Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:14, 3 December 2012

November 28

Template:Update

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

Template:Update section (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Update with Template:Update section.
I think we should do one of two. Or we should change all instances of Template:Update section to {{Update|type=section}}, or we should remove the |type= parameter from Template:Update and change all instances to Template:Update section. Debresser (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 02:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
• Do not merge yet until we get a reasonable default. If we were to merge to a single template without parameter, the wording should be This article or section is ... If we use parameters, when it was used in a section, only the most experienced would know to use type= . An alternative if greater precision is wanted is to have it default to "article or section" but have both type=section and type=article. The present cases of its use could default to =article or =section respectively, but this would also deal with the future use by that large majority of patrollers who did not know to use the parameter. Since this is used by Twinkle, we either have to use the combination version there or have two entires in twinkle for article and for section--but I would be very reluctant to increase the size of the twinkle list longer, which would make it require more scrolling. (Am I right that it is technically impractical for the template to be coded to detect whether it is being used at the top of an article or within a section.) DGG

So we can simply add "section" the way we usually do {{Update|section}}. That is no reason to delay the merge. Debresser (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• This should be an uncontroversial technical action. I don't really understand DGG's comments regarding the use or not of the section parameter: having the odd article miscategorised under a full-article cat rather than a section cat is small potatoes, really. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Rescue list

• Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_September_24#Template:Rescue
• Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_24#Template:Rescue
• Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_March_5#Template:Rescue
• Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 13#Template:Rescue
• Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 27
• Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 16#Template:Rescue

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)

• Keep Used by an active group. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 02:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

So? It's duplicating the functions of a template that was deleted pbp 02:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Purplebackpack89, could you please substantiate your claim that the WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron "has had a history of doing controversial and contentious things." - ʈucoxn\ 20:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Look at the first Template:Rescue deletion request above, and also Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

Purplebackpack89, thanks. Reading Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Article Rescue Squadron was very educational. - ʈucoxn\ 21:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure pbp 21:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the template that is used to alert participants of a discussion that the article is question is included on the new "reformed" rescue list, yes? If so, I can see why it's rather useful, since it lets participants and the closer know why the tone of a discussion may change (especially if canvassing was involved, as can be the case with the ARS)--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: This seems terribly ham-handed to me. What's wrong with letting AfD participants know that a particular discussion is on the ARS radar? That doesn't hurt anything. Many articles get deleted despite it. For that matter, so what if you deleted and salted its predecessor? That decision may have been wrong, you know. Recall the Fifth Pillar of Misplaced Pages is WP:IGNORE. Faustus37 (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

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)

• Strong delete: It's being used as a tool for canvassing. FurrySings (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Keep This is totally unrelated. The old template was placed in articles nominated for deletion, and that was what was deleted, and a simply list to appear only on the wikiproject page added immediately to replace it. It is not used for canvassing, as many discussions have already pointed out, evidence showing no one goes to every single thing nominated and says keep, and members do say delete at times as well. It is just like any other wikiproject. Dream Focus 15:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Note that the nominator did not inform the Wikiproject of this nomination. Dream Focus 15:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Note, in AFD discussions it is standard to list what wikiprojects were informed about the discussion. This template is used to do that. ‹ The template below (Rescue list) is being considered for deletion. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

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)

• Comment on inappropriate rescue tag use: Dream Focus' tagging of this for rescue illustrates perfectly what's wrong with this template, and what's wrong with the ARS in general. For starters, it's tagging a template for rescue by the article rescue squadron. Seems like misuse of the template to me. Why, pray tell, is this being tagged? Do Dream Focus and other members of the ARS intend to improve the template, as they improve articles? No! Dream Focus tagged it so that other ARS members would comment on this TfD, and get it kept. This illustrates perfectly the canvassing that goes on by Dream Focus and other members of the ARS, reaffirms the reasons why Template:Rescue was deleted and SALTed, and illustrates why this has to go as well pbp 18:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  So if another wikiproject had their thing being discussed for deletion, you don't think anyone should tell them? Or is it just us you are after? As I have said, the other thing was totally unrelated to this one. And if you look at the AFDs currently up for discussion Misplaced Pages:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Article_list you'll find there is just one active one, and I did vote delete in it, after first questioning to make certain the guy wasn't notable. There has never been any proof found of canvassing, so kindly stop making ridiculous unfounded accusations. Dream Focus 19:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  Please stick to the issue at hand, and answer the question, "Why did you tag this for rescue?". I can see no plausible reason for you doing so other than to canvass the folks at ARS. Again, I repeat you misused the tag here because it is only supposed to be used on AfDs Furthermore, how you happen to vote on your last AfD is irrelevant. How you and others have shown up to AfDs in quick succession to them being rescue tag, and voting keep a ridiculous percentage of the time, is pbp 19:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  I undid your removal of someone else who commented it was here, restoring their comments since I agree with them it should be there. And its not just for articles. Its been used for other things before. Anything that involves a Wikiproject, should be something that Wikiproject is told about. If you don't understand that, there is no hope explaining it to you. Dream Focus 19:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  You didn't "undo my removal of content", because I didn't remove any content. I moved it to "resolved entries", because the tag was inappropriately used, as I explained above. pbp 19:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  Whatever. I put that guy's thing back in the top area. Doesn't matter. You shouldn't been moving it like you did to begin with. Dream Focus 19:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  It shouldn't have been tagged to begin with! You need to understand how highly inappropriate using a tag meant just for articles is in this situation pbp 19:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Strong or Speedy Keep Purplebackpack has absolutely no understanding of this template. CallawayRox (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Prove it. Until you can, it's a personal attack pbp 20:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• 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)

• Probably because they didn't feel like bothering to explain the obvious. You are confusing this template with something totally unrelated, as I have already pointed out to you. Dream Focus 20:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  Right on, DF. I saw PBP harassing DF on the Rescue List‎, nothing to do with the template here. CallawayRox (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Metro Crenshaw Line navbox

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)

• Keep: Each of the stations almost certainly pass GNG; they have not been created, but have not been deleted either (and would fail an AfD) pbp 20:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• keep for now, but reconsider if construction of the line stops or stalls. Frietjes (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per Purplebackpack89. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 02:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Jcovarru (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:List of National Football League Kickoff Returner (Touchdown Percentage)

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)

• Delete as a template. It doesn't need to placed in each individual's article. If adequately sourced, it could possibly be listified and put under "see also" in those same articles. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 18:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• Listify if possible. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 02:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:German language

Template:German language (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and mostly redundant to {{German grammar}}. Frietjes (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as mostly redundant. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 02:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)