Template talk:Rescue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This template was considered for deletion on 2007 September 24. The result of the discussion was "keep with caveats".

This template was considered for deletion on 2007 December 24. The result of the discussion was to keep, reversing caveats.

Archives
August 2007 - present

Contents 1 Proposed changes 1.1 Other proposal 2 Talkpage or article page?

[edit] Proposed changes

See Template:Rescue/Arthur Rubin proposal. As it is presently a WikiProject template, and I don't consider myself a member of the WikiProject, I don't think WP:BOLD covers making the changes I feel necessary to avoid deletion. My proposed changes include:

1. Separating it from the WIkiProject. (The project could be mentioned on the template talk page, but a WikiProject template should not be in mainspace.)
2. Change the category name. (The new name is subject to modification, of course, but the old name is WP:BIASed.)
3. Add a description section (under <noinclude> tags), as to when it should and should not be used.

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm, interesting ideas. I thought this part was unusual: "It is not to be placed by the principal author of the article—the hangon template is to be used there." Template:hangon is meant for speedy deletion, which I haven't seen Template:rescue used for (after all, third parties can just remove an SD tag). Apart from that, I'm undecided, would like to hear what others have to say. — xDanielx ^T/_C 23:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As it is a wikiproject template it belongs on talk pages of article for deletion, not the articles themselves, per Wikipedia:Categorization.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats a rather large guideline you've linked, could you be a little more specific as to where you are drawing this conclusion from within this guideline? Also, there is a section above this "Policy on Edit Tags on Article Pages" that is dealing with your concern, perhaps you could place a responce to the comments there? - Fosnez 00:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other proposal

User:Taemyr/Rescue together with User:Taemyr/Rescuehelp. I feel that the focus of this template should be on fixing the article, rather than sending readers/editors to the ARS project page. Taemyr (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

An interesting proposal, but I think the links back to ARS are important to show that it is actually a project template, not an officially wikipedia one. Fosnez (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't having the template talk page having a Wikiproject tag be adequate for that. In fact, if the template isn't being using under WikiProject "regulations" (which it seems not to be), the project shouldn't be on the Template, but only the Template in the project. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The template has been allowed used in mainstapce, and without offence to you, I am sick of justifying its usage in mainspace to each editor who has had this template appear on one of their AfDs. I'm sorry, but it is just becoming a little hard to work on this project when all anyone wants to do is bicker about the rules and not actually improve the articles. Please read the latest TFD and if you have further issues with the template, I suggest you nominate it for deletion - again - or you could leave this little section of wikipedia alone and allow us to actually improve the encylopedia. Yours with respect - Fosnez (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The link to ARS was not discussed on the latest TfD. When Taemyr's proposal is completed, an article (template) RfC might be the appropriate venue for deciding which version to use. I'm not saying at this time it's in violation of Wikipedia guidelines, and you'll probably note I didn't express an opinion as to which version is better. I definitely think the template should detect whether it's transcluded in mainspace or on talk pages, and edit its links appropriately. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Some proposals that deal with Fosnez' concerns;[1], [2], and [3]. I feel my first suggestion,[4], is best though. All it is doing is calling readers to feel free to edit the article, and that is within scope of official policy. Taemyr (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I still think that it is important that we link back to the project page, as this allows editors that are not members of the ARS as well as general readers to learn about the project. No I am not trying to become a "popular project" (Wikipedia is not a popularity contest), the ARS is a tool that can be used by non-members and readers alike. Anyone can pleace a {{rescue}} on a article, and for that matter anyone can use the ARS Category to find articles that need help. Finially, linking back to the project page, does put context to the fact that the project may have other articles that the user may want to "rescue" Fosnez (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talkpage or article page?

Where is this template supposed to be used? It was just moved to the talkpage of the Aliza Shvarts article, a little guidance would be appreciated. Skomorokh 01:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's always been placed on the article page. I updated the documentation to reflect this.--Father Goose (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)