Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:07, 14 January 2012

January 13

Template:Infobox Translink (SEQ) station

Template:Infobox Translink (SEQ) station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single useOrphan; non-standard appearance; redundant {{Infobox station}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Replace It looks like the creator of this custom infobox converted other stations back to the standard version, but missed the one. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that I have boldly replaced this single use template and orphaned it. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Spanish station infoboxes

Template:Infobox Barcelona station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox Spain station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The former is redundant to the latter; and both to {{Infobox station}}. I've just found an article using both! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Replace These templates are only used for a few select stations in Barcelona and, as you have noted, is illogically duplicated for the only two uses of "Infobox Spain station". Every other station in Spain, that has an Infobox, uses the standard one. This looks like a haphazard Barcelona centred project by a single editor without any consideration for the wider picture in Spain. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Nn-warn2

Template:Nn-warn2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is an old user warning template for the removal of CSD templates from an article. It is redundant to the Template:Uw-speedy1 series and it misrepresents policy by stating you can remove the tag if you can indicate why the subject "is really notable". Article creators are not allowed remove speedy deletion templates and "really notable" =/= "credible claim of significance or importance". Yoenit (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Small

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

Why does this exist, when the <small> tag exists? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: Template is protected and cannot be tagged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Keep since you're supposed to use wikimarkup instead of HTML markup, and this makes it wikimarkup instead of HTML markup... 76.65.128.132 (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Rescue

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

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Misplaced Pages technical issues and templates WikiProjects and collaborations When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

(Added request for comment, requesting community input. Northamerica1000 05:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC))

• 24 September 2007 Keep with caveats
• 24 December 2007 Keep, reversing caveats
• 5 March 2009 Keep

Per a discussion occurring at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents– Article Rescue Squadron on AfD, several users have questioned the rationale for having this template on Misplaced Pages. 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 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 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion and related pages, as this is Templates for discussion it is appropriate to have a discussion on the template. Mtking 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 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)

• 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages and in external sources such as Misplaced Pages: 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 Misplaced Pages; 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)

• No. The AfD template reads "This article is being considered for deletion ... For more information ... read the Guide to deletion." It's all about deletion not improvement. Warden (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The examples you cite are not comparable to the Rescue template. {{copyvio}} is not associated with Wikiproject Copyright Cleanup, it's a template used to list pages at Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems. Even if Wikiproject Copyright Cleanup did not exist such a template would still be needed. Wikiproject Copyright Cleanup is just a Wikiproject for people who like doing work on copyright issues, including (but not limited to) Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems. There is no template which can be added to articles to invite members of Wikiproject Copyright Cleanup to fix it. The main purpose of the Rescue template, by contrast, is to draw the article to the attention of the members of the Article Rescue Squadron. Hut 8.5 10:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

No, there is no functional difference. These templates all place the articles into relevant categories which exist to draw the attention of interested editors from relevant projects. The ARS project is just a WikiProject for people who like rescuing articles from deletion, just as the Copyright cleanup project is for people who like cleaning up copyright issues. Identical. Warden (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The Rescue template is part of the ARS. Not only does the bold link on the key word "rescue" take you to WP:ARS, but instructions and guidance for using the template are hosted on the ARS page, the template uses the same lifebuoy image as the ARS, and Template:Afd see also documentation even lists the template as "for items to have the Rescue Squad review". By contrast neither Template:Copyviocore nor Template:Orphan link to any Wikiproject at all. There's a difference between a template which tags a page for some task that happens to have a Wikiproject associated with it (such as {{Orphan}}) and a template that is only used to mark pages for the attention of a Wikiproject (such as {{WPMILHIST}}). {{Rescue}} is clearly the latter. Hut 8.5 11:56, 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)

• I patrol every article sent to AFD. Every day there's another hundred articles and I start by looking through their titles and the nominations. If I spot an article with promise I then look closer. Sometimes the result is already clear and no further action is needed. But if it is a borderline case where rescue activity could make a difference then I place a rescue tag. This is an efficient way of screening the dross because it saves other editors the chore of looking through everything. Nobody has time to look at everything in detail. AFD has a clear problem of declining participation and so needs efficient processes to survive. Warden (talk) 08:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

But I think it achieves just the opposite. If more participants flock to the AfD with a rescue tag on them, then it probably means there is less (or even no) participation in AfD without a rescue tag, and thus they have to be relisted several times. How does that make the process more efficient? The case of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rumors and urban legends regarding Sesame Street is a typical example. First there were a lot of keep votes (even strong keeps) , mainly from ARS members. But after the mention on ANI other editors took a look and since then there are almost only delete or merge votes coming in. This hasn't made the AfD process efficient, this has only served to concentrate the efforts of participating editors in a few of the nominated articles, leaving the others waiting for weekly relists. Without rescue tags the attention of editors would be more evenly spread out, making it more smooth. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:55, 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• Delete this template does not serve any useful purpose which is not better served by some other template. If an article needs more sources, needs wikification, links or any other kind of cleanup there are already templates for that. Furthermore the template serves to unbalance AfD discussions by attracting the (overwhelmingly inclusionist) members of the Article Rescue Squadron to it. Other cleanup templates do not have this effect and are not written according to polemical inclusionist language. I also agree that Wikiproject templates should not be placed in the article namespace, and I do not know of a single template with a purpose of drawing members of a certain Wikiproject to an article which is not placed on the talk page.

  An ARS member comments above that Deleting this template would send a message to the world that the ARS has been destroyed and that deletionism has won. This rhetoric is exactly the problem here: AfD is not a battleground between inclusionists and deletionists, and it is not a place where noble inclusionists equipped with lifebuoys attempt to rescue an article from evil deletionists. Any attempt to turn it into such a place is deeply harmful to the project. Hut 8.5 10:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Your user page has your score in a prominent position:

Pages deleted 7020

Pages restored 92

What's harmful to the project is such lopsided deletionism in which protecting and improving articles is held to be abnormal or improper. Warden (talk) 11:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Straw man (and ad hominem) arguments. I did not criticise inclusionism, let alone suggest that protecting and improving articles is ... abnormal or improper. My position is that viewing AfD as a game or battle between two factions where the goal is to "win" is harmful, and that this template promotes the idea. My userpage has nothing to do with this discussion whatsoever, and the idea that I must be a rampant deletionist just because I have deleted a little over 7000 pages is ridiculous. Hut 8.5 12:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Another thing I notice on your user page is your membership of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Unreferenced articles, "We are a group of volunteers dedicated to reviewing and adding references to articles that are in Category:Articles lacking sources...". How do these articles get into this category? A template is placed on them in mainspace, of course. Just the same as this rescue template. Please see WP:POT. Warden (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Again you're missing an important distinction. Template:Unreferenced is not part of Misplaced Pages:Unreferenced articles, is not a Wikiproject template, and does not exist to call the attention of members of any Wikiproject to the article. None of these things is true of Template:Rescue. Hut 8.5 12:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• The exact text of such templates is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion. Warden (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• It's not a matter of the exact text of the template but a matter of how this template is used and who uses it. Hut 8.5 13:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• I fail to understand how Hut's deletion/restoration actions have any bearing on this discussion or is an adequate indicator of iclusionism/deletionism. Restoration involves overturning another admin's decision to delete, while you can delete any article that meets the criteria for speedy deletion. It is not an indication of inclusion/deletion tendencies. It'll be like saying that you're a deletionist because you tagged more articles with CSD than submitting DR requests. I challenge you to find an admin that has (significantly) more restorations than deletions. —Dark 13:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• The point is that we have the usual deletionist claque here, due to the canvassing on WP:ANI. Hut's user page doesn't seem to have a list of pages that he's created rather than deleted but it is instructive to inspect the first such: Shiva Hypothesis. That article was created by him over 5 years ago and still has zero references. He should attend to his own work before presuming to censure and delete the work of others. Warden (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Warden please stop the ad hominem attacks. I freely admit that article is crap but it doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with this template. Labelling people who want to delete the template as "the usual deletionist claque" is only further evidence that the template fosters a battleground mentality. Hut 8.5 14:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. Even though I am more deletionist, I have often brought sources to AfD that allowed them to be kept. Things should not be pictured so black-white, or good against evil.

But if we want to look from black-white standpoint then try this. Just imagine there was a template that deletionists could add to any article that is already in AfD, and that template would serve no purpose that is not already served by existing tags. Imagine this template would pull more deletionists to the AfD that is tagged with it. It is very predictable that the more inclusionist editors would protest against the use of such a template, especially if there is no way to remove it before the AfD closes. That's actually what we are looking at here, but seen from the other side. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Regular cleanup tags such as {{citations missing}} do the same job of alerting editors to the issues without serving as a canvassing tool. WP:CANVASS states, under its list of "Inappropriate notifications", that "Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage" - that appears to be the exact purpose of this template. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• The quote from WP:CANVASS above pertains to users messaging other users, "posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions" (et al). It does not pertain to placing a template on an article that all users can view. Northamerica1000 17:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• It has very often been considered to apply to posting to noticeboards/wikiprojects or groups of editors as well as individual editors. In this case putting the template on is notifying only those that tend to be extremists in the keep side of deletion discussions and not those on the other end of the spectrum as well. Thus it falls afoul of WP:CANVASS. -DJSasso (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - A single wikiproject does not have the right to elevate itself above all others and broadcast its dogma in article-space. There is no cause or valid reason to inform the reader that a bunch of editors are working to "save" an article. (And if there's a counter-argument of "it gets new editors interested in us", the counter-counter to that is "too bad. an article is not a proper venue for solicitation). If the ARS wishes to flag AfDs they're interested in, fine, let them tag the AfD itself with something that will make it sort on their project page. Tarc (talk) 12:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

What "dogma"? The ARS tag is an indicator that there are likely sufficient substantial independent published sources extant to save an otherwise threatened piece and directs attention to these pieces. There are no more than a handful a day out of about 100 AfD nominations tagged as such. AfD is not a vote, it's rather idiotic that some people think that it is — it is more akin to a court of law in which the prosecution and the defense present their cases. If an article CAN be saved as notable due to passing GNG, it SHOULD be so saved. The ARS template helps to accomplish this. There's no "dogma" implicit in that, it's just common sense that we are all here to build the best and most comprehensive encyclopedia possible. The template helps advance the cause. Carrite (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep As an encyclopaedia, our central purpose is to collect and preserve knowledge – the very opposite of deletion. Deletionism is a disease. For years, noble squad members have served this project as a palliative. The special ability of the ARS to deploy its un-removable template to mainspace is helpful as it helps give voice to the otherwise silent interests of countless millions of interested readers and thousands of newbies affected by deletion. Not too bothered if the templates destroyed though. Deletionists have grown too powerful and squad members have became too few to protect even our best members from deletionist hoards and their despicable passive aggressive attacks. We have even less chance of adequately protecting articles and the interests of newbies, which is essential if the project is to live up to its vision to collect all the worlds knowledge, not just the stuff liked by eliteists and attract in the new workers needed to capture the worlds ever expanding knowledge. It may even help for deletionists to win this battle. The result could be the squad getting out of the way of the only force powerful enough to effect a cure. The Foundation. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - I've helped rescue a few articles that I found at AfD. I did it by searching for usable sources and using them to improve the article. I didn't do it by canvassing other users. Listing articles at AfD on project pages works fine; it does help increase participation in the discussion, and my impression is that such project notices do not generally produce any particular inclusionist/deletionist bias. A template on the article page that does produce a very strong inclusionist bias to the discussion is a real problem. AfD discussions should be about the merits of the article, not about inclusionism or deletionism. -- Donald Albury 13:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - This is one of the most un-collaborative nominations I've ever seen on WP. In the name of WP:CANVASS which is one of the most ill-concieved and abused guidelines imaginable in a collaborative environment, we now want to ban a template that lasts only for the duration of an AfD and is designed to improve the probability that content is improved. Banning the template only increases the probability that worthy content is not improved and is deleted. Banning this template is blatantly un-collaborative. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Discounting the meta discussion of "What is is?" I've been party to a handful of AfDs that had the consensus turned 180 degrees once the rescue tag was applied. This also involves discussions about ArS's role in "saving" articles. If an article is claimed by a WikiProject the notification to the project's "Articles for Discussion" list should be all that's needed to help determine if the article is appropriate for inclusion. If an article gets kept on a flimsy reasoning because of the rescue template, we can determine that the template is a canvassing tool for a specific viewpoint. Hasteur (talk) 13:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The rescue template tags articles for attention by anyone who wants to participate in an AfD discussion, including WP:ARS members and deletionist editors. Attention is a good thing, participation is what Misplaced Pages is about, and removing this tag heads in the other direction. As for canvassing, that sometimes happens outside of Misplaced Pages with emails, or by newbies who ask for help that is taken as canvassing, but administrators know what happens, and generally deal with that along with everything else that makes their jobs tricky but rewarding. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You wanna know what draws editor's attention (both inclusionist and deletionist) to an AFD? The AFD template. What else you got?--v/r - TP 14:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as per Donald Albury, Tarc, and especially Spartaz. I have encountered exactly the behavior he mentions in his recommendation. Horologium (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Obvious delete Not rationale can be presented for keeping. There are two keep arguments, 1) That it brings editors attention to an AFD. However, so does an AFD tag. 2) That it notifies the ARS project just like any other project. However, no other project has a biased "keep" from the get-go. See "audience" under WP:CANVASS. This template's purpose is to turn the tide of an AFD by creating a centralized location for inclusionist editors to scream "OH MY GOD, WE'LL LOOK KILOBYTES OF PRECIOUS DATA"!--v/r - TP 14:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep: I really made really good experience with that template! Doesn't matter if I tagged the article or any other contributor - every time the AFD was provided with really useful references and thus the articles could be kept. Without that template this wasn't even possible and because I'm mostly active in technical areas there aren't that many watchers. mabdul 14:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. We don't delete a template simply because it is used improperly - we deal with the behavior that results in its misuse. The objection that this template goes in the mainspace is a non-starter; the AFD template goes there too. But say we move this template to a project tag on the debate page, as with almost every other wikiproject - what then? You're still going to have a wikiproject checking this debate because it's on a list, and you're also going to stop the random editor who stumbles onto the article and might have helped with the rescue. That was, I thought, one of the main ideas for this template - not that it drags the Squadron into action, but that random editors might notice it too and pitch in. Unless they're following AFD, that wouldn't happen. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 14:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep We already went through this at least twice already. People who get upset when they fail to delete articles they consider crap/junk/fancruft, are the ones that pick on the ARS constantly, and want to destroy it. Most, but possibly not all, of those that will rush to say delete here, are those people. This should NOT have been nominated by someone who doesn't really want it deleted. Pointless waste of time. Most articles that have been tagged for rescue have had reliable sources found to prove they were notable, and have thus been saved. If you look at the total record of the Article Rescue Squadron, and don't just cherry pick a few examples, you'll find that to be the case. Dream Focus 14:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep No real rationales for deletion given other than "it does not do anything" and "it does too much" <g>. The arguments could equally apply to a lot of other templates which are far more deserving of deletion, and this TfD is quite clearly linked to other discussions which have not, so far, found the problem to be the template. As for "vote stacking" I would note that ArbCom dicta clearly allow a closing admin to weigh arguments in discussions rather than count heads - so that sort of argument is pretty much a non-starter. (In fact, I think any closing admin here should, indeed, weigh the arguments given.) Lacking any actual grounds for deletion - the clear default if Keep. Collect (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oughtn't the multiple TfDs for this in the past be clearly linked at the top? Collect (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I've added them, mimicing the old AFD template. These have been placed at the top of the debate; if TfD does things differently, please move them as appropriate. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 15:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Replace with an {{expert}} template in line with the other WikiProject tags; Some editors' hobby/expertise is finding sources for random obscure stuff, and some of them visit ARS. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Strong delete: Life preserver template is used more as a clarion call for keepist editors to vote at AfDs than to actually improve articles. Even some of the articles that are actually "rescued" are often of inferior quality, with slapdash references that don't always attest to notability Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - if the template is being misused, that's a case for editor education, not template deletion. Tagging for sources means an article doesn't have any -- tagging for rescue means "there have to be sources here I can't find, will someone else please do it really quickly". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - IMO, the "it is just being used for canvassing purposes" is just one aspect of the calls to delete the template, and those focusing on refuting that argument alone are veering into strawman territory. Other than Warden's ill-chosen analogy above to unreferenced tagging, I have yet to see someone address the "why does one wiki-project get to put its tage in article space?" and none address the "why does the reader of an article need to know the ARS has flagged it?" position. The AfD tag itself will already draw the reader in to the discussion. Tarc (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Why do we have article-space expert tags that direct to a WikiProject? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The good Colonel and ASCIIn2Bme have already given 3 examples showing the Squad is not the only project that gets to add tags to the main space. From the reader perspective you mention, it signals that some are dedicated to preservation. At least then they know established editors arent all trying to destroy the articles they've came to read. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - In my experience the use of this template does help substantively improve articles at risk of deletion. The instructions it contains are particularly helpful to newbies who would otherwise simply be upset that someone is challenging their work. I note that the delete !votes don't include any actual examples of misuse. Who cares if it's a canvassing tool for inclusionists? If they can figure out how to improve bad articles because of this template, then it's helping to build an encyclopedia and more power to them. Selery (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. The majority of the time, the application of this template seems to result in ARS members piling into the AfD in question to !vote "keep". Only in the minority of the time that I've observed has it resulted in any of the ARS !voters actually improving the article. The template is intended, and used, to canvass a group known to be strongly inclusionist to tagged AfDs, and rarely results in actual improvement of the articles in question. A template whose only functional purpose is to canvass is a template that should be deleted.

  In addition, the argument of "You can't remove the template!" "Why?" "Because we say you can't remove the template!" is...vacuous. I could create Wikiproject Sparklecorn, which adds glittery overlays and ponies to articles I think need to be prettier. I could write into the guidelines of Wikiproject Sparklecorn that no one may remove my bedazzling. That doesn't mean that my prohibition has any actual strength, and no one would be expected to go "...sigh. She's bedazzled Death. And yet I'm not permitted to remove the glitter!" If people from Wikiproject Sparklecorn continued to assert that my glitter was valid in all cases and unremovable, the most efficient solution to that on the community's part would be to delete our glitter templates, which served no valid purpose, not to sprint around trying to topic-ban each person who loves glitter. Similarly, this TfD is the better route than attempting to decide whether individual ARS editors knew the effect of their use of the template was to canvass. The template canvasses and is being used in a way that places the desires of ARS over the guidelines of the community; the template is therefore a problem and the least dramatic fix to that problem is to delete it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The fact that this template is now discussed for deletion for the fourth time is in itself an indication that there are ongoing problems with it. I do not see any of the Keep voters explain why they cannot do the very same work (rescuing articles) without this template. In fact everybody who participates in AfD discussion is already looking for reliable sources to establish notability, isn't it? So, the AfD tag is a rescue tag already, why do we need another one? The existing AfD template could easily be edited to include clearer rescue instructions if that is deemed necessary. Why is that not good enough for the members of ARS? MakeSense64 (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

A different perspective is that the existence of multiple XfDs for the same target is yet another manifestation of systemic bias in favour of deletion. Deletionists often dont respect prior decisions, and keep renominating in the hopes not enough reasonable folk show up to save their prey from destruction. It only takes 5 seconds to put an article up for deletion using tools, or to type "delete fails GNG". It often takes hours or even days to find sufficient sources to save an article. Thats another benefit of the template, it helps those who like to save articles work as a team and focus their efforts. Some like to find sources, others arent so good as searching but are good at integrating existing sources into the articles. And yes still others like to ensure the hard resuce work doesn't go to waste by making sure there are enough keep votes to save the article from destruction. A project space list wouldnt be as effective at energising teamwork - we know this from experience. The reason for the 2nd TfD was to remove the damaging restriction that temporarily prevented the template going in mainspace, which is right where it belongs. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you are wording it very nicely there: "...by making sure there are enough keep votes to save the article from destruction..". That's exactly the problem that we are talking about here. This "making sure that there are enough keep votes" is the questionable behavior that results from this rescue tag. You nailed it. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'm of two minds about how to !vote on this. I support the stated goal of the Article Rescue Squadron, and I think most of us do: improving pages marked for deletion is obviously a good thing. Now, does the template itself help accomplish that? A lot of the time, the answer is no. But then again, all our "This article needs cleanup" tags fail to effect significant changes to an article most of the time, as well. So I don't know that it's a good reason to delete this tag. Is the tag causing problems that deletion of the template would solve? I doubt it, the ARS would likely still maintain a list of pages needing "rescue" and their members would likely still edit in the same fashion (some helpful, some not so helpful). So I guess in the end I'll have to go with a Weak Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• This template - {{Article Rescue Squadron invite}} - would do infinitely more to improve the ARS' success, reduce the siege/battlefield mentality ("deletionist hordes" etc.) as well as actually improve WP by drawing more attention to retaining good content, which is supposed to be the point. This shouldn't be about 'inclusion/deletion' politics, it should be about the collaboration people keep talking about, and about keeping material that shouldn't be getting deleted, something which most Wikipedians have no issue with and would actively support. Improving links to sources, reaching out to experienced Wikipedians to join the squadron and building bridges rather than barricades against the deletionist bogeyman would improve things across the board. This should all be a positive thing, editors working to improve their own article saving efforts while working with those who regularly nominate articles for deletion to make sure they're upping their own game. It's down to the ARS to improve their membership and effectiveness, and stop clutching this tag as though it's some kind of enchanted totem which magically gets articles fixed. Wikipedians who want to fix things can do so, and do, without beacons pointing to a handful of articles. That's what deletion sorting is there for. Someoneanother 21:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Wikiproject tags do not belong in mainspace. The canvassing problems regarding ARS and this tag remain highly problematic. Hipocrite (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep I am not a member of the project but think that it does some of the best work on Misplaced Pages! This template is central their workflow. — Robert Greer (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Wouldn't be as opposed to it if it was used on the afd instead of the article and if it wasn't used almost exclusively to canvass. This shouldn't exist and it especially shouldn't be used in article space. -DJSasso (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete There is nothing wrong with the ARS, there is a lot wrong with a template that suggests a handful of articles are more deserving of scrutiny than the others which have been nominated for deletion, and that dropping it onto an article somehow elevates its importance above the others. There is potential for abuse, not only in terms of vote-stacking but also in terms of COI editors calling 'their' article to attention. The ARS would not be harmed by its removal, recruiting editors with specialist knowledge or an interest in different topics and helping them to patrol the different deletion areas efficiently would yield better results than the use of this tag ever could. The tag doesn't rescue articles, editors rescue articles, whether they're ARS members or not. Someoneanother 17:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment– People have varying views about how the rescue template should be used. I simply use it in accordance with its instructions for use located at WP:RESCUETAG. A significant part of use of the template is to involve other Article rescue squadron WikiProject (ARS) members to share in the work of improving articles with topics that are perceived to actually be notable per WP:GNG by the tag-placer. People have continuously extrapolated their own views regarding these instructions in various manners, adding on additional instruction paramaters that are not a part of the template's actual instruction set.

• Some state that use of the template amounts to canvassing other ARS members to vote in Article for deletion discussions. This is a flawed argument, because the use of many tags could be portrayed in this manner. For example, adding a refimprove tag to an article could be misstated as “canvassing” users to add more references to articles. Adding a Wikiproject template to an article talk page could be misstated as “canvassing” a Wikiproject to participate in an article. Adding a template to an article does not amount to canvassing or vote stacking. Misplaced Pages templates are neutrally-worded. See WP:CANVASS for the actual guidelines regarding canvassing.

When a template is placed on an article, it is very unreasonable, overly-assumptive and unfair to state that the tag-placer is somehow psychically knowledgeable in advance about what any other Misplaced Pages users may hypothetically type on their computers. It's also unreasonable to state that those who respond to rescue tags are obligated to respond in whatever various specific manners. A user who places a tag on an article has no control over the actions of other users on Misplaced Pages.

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment