This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Satori Son (talk | contribs) at 14:10, 24 September 2007 (→Template:Rescue: delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:10, 24 September 2007 by Satori Son (talk | contribs) (→Template:Rescue: delete)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| < September 23 | September 25 > |
|---|
September 24
Template:Rescue
This template provides a mainspace link to the Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject that aims to improve articles that are currently at AFD. While this is a noble cause, the necessity of such a template is minimal and treats the "salvation" of the article as a war to be won.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment I cannot lodge a keep comment here due to a conflict of interest, butKeep (with Swatjester post, my CoI has been removedFosnez 07:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)) please read this before posting. IMHO this template is a constructive addition to the wikipedia toolset and has been used on quite a number of articles that might otherwise have been deleted (when the nomination was not valid, or they nominator could not be bothered to look for sources). I would also like to point out that we (The ARS) do not play wargames, we find sources and cite articles. The ARS itself has been up for deletion twice in less then a week and kept both times. Fosnez 06:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)- What in Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest applies here? If you want the template to be kept then there is nothing stopping you from defending it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I was not referring to the wikipedia COI policy, as that obviously does not apply here. The general idea of a Conflict of Interest is that one shouldn't participate in something that your interest benefits directly out of, in this case the template that is linked above. Fosnez 07:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- What in Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest applies here? If you want the template to be kept then there is nothing stopping you from defending it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. While a noble cause, it does not belong in mainspace. ⇒ SWATJester 07:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment one other things, the Article Rescue Squadron has a good number of admins in it that have not complained that this breaks any policy. User:Dsmdgold, User:TimVickers, User:Zanimum, User:Gnangarra, User:Jossi, User:bibliomaniac15, User:Morven, User:Fuzheado, User:CatherineMunro, User:DGG, User:Sjc - Please tell me where this template - used for saving articles that contain encyclopedic topics - breaks policy. Fosnez 07:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - same reasoning as this and this applies (most of it, anyway). It has a constructive purpose, it doesn't violate any policy, etc. — xDanielx /C 07:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - going by the criteria on Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion:
- the template is helpful, notifying interested parties that it's an article that may be worth saving-by-improving;
- as far as I'm aware there's no other template with the same purpose;
- the template is being used;
- the template satisfies NPOV.
I don't see anything about the current template to do with a 'war to be won'. It's just about turning an encyclopaedic topic into an encyclopaedic article. --Zeborah 08:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Zeborah. --Iamunknown 08:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) This TfD is not about the project but about a particular mainspace template and I would recommend to delete and replace it with one designed for the talk space for three reasons:
- With the link to the project page, it is an implicit comment on the ongoing AfD discussion, which should better be made there or on the talk page.
- Besides the project link, it duplicates the link to the AFD discussion itself, but adds little additional information since separate mainspace tags for notability and sources can be added anyway.
- The basic objective of flagging for the projects' purposes can be achieved also with a template on the talk page. It is my understanding that this is our general practice for project templates anyway.--Tikiwont 08:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I have no issue with this template now that the last line has been rewritten. If it can highlight certain articles and improve them, why not :). -- lucasbfr (using User:Lucasbfr2) 08:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. I find the deletion of articles that simply need good editing and the abuse of the AfD process tiring and a waste of time, energy and off-putting to potential new editors to wikipedia and related projects. This template is an elegant solution that directly addresses the unfortunate instances where potentially good articles are being gambled upon; will enough decent editors find the AfD and save the article or will all the previous work be deleted? To me seeing the template is a glimmer of hope that others view the AfD process of needing some balance to protect against abuse. The project is not limited to only certain subject areas and seems to be only interested in improving Misplaced Pages by improving articles. I can also attest to the position of the tag on the article page as being effective. I wouldn't have seen the tag if put on the talk page and easily may have given up on editing the article if I hadn't see other editors interest in rescuing it. If the template seems too POV then propose some wording that seems better. Benjiboi 08:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Move to article talk pages. What a fuss over nothing. Put it on the talk page; it then accomplishes the requirements of the ARS; unless, of course, what they are saying it is for is not what it is for. Articles do not need to be highlighted to be improved - all articles should be improved. I am down as a member of the ARS project, because some of its aims are good, and it has a funny acronym, but the template is not needed on the article. Neil ム 09:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Spare per Fosnez, Zeborah, XDanielX. Pretty straightforward - noble idea, bad request for deletion.DEVS EX MACINA pray 09:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Per Template talk:Rescue#Talk page I think moving it to the article's talk page is a reasonable compromise until something can be done about the ARS itself. – Steel 12:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment from my posting at talk page - I agree with Fosnez on article page placement, this is especially true for less experienced editors and lazy editors who, in theory, would be familiar with talk page discussions before editing but in many cases never even look at the talk pages. I see the rescue squad as balancing the many abuses of the AfD process, which, as far as I can see, are rarely followed as spelled out and instead articles are tagged without discussion or consensus and chaotic "save the article" editing takes place which is probably not the best work. Annexing the template to talk pages would render much of the potency moot and as the template is very short term and presumably on articles that are headed for the junk heap who cares? Benjiboi 13:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I just stumbled on the topic and decided to sign up. I think the cause is a good one. If the article cannot be "rescued" then it deserved to be deleted, however if cleaning it up and providing sources can help, then let the group do its work. Many people voting in AfD do not take the extra step to work on what is being AfD'd. this is a good alternative. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. We wouldn't be having this debate if it was "Article Deletion Squadron" to try and garner deletion votes on AFD, it would get shot down in a heartbeat. This is merely inclusionist votestacking in disguise. ^demon 13:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
So lets Save er..... Improve articles up for deletion. Keep this template. Rewrite and move it to talk page. Navou 13:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Move to talkpage or delete. I don't really like it (placing it on an article gives too much the impression of "this article is worthy of keeping", no matter if it is true or not; and many articles that were AfD'ed too soon or in error were imporved and kept anyway, without this template and squad), but if needed anyway, it will serve the same function on the talk page without cluttering the main article page even more. Fram 13:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This is getting silly now... This needs to be kept. Bjrobinson 14:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Tags for a project such as this should be placed only on talk pages, not on article pages. And since this template is clearly designed as an article tag with its sidebar color coding, it should be deleted. I would, of course, support and encourage a new talk page template for this worthwhile endeavor. -- Satori Son 14:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Template:Badedit
This is a vandalism warning template that facilitates adding a diff of the vandalism to the message. It doesn't appear to be used and doesn't fit in with the standard at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject User warnings. In addition, I don't see how it's helpful for a vandal to be shown a diff of their own vandalism. szyslak 05:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, written in a legacy-style, and doesn't add anything useful compared to the WP:UTM messages. The diffs in question, if it's necessary to include them, can still be added after the warning. --Sigma 7 11:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above; inconsistent with current style, though some automated vandal warnings do provide the diff AFAIK. On RC patrol I've never used it, and I never would. Shalom 13:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Template:PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC
See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC. This source is not reliably public domain. Suggest we replace with {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}} where we can. — cohesion 01:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, but then we must check all ~150 images on a case by case basis. -- lucasbfr (using User:Lucasbfr2) 08:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Template:Hqfl logo
This template is needless and very improper. This is just source tag, no license tag.
- The HQFL isn't copyright/trademark holder of respective logos. For what purpose must wikipedia give link to them in template?
- The {{Non-free logo}} is more adequate in these cases.
The redirecting ({{Hqfl logo}}-->{{Non-free logo}} as {{Sports-logo}}-->{{Non-free logo}}) isn't very good decision in this case. The source will be still needed. The images with this tag must be retagged with other logo-license tag with source: http://hqfl.dk/, if respective images haven't it. — Alex Spade 09:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's a little messy but I don't see anything wrong with it as a copyright tag. However, it does not replace the need for sourcing or for a proper use rationale. It's clearly a license tag, not a source tag. The source of the copyrights in all these cases is the copyright owner, the sports team in question. This just says how the image was produced, apparently. It's best to not delete the or redirect the template for now, until we can sort this out. It should be deprecated and use discouraged in the meanwhile -- new images should be tagged with {{Non-free logo}}. Wikidemo 09:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Malcolm (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)