< November 27 November 29 >

November 28

Template:Rescue list

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]
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]
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]
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]
  • (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]
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]
  • 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]
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]
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]
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]
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

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)

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

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.
More