Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Get rid of the militaristic terminology

...and this could be a good idea. Seriously, all the talk about squadrons and such attracts exactly the wrong kind of people. Zocky | picture popups 15:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, I never thought of it at all in militaristic terms. The term "rescue squadron" at least in the US is used in the emergency and firefighting field much more than in the military sense. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I admit, the word "squadron" does have a militaristic connotation, but in a Saturday-morning cartoonish sort of way. As in a group of kids wearing beenie caps with propeller blades, and solving Hardy Boys-style mysteries. Anyone for "Captain Tlogmer and the Article Rescue Squadron"? We could sell advertising space to the junk food of our choice. :-) More seriously, I doubt anyone would object if you came up with a name for a group of people that doesn't have such an unfortunate association. llywrch 23:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, in the military a squadron is lead by a lieutenant (or a first lieutenant where this rank exists), while a captain leads a company, usually of 4 squadrons. So, by saying "Captain Tlogmer and the Article Rescue Squadron" we would automatically show that it is not used in militaristic terms. (Well, that supposes the reader knows that a squadron is led by a lieutenant.) But he name is nice. :-) BTW, who's Tlogmer?:Dc76\^talk 18:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"Captain" is one of those leadership titles that extends beyond the military sense. "Captain of a ship", for example. And the old parties of mountain men would be organized into groups under a captain. (FWIW, Once I came up with the "Captain Tlogmer" bit, I found msyelf wanting to rename the group "the Article Rescue Rangers". I would have suggested it earlier, but I was away from my usual Internet connections last night.) -- llywrch 19:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"The article rescue rangers" is pretty good. I like "squadron" better, but I'm easy. Squadron was good for grabbing attention; rangers might be a better name from a promoting-wikilove point of view. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 06:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

"Article Rescue Rangers" might appeal to my inner furry, but I think I prefer "squadron". I wouldn't mind "Captain Tlogmer and the Article Rescue Squadron", either, to be honest. Ichormosquito 20:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, it seems that we are using very Russian-istic language - when someone comes on the page, the first thing they read is "Step up, Comrades", which also creates a negative aura around the "squadron". However, I think that it is a quirky name for a dedicated group, and don't want to see it change (especially since I have already gone ahead and made a t-shirt for myself). --Queer As Folk 11:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The Russian stuff was deliberate, and sort of tongue-in-cheek. A kind of "we're cool, you're cool, we all know that the USSR was terrible, so there's no harm in appropriating its stereotypical terminology". Though there's no better language of motivating people than Russian. Plus, we get to have cool logo if I ever get around to making it. (The page doesn't belong to me, though -- be bold, etc.) Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 17:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

OIC, you are Tlogmer. You are the guy who started all this. Hi there.:Dc76\^talk 18:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

OH HAI! IM IN UR TALK PAGE, MESSIN WITH UR COMMENTS Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 06:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

After all, in Soviet Russia, Deletionists FIND YOU. --Thespian 09:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

A technological fix

Really, anyone who has worked on an article (minor edits exempted) should be sent a message (by a bot or something) if that article is nominated for deletion. Automation is usually (rightly) frowned on, but I think it would work well here. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 07:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Not everyone keeps articles they've created or heavily edited on their watchlist. I for one like to keep my watchlist relatively small for manageability. And not all AfD nominators do the courtesy of notification. Wl219 10:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea, a lot. do we know if it's actually practicable? AndyJones 12:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

...and an associated danger

I keep my created articles in a list but not all in my watchlist (the same manageability concerns) and surprisingly (or not surprizingly) there were quite a few deletions totally out of process, like, tagged and deleted the same day. IMO one of the jobs of ARS if to keep track of such trigger-happy, although well-meaning admins, warning them about being too bold and do some whistleblowing if they persist. `'Míkka 20:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Code of Conduct

From what's starting to happen I see the danger for this page to turn into vote solicitation billboard or for accusations that "inclusionists" are engaging in vote stacking. If this happens, this project will be forced to close, like it happened with equally (if not more) well-meaning project wikipedia:Esperanza and some others.

To prevent this from happening and to prevent from abuse, I suggest to establish a rather strict code of conduct.

1. No idle wistleblowing If a member lists an article in the wikipedia:Red Book of Articles, they cannot vote "keep" or detag the endangered article without an attempt to fix some problems with it.
2. No idle vote ganging If a member sees an article in the wikipedia:Red Book of Articles, they can vote "keep" only after a decent attempt to fix it.
3. Show the light. Af a member votes for an article after fixing it, describe in the vote which problems have been fixed and hence no longer applicable.
4. Don't make too much fuss If a member totally revives an article, wait for a day or two to see whether the attitude at the AfD changes. If not, then cry for help, otherwise be happy.

I would also suggest the rename it to anything else away from ARS: I refuse to be in the arse, although I am a proud asshole. `'Míkka 19:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. The whole purpose of this project is to curb the insanity of AfD by making sure that stuff that is actually notable is not deleted through incompetence. With that in mind, it is pretty silly to put bureaucratic impediments in the way of it. Moreover, AfD is not cleanup - if changes need to be made to an article to stop an absurd result, then so be it, but if a topic is notable, I am going to vote keep, process wonks be damned. Rebecca 01:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

OK then I am out of here. A bunch of vigilantes who think that other editors are engaged in insanity is not my crowd. Good luck. `'Míkka 03:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. So I see Rebecca was a member of ArbCom. With such crazy temper. I knew that wikipedia sucks, but never thought rotten up to the head. `'Míkka 04:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

To me it would seem unnecessary to even consider voting on anything if we improve the articles in question. it makes any vote moot if the problem is corrected. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 16:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with extra codes of conduct as wp already has pretty clear rules that apply to all editors and they general work. I also am opposed to doing anything that makes improving articles more difficult and the rules proposed seem to add extra components to work that is largely thankless and, by it's nature, stressful. Benjiboi 20:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the code of conduct issue is to prevent us from being nothing more than a vote stacking group. Sure, in some ways, our article improvements will change a vote, but not because we merely voted... It'll be because we voted based on changing the content of an article, and we will have demonstrated that AfD is not a place to complain about content, but a place to complain about an inappropriate topic. Ronabop 07:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please get this code of conduct off the page. WP has plenty of rules to address these issues and these are not only confusing but another layer keeping people from editing. If the intent is to spell out we don't vote stack then say that instead clearly and concisely and move on. I think I just violated one of the rules because i voted keep without actually saving the article, i do know though because the codes are convoluted - get rid of them please. 09:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjiboi (talk • contribs)

Update. I've moved the Code of Conduct (for members) from the instructions to the members page. While I still feel they aren't worded well and if the purpose is to spell out no vote-stacking the whole thing needs to be redone the move alleviates the main concern that it confused the instruction process which should be clear and concise. Benjiboi 09:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

A wasp nest

I appear to have annoyed an admin, and the AFR Template has been modified a few times and is now up for deletion. I have also had an incident taken out against me. Any advise or assistance would be gratefully received. Fosnez 07:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move (old)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 12:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

---

So that we can sort out the current move request, please state your position (Support or Oppose) in the Survey Section. You are welcome to add a brief comment as to why your have chosen this position, but it is not required. This survey is only for the move to Wikipedia:Article rescue and does not prevent other move discussions from occurring in the future. Other proposed names include Article rescue team, Article Rescue Crew, Team Article Rescue and Captain Tlogmer and the Article Rescue Rangers ;-) Fosnez 11:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose - Fosnez 11:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC) - "Article Rescue" is not a good name. Removes the Team aspect.
• Support - Neil ム 11:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC) - removing the Team aspect is entirely why I suggested it. Neil ム 11:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 23:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC) - I'm aware that removing the team moniker brings the name more into line with the names of other wikipedia-writing pages (Articles for Deletion instead of Article Deletion Squad, or whatever) but I think that if anything, those other pages should add "team" (or its equivalent) to their names. Wikipedia's a little too big right now to function as a single cohesive community, but this'll help smaller community-like things coalesce within it. However, it doesn't strike me as that big a deal, either way. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 23:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Benjiboi 00:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC) - perhaps someday a group of this nature won't be needed but in my short time on wp I've seen so many articles face AfD and I think it hurts wp. Anything that encourages volunteers to step up and take action is good and the name of the group is too important to be watered down as simply Article Rescue. 00:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment for name suggestion - Can we add Article Rescue Group to the list of possibles? ARG is kind of cute. Benjiboi 00:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose but then, ARS isn't a great name for British and Aussie users either.  :) — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 01:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose it being just "Article rescue". - jc37 03:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Choices, choices... In preferential order: "Article rescue squad" (squad instead of squadron - gives more of a sense of emergency vehicles); "Article rescue team"; Not a fan of "squadron", and not a fan of "crew" or "group", and though I laughed when I read "Rescue Rangers", I think Chip 'n Dale might get jealous : ) - jc37 03:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose We're like an ambulance for articles. If rescue squadron is fine for 103 Search and Rescue Squadron, it's fine for us. -- Jreferee t/c 04:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I think one of the things that tempts people into assuming the worst about this admirable project is the name. "Squadron" is a militaristic term. Is there any good reason not to move the project to Wikipedia:Article rescue? Neil ム 10:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

From my understanding of the spirit of the project, we are like the squadron of editors that swoop down from the sun and rescue articles from the clutches of rectifiable AfDs nominations. Fosnez 11:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It is a military term, but that doesn't necessarily make the ARS militaristic. Firemen are organised along paramilitary lines, and the picture at the top should tip people that it is closer to the later than the former. Should it resemble something military, it'd be the cavalry in those old westerns. Because who are the good guys? Not the inclusionsts, not the deletionists, but the articles, defenseless and poor pioneers besieged by those two wild and ferocious tribes...--Victor falk 11:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I get the humour in naming it as such, but it would come across as a more established and respectable process with a name that doesn't harken to cavalry, military, "good guys", or anything remotely confrontational. Compare and contrast Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit with, say, Wikipedia:Cleanup. One is a gang who have cool userboxes and a "badass" name, the other is an established and productive wide-scale Wikiproject. Would we rather this effort be a discreet gang of editors, or potentially a real part of Wikipedia? Neil ム 11:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I've filed a requested move. Neil ム 15:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

While I understand the concern over a para-military connotation to the title of the group, part of me wants to resist the move. The problem is that almost all of the labels for a definied group of people have military connotations (the remainder have organized crime connotations, e.g. "gang", "crew", "posse", etc.) unless we make a serious effort to reach & start calling ourselves something along the lines of "Article Rescue Guys". I like the idea of emphasizing the idea of a team, rather than the impersonal goal. -- llywrch 21:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Article rescue loses the collectivist aspect, but Article rescue team might be fine. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 02:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Part of me doesn't like changing our name in response to people who'll probably still distrust us anyway. Part of me points out that a name change may change the minds of those people whose minds are amenable to change. And part of me notes that "Article rescue team" has the acronym ART, which is perhaps preferable to ARS. On the whole I'm ambivalent, but the acronym could win me over. --Zeborah 07:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

To me the name change seems like a step to better integrate the project into wikipedia as a whole -- gaining more formal legitimacy. I'm all for it, really. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 18:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• I was going to suggest "Article rescue team", but I see it's been suggested above. That's two, anyone else? : ) - jc37 22:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Have a read of the above section, it explains the name a lot better than I did. Fosnez 06:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I like "Article Rescue Crew" :) But I do also like "Team Article Rescue", and I doubt anyone else will. Neil ム 10:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Okay, now I have 3 suggestions

1. - name move (see just above) - does anyone acutally oppose moving it?
2. - Merge with Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit. I think the two projects should be merged, as they have identical purposes. This one was started first (14 July vs 3 September), so my first suggestion was to merge into the older organization, this one.
3. - I added a new section detailing when the Rescue template should be used - good idea? Bad idea?

Busy busy busy. Neil ム 15:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there are some differences (ie, ICU doesn't focus solely on AfD articles, and hopefully our approach will be more structured, if the triage template works out). But I agree, the redundancy issue should be addressed somehow. --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(EC) I think the merge would be good, as there is definitely cross-over between this project and ICU. However, The ICU project is not for AfD candidates only, but for any generally poor article that has potential, and notability. This project is focused on articles that are already at the proposed deletion stage, or the AfD stage. So, if merged, a slight re-wording of this project would be in order, to broaden the scope to encompass any poorly written article. ^Ariel♥Gold 16:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, EC = ? --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

EC - edit conflict. Neil ム 16:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll go on record as opposing a name change, at least until the AfD has closed and a discussion as to the best replacement name takes place. I disagree with merge proposal as this too seems premature and a basic overview seems to support that these are different in scope. The ARS work on tight deadlines with only articles that are threatened with deletion and have been tagged for rescue. Its tight scope helps focus action and the timeframe further focuses what actions are possible. I'm not terribly enthusiastic about the new section, I think some articles will be tagged and get little response and other will get plenty of attention and it's based on multiple factors not the least of which is an editor's interest in what they want to edit. Regardless the number of AfD articles and therefore rescue tagged articles is relatively small so I don't see the need to micromanage that aspect. If someone tags an article that could never ever be saved then it (and the tag) will be gone within the week anyway. Benjiboi 16:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

To follow along with the above, I think I'd like to see the merger proposal wait until after the AfD and renaming proposal have both closed. (Just to keep things simple). --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That's certainly reasonable. Neil ム 17:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

1. I agree that this should be moved to a more general non 'Wikiproject' name like 'Wikipedia:Article rescue', 'Wikipedia:Article retention', or 'Wikipedia:Articles for retention' (to parallel AfD)... though the WP:AFR and WP:AR shortcuts are both already taken. The primary reason for the name change is to make it more of a Wikipedia process rather than a 'project'... a standard procedure in counterpoint to AfD.
2. As to merging projects... WP:ARS and WP:ICU are essentially 'time sensitive' versions of WP:CU. The main difference is that ICU tries to get people to tag things for 'emergency cleanup' before putting them up for AfD, while ARS kicks in only after the AfD is posted. Other than this minor difference in timing (with ICU possibly avoiding AfD altogether if the cleanup happens quickly) the two are essentially the same and could be merged while retaining all aspects of both.
3. On the template, I'd suggest merging it into Template:AfDM as an optional parameter which causes the additional 'please cleanup' text and link to 'WP:ARS' (or whatever) to show up when set. That'd remove any 'redundancy' with the AfD template because this would then BE the AfD template. --CBD 00:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I still don't completely agree with the move request, but the integration into the AfD tag idea sounds like a good one Fosnez 02:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

CBD's suggestions are intriguing, and I'd be curious to see how applicable they are. Ichormosquito 05:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Why can't we just limit Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit to articles that aren't at AfD? Ichormosquito 05:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I would make it a suggestion that ICU is for articles that aren't AfD but if you're looking for assistance on an article that is AfD they can also be refered to the rescue squad. Benjiboi 06:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That's something that should probably be discussed on both pages (ie, ICU and ARS). However, off the top of my head, I don't have a huge objection to it, although I imagine it would lead to complicated logistics if an ICU article got AfD'd. --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, once it hits AfD it's a matter of days before one or both tags are removed so I say more help is ok. I'm missing what is problematic if both efforts land on an article at the same time. Benjiboi 06:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that the ICU has several templates, {{icu}}, {{icu-saved}} and {{icu-triage}} (under construction from what I understand); what if there was a {{icu-rescue}} template, in effect the same as {{rescue}}? --Victor falk 06:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there are plans for such a template. (Especially given the TdF, plus the possibility that ICU might decide to refocuse on pre-AfD articles). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 12:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

In looking over both projects, This one seems more like a "task force" which has a time constraint, while ICU is more about general article cleanup. I suppose this could become a task force of that, but ICU should probably be merged with some of the other article cleanup projects. - jc37 22:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive talk page items

Someone please start the archive and clean off old threads. Thank you! Benjiboi 06:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Done Fosnez 12:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Benjiboi 17:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

How many articles have you rescued? I see a lot of discussion on naming, templates, userboxes, procedures, et cetera...but I'm not seeing much discussion on helping the articles. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I'm just curious as to how many articles were saved by this process. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• I was wondering the same thing but realized it's hard to say because this tag was added this article was saved. Benjiboi 01:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thats mainly because theres far to much discussion going on already. The Article Rescue Squadron doesn't talk about fixing articles, we fix them. Heres a couple of the ones I have been involved in:

• Exercise Robin Sage - afD - Prime Example of an article that should never have been put through an AfD
• Strong Bad Sings - AfD
• Steal This Film - AfD
• Radio malt - AfD (not tagged with Rescue template due to this discussion)
• Mzoli's Meats - AfD (this one caused some controvercy)
• Helvenston et al. v. Blackwater Security - AfD (this one started this entire affair...)
• Gumtree - AfD
• Columbia University tunnels - AfD
• Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) - AfD
• Bolster Day - AfD

• Some people may complain that the above articles do not warrent a place in wikipedia. So I have linked the AfDs as well. From memory, most nominations were for Notability - and in accordance with policy, if notability is established via citations, then the article should be kept (after all we, are here to compile the sum of ALL human knowledge). I might also point out that the Rescue Squadron is only relatively new, and I only joined a month ago or so, and this small list of my contributions should not in any way reflect the value of the Article Rescue Squadron. Fosnez 02:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Two; in both cases the relevant AfD turned from a deletion chorus to consensus to keep based on the rewrite. I have yet to do work for the ARS, but I only just joined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kizor (talk • contribs) 01:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• When I first came across Article Rescue Squadron, I added significant references to at least five of the listed article. I don't recall the names of the articles. However, if someone can point me to a list of all articles listed by the Article Rescue Squadron, I can zero in on my contributions. -- Jreferee t/c 04:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

the influence of the ARS goes beyond the articles listed here--it extends to the attitude that it is important to try to improve articles at afd, and that people will be encouraged to try to do so. That will be its true success. DGG (talk) 09:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

LA Times article

Two articles we worked on, Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) and Mzoli's Meats, were both prominently cited as examples of "Wiki-wars" in this recent LA Times article. If you haven't seen it already, it's worth a read. Ichormosquito 04:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I started that article! Benjiboi has done a LOT more work on it than I have though. Fosnez 13:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Last line: "Ultimately, Mzoli's was spared. But not until a gaggle of editors worked on expanding it from an afterthought to a more substantial portrait. Though it's still just a description of an African barbecue place, it's difficult to see how the world would be better off without it." Ichormosquito 16:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Louie Giglio

I added some references to Louie Giglio. Please add more info. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 05:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Radio malt

I added some info to Radio malt. If someone has the time, please add the info from Google books. -- Jreferee t/c 05:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

FreeLife

Not really a rescue (the article was mentioned at WP:COIN, but I added some references to FreeLife. If you have the time, please consider incorporating the information from the references into the article. -- Jreferee t/c 18:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Moving foward with the Rescue Template

Ok, the TfD is now over and one of the caveats of it is that we cannot use the Rescue template on article pages anymore, one suggestion by the closing admin was for a template on the AfD subpage (Quite a novel idea) Here is a quick example I did up, Feel free to have a play with it, it is in my userspace. - Fosnez 13:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• I so disagree with it not being used on the article page in conjunction with the AfD template. It's how i first got interested at all. If it is vectored of to the voting page it seems, to me, that it would be campaigning for keep votes rather than for editors to simply improve the article. Benjiboi 18:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think it's a shame that we can't have it on the article page; I think it's useful not only to editors but also to inform people who've arrived from a "You won't believe what Wikipedia's going to delete now!" blog post that it's being worked on. Still, it's not something I feel strongly enough about to fight for, so working with what we've got: the template for the AfD is pretty; I think the important thing is to fiddle with the wording to make sure it's clear we're not canvassing for 'keep' votes. Perhaps, rather than "This article has been Flagged for Rescue", "This article may be rescuable"? (And we shouldn't need the "As an act of courtesy" sentence any more if it goes there.) --Zeborah 04:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Having only really thought about this after running into the TfD (and now being very interested), I have some thoughts. Firstly, that discussion to do with the template specifically ought to be on the template talk page - partly because of the idea of questioning whether ARS should "own" the template, and partly for transparency (so people can find the discussion about it where they'd expect it to be).

Secondly, and more importantly, I wouldn't give up hope for it ever going back to being on the article page, but ignoring the TfD result because participants in ARS disagree is not going to end up with good results. If the pattern of use over a while is good, and arguments can be made that the results would be better if the template was on the article itself, then I think that there's likely to be a reasonably easy consensus to put it there again. Personally, I think that the most useful place for it given the TfD result is on the article talk page. SamBC(talk) 14:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm confused here. Y'all (yeah, I'm from Mississippi, we say y'all instead of you all) are saying here that we can't use the template on article pages but what I'm reading from the TfD does not say that. It says:

A template that can be placed on an article may not be the way to go (one could for example list them at some "WikiProject:Rescue", or the template could be placed on the talk page or AFD page), but a page template is noticed by passers-by far more than an entry on a project page or AFD comment would be.

I don't read in that anywhere that says it can't be put on the article page, and in fact I believe that's exactly where it should be and it even says so by stating a page template is noticed by passers-by far more than an entry on a project page or AFD comment would be.. people come to an article page to read the info. They don't go straight to an article's talk page. So which is the obvious place to alert people that they should get involved in rescuing an article, the page they go directly to or a page they may never visit? Therefore, until there's something in stone that says the template is 100% not allowed on article pages, that's exactly where I will continue to put the template! -- ALLSTAR ECHO 16:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Read further down the closing statement. Most of it is a summary of the arguments on both sides, but it is rounded up with:

So based on policy, reasons given in debate, and that this seems to be the compromise contributors by and large agree upon, I'm closing this as Keep.... but with two caveats:

1. This template should be applied to talk or (perhaps even better) AFD pages only. Whilst a template saying "I think this AFD candidate could be encyclopedic if researched - please urgently help" is a good one, mainspace is the wrong space for it. That's one of the main concern of the "Delete" views. Appropriate use would meet template namespace criteria, support improvement over deletion where possible per deletion policy, and not give the incorrect appearance of warring or excessive article tagging.
    
2. An article that is terminally defective but unimproved, should be deleted according to communal deletion norms even if it could be fixed (without prejudice to a proper article being created later on). A further risk is possible gross over-use by proponents of articles that should be deleted ("Please fix this article on my favorite restaurant!!"). So the template will need to be very specific as to wording, and discourage this. The wording should be careful not to suggest that AFD contributors should endorse a terminally defective article if not remedied - the other main "delete" concern. And consider rewording the actual text to "flagged for improvement" or something, rather than "flagged for rescue", it's less likely to get WP:MUSTKEEPIT! reactions. If widespread uncontrolled misuse were to happen in a disruptive manner, and cannot be handled, then this TFD may need revisiting.

Which is pretty categorical. SamBC(talk) 17:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

New version!

My experiments in breeding templates has resulted in this hybrid. Check it out in action here - Fosnez 11:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If it is a good idea to have it on the AfD page (and I doubt that it is), then that's a very good hybrid. SamBC(talk) 14:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The idea for having it on the AfD came from the closing of the TfD - Fosnez 05:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to rain on your cake but it really does nothing for me. Perhaps there's some merit to separating the template and the project so we can get the template onto the article page without further delay. To me the template is simply impotent when vectored off the main page and incorporating it into the already ignored AfD template seems like a waste of energy. I do appreciate what you're trying to do I just want to be up front about what I'm thinking as others may feel the same way but might not bother to state it. Benjiboi 06:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It did come from the closing off the AfD, and I did summarise that closing for the template talk page... but it wasn't a mandate from the closing, and I disagree that it's a good idea, for reasons that I think I've outlined somewhere. The main thing is that the template will get less useful the further it gets from the article. However, a supplementary template for AfD wouldn't be a bad thing, just so long as it's not the only tag. SamBC(talk) 11:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you all know that I have been working on the templates. Make sure you double check the two top templates here - Fosnez 02:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5