concerns raised in the AFD have been addressed" which could lead people to believe that the AfD discussion is effectively over. pablohablo. 19:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm totally not seeing the point of this template at all...and seems to have no valid use. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is the wrong forum to discuss the use (or lack thereof) of this template. No reason for deletion of the template is given. Benjeboi, I encourage you to stop trying to censor others' interpretations of what the ARS is or is not: whatever it is, it's not your personal domain. Jclemens (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the merits of the template, there is a good reason to keep this. If an AfD happens, a bunch of people !vote delete for a given reason (e.g. sourcing), and then someone comes along and improves the article to mitigate those concerns, those !votes no longer count in that they reflect opinions on a presumably substantially inferior older version of the article. The template is a great visual presentation to say "The article changed here, look more carefully at the !votes below"--and its use absent a material improvement would be disruptive editing. Jclemens (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm hardly censoring anyone's interpretation of Article Rescue Squad here. This template was created and implemented without any discussion or consensus to do so and to insert this in the middle of AfD discussions. IMHO, it should have been cleared with ARS and consensus at AFD to use it. I would have opposed it then for the same reason. AfD is a discussion - would you be so in favor if the template read ARS members have looked this article over and decided it couldn't be rescued? Of course not. Both imply the issues are resolved when that may or may be true and imply the ARS project now is a defacto arbiter of what is rescued or not. We do not do that. We encourage improvement and discussion. I agree that a Comment. Article has been rewritten adding numerous reliable sources. would be helpful but a template is not needed for that.
You are dwelling on the word "rescued", that word does not appear in the text of the message, it is just the name of the template. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming the template and otherwise disassociating from ARS would still leave the issue that its conferring some decree in the middle of a conversation and still should be approved by WP:AFD folks. I just don't see the need here when simply adding a comment will suffice. -- Banjeboi 07:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The template serves no useful purpose. If an article is rescued, this needs to be stated clearly in the AfD whether or not it was done under the aegis of the ARS, and without using flashy templates. This will only serve to antagonise editors. Fences and windows (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator, an excellent way to show the closing administrator where in the discussion changes that were asked for prior to insertion of the tag have been addressed. See here for an example of usage. The wording is neutral and makes no attempt to say that the article is now "rescued" that is just the name of the template. It reads: "This article that is part of this AFD has had additional information and references added by a member or members of the Article rescue squadron at this point in the debate. Concerns raised in the AFD have been addressed as best as possible" --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have little doubt you mean well but Comment. Article has been rewritten adding numerous reliable sources. would serve just as well and have neither of the main issues; being a template in the middle of a discussion which likely is unneeded and being associated with the Article Rescue Squad Wikiproject which should have been consulted first. -- Banjeboi 03:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The basic idea of placing a prominent, identifiable marker to note changes that affect the discussion is quite a good one. Unfortunately, the idea of placing a prominent, identifiable marker to say "I fixed all the problems" is not a very good one; that sort of statement can be contentious, and so can the mere act of making such a statement. It's better just to leave a specific note of the form "problem X did formerly exist in the article, so I changed it to remove that problem". The generic text here is not a good idea. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Gavia immer. I have three problems with this template. My first problem is with the wording, which can be corrected and which, therefore, I will not write about at length in this deletion discussion. My second problem is with the concept of a templated notice in the middle of an AfD discussion announcing, essentially: "That's it! Nothing to see here, people! I fixed it! Time to go home!" It's absolutely desirable to highlight positive changes to an article made during the course of a deletion discussion, but it is disruptive (and a bit presumptuous) to use a big, flashy template to do that. My third problem is that I admire and support the aims of the Article Rescue Squadron, and I think that this template would just generate hostility against the ARS. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 03:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am in complete agreement that templates such as this in the middle of an AfD discussion have a horrible potential to take things off track. Someone coming into the discussion would (presumably) look over the article and could make up their own minds whether or not it measured up, and the subsequently revealing of sources and their being worked into the article during discussion has the power not only to persuade those who come to the discussion late, but also sway the opinions of those who have already commented (stranger things have happened). The fact that this template references the ARS makes it ludicrously partisan as well. --BlueSquadronRaven 04:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. Really bad idea. Garion96 (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree. Black Falcon says it all. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a good template. I advised the creator of this, and suggested that it be changed in a more neutral fashion simply notifying of a change in the article, not mentioning the ARS, and not looking like its primary template. I really think this is a mistake, and I urge that it be withdrawn. Many editors not members of the ARS --not necessarily even supporters of its way of doing things-- improve articles during an AFD, and their work is equally important. We could use a template saying "major changes involving most of the article have been made at this point in time", but we have done reasonably well just saying so in words. This is mistaken over-enthusiasm. DGG (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's a big difference between leaving a comment saying something like "I have just done a big update to this article in an attempt to address the concerns expressed in the preceded delete votes" and this template, which is in the passive voice and declares that those concerns have been addressed. One's an opinion expressed as such, the other is an opinion dressed up as a fact. Also, implicit in the act of placing the template in a debate is the assumption that the !voters aren't watching the article and would be otherwise unaware of the update. If this is really a concern, then I would suggest alerting those !voters on their talkpages of the update. Yilloslime TC 04:59, 10 June 2009 (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:Omni (Omni Books)

[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 speedy delete as G8 as all pages this template depended on were deleted. SoWhy 07:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Omni (Omni Books) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox. Every single one of its entries is currently listed at WP:AFD, with all discussions headed for snowball deletes.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:00, 5 June 2009 (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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_June_5&oldid=1086338667"