Template talk:Rescue/archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents


[edit] categorization instead

Since this template has no purpose other than categorization, wouldn't it make more sense just to use the category and delete the template? IronGargoyle 22:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

How would this look? (I'm not too good with template wiki-coding, so I'd appreciate some help with this.) Wl219 06:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

(template commented out)

[edit] "Do not remove this template" = wrong.

The "Do not remove this template" sentence needs to be removed. There is no enforcement power behind this: this is simply a template for a wikiproject. It has no right to demand that it stay on a mainspace page as if it were a policy or such. It implies to editors that they better not touch it, or they'll get in trouble, which of course it cannot do because it arises out of no policy or guideline. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikiprojects do not have direct enforcement power, but if an active wikiproject decides that leaving a template on an article for a few days would facilitate communication and ultimately the article's improvement, I think it is courteous to do so. I edited the template with what I hope can be considered a reasonably prefaced, unoffensive message. — xDanielx T/C 07:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me. --Iamunknown 08:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
This is why it is not wrong, it has been removed from the article that caused all this, if noone in the AFS has seen it then there is no record that someone thought it was important. Fosnez 09:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm getting sick of being accused of having an ulterior motive. Fosnez, cool it with the accusations. There's fairly broad support that the line in particular and the template in general are inappropriate. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 10:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
You are reading far to much into my comment, nowhere in the above post did I mention your name, neither was it inferred. If you feel I have been accussing you of having an ulterior motive, prehaps you should lodge another AN/I... Fosnez 11:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page

Is there any good reason why this couldn't go on the talk page, rather than the article page? I'm tempted to move it once the TFD discussion is over (if it closes as a "keep"), unless anyone can come up with a good reason not to ... ? Neil ム 09:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Note per Wikipedia:Categorization#Wikipedia_namespace it belongs on the talk page. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 10:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I answer your question with a question, why is the AfD notice on the article page, not the talk page? If your answer is something along the lines "because people need to know the article is about to be deleted" then I would counter that people need to know that someone thinks the article is worth saving, and should do their best to improve it (after all, we are here to write an encylopedia, not delete one) - Fosnez 09:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
You failed to give a good reason for this template being going on the article itself. I can only assume you do not have a good reason? But as far as the points you did make go, all articles should be improved, not just those with a template that says so - the sole purpose of the Rescue template is to bring it to the attention of the "rescue squadron", not to tag for {{cleanup}}. We have a tag for that already. This awareness can be achieved just as easily via tagging the talk page. Neil ム 10:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of the {{rescue}} tag is to attract anyone's attention to the article that may be able to save it, not just Article Rescue Squadron members. Think of it as a {{hangon}} for AfDs Fosnez 10:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
A {{hangon}} tag is different entirely - that's to prevent a speedy deletion before the user is given a chance to respond. As AFD as a 5-day time limit (at a minimum), it doesn't serve the same purpose. Is your argument for keeping it on the article page solely so people can see it needs (in the sole opinion of the one person who tagged it with Rescue) saving? Again, why could that not be achieved via the talk page? Neil ム 10:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Bearing in mind that we are here to write an encyclopedia, not delete one, which is more important: Having a tag on an article for 5 days or less and scrolling down an inch more than usual, or loosing just one article that should have been kept? Fosnez 10:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The tag would still be there, just on the talk page. Neil ム 10:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but my point is that the visibility of it decreases dramatically, and therefore the indication that this article needs help ASAP, I am not trying to make the ARS seem more important that it is, but we get people see the tag on the article, investigate sources and cite them. Then only after an invitation do they join the ARS, as happened to Ichormosquito - Fosnez 10:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I just had a read through some of the arguments on Template:Unreferenced TfD, it has similar concerns as your regarding the talk page and article page. I will let you form your own opinion on them however. Fosnez 11:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, I'm not sure you're comparing two similar things. Unreferenced is a standard tag, such as {{cleanup}}, {{context}}, {{expand}}, {{advertising}}, and the like. This is placing the article within the auspices of a specific project. Project tags are always added to talk pages. Neil ム 11:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I would hope that one day, in a far away galaxy (Wiki?) this could become a standard tag, as it is not a standard "this is part of project XYZ" but only used as a last resort to boost the profile of the article and save it from an incorrect deletion. Obviously this tag is not to be put on all AfDs, but only one that genuinely contain encyclopedic materials. As a current example, if it were not for this whole (excuse the language) shitfight, I would have tagged Mad Catz for rescue, and started editing it. I have rewritten the article, but now I can only hope that someone sees it and adds more to the article, as I have done what I can. Fosnez 11:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Indent reset. 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 12:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of standards, we do not put Wikiproject banners in the mainspace.⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 21:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have tried looking for that particlar policy or guideline that you keep quoting that from, can you please point me in the direction of it where it says that we can't? Fosnez 22:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categorization#Wikipedia namespace. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 10:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that's a reasonable comparison. Other Wikiproject templates are permanently added onto an article, and have absolutely no reason for demanding immediate attention. This one is only up for a matter of days, and is inherently useless if attention is not immediate. — xDanielx T/C 23:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think putting the template on the talk page destroys most of its value (which, admittedly, is not huge to begin with). If we don't care about outsider editors seeing the tag, we could just add pages to the rescue category manually. This has been suggested by editors outside the Wikiproject, but most editors disagreed. Putting the tag on the front page is just a painless way of facilitating communication, via messages along the lines of "hold up, let's not give up on this article too quickly." The tag being on the front page also avoids confusion -- if only categories were used, or if the tags were placed on talk pages, then editors would likely forget to remove them, which means more trouble/confusion for editors browsing the categories. If nothing else, the tag encourages editors to improve articles by adding a communal, collaborative feel to the improvement process, instead of leaving editors to do the dirty work by themselves. I can't say that these benefits are very significant, but I don't think there's much harm in leaving a tag up for five days either. — xDanielx T/C 23:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats also why I suggested putting the template withing the AfD messages, so that it is automatically removed when the AfD template is removed. Fosnez 23:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Good lord that makes sense and everything! you must be destroyed! (please note: this is sarcasm). Benjiboi 05:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policy on Edit Tags on Article Pages

Resolved.
I have started a new section regarding the policy, I have copied the below comment, in full, from the above conversation to start a new thread. Please try to keep comments on topic, civil and assume good faith. Fosnez 13:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have tried looking for that particlar policy or guideline that you keep quoting that from, can you please point me in the direction of it where it says that we can't? Fosnez 22:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categorization#Wikipedia namespace. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 10:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment - According to the policy you have just quoted, "Tags suggesting the article needs work would be placed on the talk page" templates like {{unreferenced}}, {{cleanup}} and {{TV-in-universe}} should also be moved articles talk pages. Is it your suggestion that these tags, that are currently featured predominately to advise a user to improve articles, should also all be moved to talk pages? The {{rescue}} tag would have a maximum life of 5 days on an article page, in this time, it's presence may just inspire a user to source that article and save an encyclopedic topic from deletion. I fail to see why this should be discouraged at all. Infact, its moments like these we have this policy: If a rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it., if need be, I suggest we use this policy here - simply because after all is said and done, having the template predominately featured (for a maximum of five days) will do no harm, but will only enhance the chanced of having a the article improved. Fosnez 13:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment - From the Afd 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. Benjiboi 17:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I'd just like to restate the comment I made earlier. It is absolutely correct to say that Wikiproject templates are normally placed on article talk pages. However, this template has two very glaring differences which I believe make it essentially incomparable:
  1. Other Wikiproject templates are permanent. This one stays up for about five days, often less.
  2. Wikiproject templates are meant to facilitate communication. In the case of other Wikiproject templates, there is absolutely no pressure for this communication to take place in the short term (excluding rare exceptional conditions). In the case of this template, the tag is useless unless communication happens in a very short period of time. On a similar note, most Wikiproject templates are geared toward very involved editors who are likely to read the talk page anyway, giving very careful review and advise. This template is geared toward random editors who are unacquainted with the subject matter and not likely to read the talk page.
— xDanielx T/C 03:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Following the TFD

Resolved.

The TFD has been closed as "keep with caveats". Summarising those caveats briefly, the restrictions are:

  • Apply to talk or AfD pages. We need discussion as to which is to be reccomended.
  • Adjustments to wording to ensure that the template and/or instructions:
    • Discourage over-use by proponents of articles.
    • Do not encourage any particular sort of comment or !vote in the AfD.
    • Consider re-wording to refer to "improvement" rather than "rescue".
  • It is also suggested that steps be taken to monitor and remedy any potential misuse.
  • Renaming of the category was also strongly suggested.

I would also repeat my suggestions (from the TfD) that the template's relationship with ARS be "reversed" - the template would have better reception and effect if it were not owned by ARS; instead, ARS should see it's mission, at least in part, as "serving" the template - making the improvements, encouraging appropriate use and discouraging inappropriate use. This should be possible without denying ownership of the template from the wider community.

It also seems, from the discussion, that it would be useful to put good instructions on the template page (with noinclude tags, obviously).

On a personal note, I would hope that, in future, with suitable changes and demonstration of patterns of good use without bad use, the wider community may feel that it will the template may be usable on the article pages themselves some time in the future. SamBC(talk) 13:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone link the TfD discussion in the template box on top? I couldn't find it, I assume that's also where the closing admin's comments would be found. Benjiboi 21:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I found the discussionWikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_September_24#Template:Rescue but I'm not having much luck getting it into the template. Can someone help with that? Benjiboi 21:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Done - the date has to be YYYY Month DD. SamBC(talk) 22:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Seems we were both attacking it at the same time. Fosnez 22:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I restored the link to this section, as it's useful for as long as this section is here. SamBC(talk) 22:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is somewhere we can play with a new template. I have started one - have a hack at it. Fosnez 22:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

So, does anyone want to discuss the points I mentioned? SamBC(talk) 15:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

(Technical considerations, only, at this point.) I see four places the template could be located. Where it was originally (in the article, rejected by consensus), on the article talk page, within the AfD, or within the AfD notice (possibly eventually, but considered rejected by consensus). If on the article talk page, there is probably an automagical way to link to the article, and categorization makes sense. If on the AfD page, the category needs to be something like AfD's which may be rescued by properly sourcing an article named, as the AfD might be a multiple AfD. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
There's certainly an easy way to link to the article, but not to put the article in a category using a template on the talk page. Of course, the talk page being in the category is fine, and is generally considered better for project-related maintenance categories. This is, by the way, one of the reasons I would advocate divorcing the template from the ARS, as then the "project-related" stigma may gradually evaporate.SamBC(talk) 17:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I dislike the idea of it going in the AfD, as that does seem more like an attempt to swing votes, which I understand that the template emphatically isn't. SamBC(talk) 17:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

To raise a specific query, what do people think about the possiblities of changing the template language and category name? SamBC(talk) 17:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New version

My experiments in breeding templates has resulted in this hybrid. Check it out in action here and place your comments here (to keep them all in one place. - Fosnez 11:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be placed on the AfD page? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Instructions

Resolved.

So, is the feeling that the template should just not be used until there's a wider community consensus to use it on the article page, or until we feel that there's another way to use it that's generally acceptable? I may have missed this decision at some point with all the changes that were made to the ARS page and talkpage. SamBC(talk) 11:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I amended the instructions to have those who want to tag the article to message the talk page. This was a step up from the confusing statement that was there prior. I haven't seen any final decision that the template has to be placed on one spot or another and meanwhile the project work is still taking place so I felt it was a reasonable and neutral compromise. Benjiboi 13:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
There has been a binding-for-now decision that it doesn't go on the article page, and the talk page seemed most natural to me, especially as it was the most common suggestion at AfD. Your version does make sense, although it's a little confusing because it doesn't seem to say anything about using the template. At least saying it goes on the talk page means that people won't put it on article pages (if they read it), and we won't see a repeat AfD that's likely to go much worse if people make the argument that the previous result was ignored. SamBC(talk) 13:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
That's what I was aiming for, that those within the know already would do what they did but newbies would instead post to the talk page until we have more resolution. If you click on edit you'll see that there's hidden text that can be used once we have things sorted out. My verbiage was a workaround until then. Benjiboi 13:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another redesign

Resolved.

There seems to be a working consensus to place this on the article talk page, so I am proposing a change from {{ambox}} to the talk message box CSS. It would look like this:

This article has been flagged for rescue.

Please read this article's deletion discussion for specific concerns that need to be addressed. If you can help by citing sources and establishing notability please edit this article.

As a courtesy, please do not remove this notice until the AFD discussion has been closed.

Thoughts? --Phirazo 20:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, for those of us needing a map to the clue train what is different? It seems to be almost exactly like the current edition.Benjiboi 22:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, I may be a small but vocal minority but I strongly disagree and I know other editors do as well that this tag should be anywhere but on the main article page and this project's work is hampered by those who persist in removing it from article tags. If the honestly feel the article should and will, of course, be deleted then who cares if this tag clutters the article for its last few days? Benjiboi 22:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The TfD result specifically stated that the template should not appear on the article itself. If you disagree, the proper venue is Wikipedia:Deletion review. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I appreciate the reply but since the template wasn't deleted I have doubts that going there will do anything. Is that really the place to appeal the concept that the template can't be used on article pages? Benjiboi 22:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't think of anywhere else appropriate to "appeal" the decision. DRV is used also used to request that AfD's be closed as delete rather than as keep. It's not often that the dispute is between two non-delete outcomes, but it's been known to happen. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The difference is that it uses the format for talk pages instead of the format for article messages in mainspace. It helps reinforce that these are supposed to appear outside of the main space. The text is the same as the current version, but the format is different. If there is a consensus on new text, that can easily be changed. --Phirazo 01:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This intent seems to reinforce the notion that the rescue template should be on the talk page and I simply can't disagree more. Also the notion that we should change the template to fit the preferred view of those who oppose the work of rescuing articles is outrageous and rather insulting IMO. Benjiboi 02:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be insulting, but moving this template to talk page or the AfD page was the result of the TfD, and the current practice seems to be placing the template on the talk page. I'm just suggesting standardizing this template to fit other talk page messages. --Phirazo 02:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I apologize as I should indeed assume good faith and all. Stating that, I see little to gain from reformatting the template. Its life span is less than a week so the current format is completely fine. No one has suggested that it has to emulate the uniform of a talk page template and I feel the TfD decree that it not be used on article page was in error perhaps not on the part of the closing admin but more on those who seemed do deeply troubled by its use on the article page. Absolutely outrageous in my opinion. This entire endeavor is to make a better wikipedia by improving articles and to be targeted by such actions is indeed disheartening. Benjiboi 05:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
While that may be true, Benjiboi, a consensus was reached/determined and a consensus beyond this page or the ARS page is needed to reverse it. DRV is one route, another is an RFC or the Village Pump (or both). I agree that it should be on the article itself, but this argument will be improved if we can demonstrate that it hasn't done harm and has been used responsibly on the talk page, and make cogent arguments that it would be better on the article page then. Ignore XfD results at your peril. SamBC(talk) 07:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, this is a bit of a fuzzy issue. With Pallywood, for example, it was agreed (almost mutually) that challenging the "keep but rename" closure in favor of "keep without renaming" should be done on the article's talk page, not DRV. That decision may have been affected by the deletion policy text, though, which says pretty explicitly that naming issues are to be settled on the particular article's talk page. I think the rough consensus is that admins generally should only close with keep/delete/merge outcomes and any action beyond that should be regarded as regular editorial actions (though it's of course fine to suggest further community actions based on analysis of the AfD), though a substantial group of editors would probably dissent. It gets less clear when the action is already taken though, as sticking with the decision avoids some commotion, which I expect would sway some opinions. It's really just a matter of balancing too much bureaucracy (special authority for arbitrarily chosen closers, forced DRVs) with too little (indecisiveness >> time wasted arguing).
For the record, I don't really think there was a consensus to restrict usage to talk pages based on the TfD and, especially, based on the discussions here (which went into much greater depth, IMO). I don't plan on raising a DRV as like to do so only for XfD results that I think are very objectionable, but if one were to appear I'd probably support overturning. — xDanielx T/C 17:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Looks good, one thing to note is that there ought to be some tweak to content so that the "edit this article" link actually links to edit the article, not the talk page. I believe this is possible with parser functions. SamBC(talk) 07:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I just fixed that in the existing one. Doesn't need a parser function, just a different magic word. --Phirazo 16:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linking latter nominations.

Resolved.

{{Rescue|page=Example (2nd nomination)}} should link 2nd nominations. But on Talk:Bawls it does not seem like it does. Taemyr (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, I think, although I don't know why tl2 got subst'd above. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
In my comment? Because I subst. it. 81.33.238.140 (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] talk page vs. mainspace

Resolved.

The TfD result clearly stated the template should not be placed in mainspace articles, and set it back for review as to exactly where it should go. Any attempt to move the template to mainspace without at least creating a new consensus is essentially vandalism, under those circumstances. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting how you've characterized that but in real world practice it has been used in both spaces with few, if any, problems and altering the template to fit your interpretation is hardly consensus either. Those of us who use the template have pointed out that since it is only used in conjunction with AfD articles it's never in play more than a week, perhaps in that light you can see why the TfD was somewhat split on the issue. Benjiboi 16:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The proper venue to challenge the stated consensus would be DRV, not here, yet. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The proper place for you to propose a radical format change is here and you are obviously experienced enough to know better. Please engage in a proposal to render the template useless on mainpage before you do so and find consensus before implementing such a change. Benjiboi 21:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The radical change, proposing that it be used only on mainspace pages, is yours. User:Mangojuice, who also inserted the edit, stated on my talk page that he was going to correct the usage notes to be talk page only.
The consensus before the TfD was that it might be used on either mainspace or talk pages. As the TfD specifies it may not be used as a stand-alone template on mainspace pages, leaving the question of whether it may be used on talk page, AfD pages, or within the AfD notice, to consensus. Consensus seemed to leas to talk pages only, but I suppose a modification to allow it work properly on the AfD page would be acceptable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Rescue

Resolved.

Template:Rescue has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Benjiboi 21:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)