Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 16

< February 15	February 17 >

February 16

Template:Fb team Qatar under-23

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. Frietjes (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb team Qatar under-23 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used only a single article, the link used in this is also a redlink. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Fb team Minnesota Stars FC

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. Frietjes (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb team Minnesota Stars FC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single link, which could be subst in relevant articles, hardly needs a template. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Are you familiar with how this template is used? How about other football team templates? Please look at other templates. You may find a few dozen more listed here: Category:Fb team templates United States, Category:Fb team templates Canada, Category:Fb team templates England and if you substitute the country, there are more listed for them. In short you can't subst the relevant articles because they are used in league standings, match results, tournament results, and a handful of other places. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn 15:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Mizo Heritage

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as

G2 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Template:Infobox Mizo Heritage (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, with missing image :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Fb team HollyHock

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. Frietjes (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb team HollyHock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only a single link, and only used in a single article. Hardly needs a template.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, pending a clarification on use Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Cite doi/10.1101.2F087969172.16.89

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ⁽What did I screw up now?) 20:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite doi/10.1101.2F087969172.16.89 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A specific citation , which could be subst in any relevant article? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't get this nomination at all. Isn't this a mere citation for articles with doi? Or are there restrictions on using

template:DOI that am not aware of? Wiki San Roze^†αLҝ 04:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. Please withdraw the nom; there are many thousands; this is how {{cite doi}} works. Alarbus (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn , Apparently I don't understand how this template works . Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:International Council of African Museums

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:International Council of African Museums (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seemingly unused template, whose content could be in an article? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox snack

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox snack (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template which is only used for one article. Already covered by use of

Template:Infobox prepared food or Template:Infobox brand. Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Already covered under Template:Infobox brand JayJay^{Talk to me} 21:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Other websites

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Other websites (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template which I cannot see a real use for. I think an External Links section covers this purpose. Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom JayJay^{Talk to me} 21:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Allen Gregory

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Allen Gregory (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary Nav template for a short-lived television show. Mostly red links, and it is doubtful that they will ever be stand-alone pages. Logical Fuzz (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom JayJay^{Talk to me} 21:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No hope of expansion or further elaboration for this canceled program. chatter) 10:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above; very few linked articles and likelihood for growth seems remote at this stage. Gongshow ^Talk 16:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above; it was a waste of other editors' time to create this. Logical Cowboy (talk) 06:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Decoder (band)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Decoder (band) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

doesn't navigate much. Frietjes (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NENAN. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, links only one album besides the band's main page; template seems premature at best. Gongshow ^Talk 16:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Minnesota Fighting Pike seasons

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Minnesota Fighting Pike seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

only navigates one season. Frietjes (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TimBentley (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:AFL defunct

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AFL defunct (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox Af2 team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

about half the articles were using template:infobox sports team (or one of the redirects to it) and half were using this template, so I updated them all to use the more fully featured sports team template. hence, this template is now unused and not needed. Frietjes (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

2009–10 NBA game logs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete after substitution. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2009–10 Atlanta Hawks playoff game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 Atlanta Hawks season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 Boston Celtics playoff game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 Boston Celtics season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 Charlotte Bobcats playoff game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 Charlotte Bobcats season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 Chicago Bulls playoff game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 Chicago Bulls season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 Cleveland Cavaliers playoff game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 Cleveland Cavaliers season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 Dallas Mavericks playoff game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 Dallas Mavericks season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009-10 Denver Nuggets playoff game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 Denver Nuggets season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 Detroit Pistons season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 Golden State Warriors season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 Houston Rockets season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 Los Angeles Clippers season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 Los Angeles Lakers playoff game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 Los Angeles Lakers season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 Memphis Grizzlies season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 Miami Heat playoffs game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 Miami Heat season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 Milwaukee Bucks playoffs game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 Milwaukee Bucks season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 New Jersey Nets season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 New Orleans Hornets season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 New York Knicks season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 Oklahoma City Thunder playoffs game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 Oklahoma City Thunder season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 Orlando Magic playoff game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 Orlando Magic season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 Philadelphia 76ers season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 Phoenix Suns playoffs game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 Phoenix Suns season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 Portland Trail Blazers playoffs game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 Portland Trail Blazers season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 Sacramento Kings season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 San Antonio Spurs playoff game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 San Antonio Spurs season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 Toronto Raptors season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 Utah Jazz season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2009–10 Washington Wizards season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Category:2009–10 National Basketball Association game log templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Subst and delete single-use templates (note that Template:2009–10 Phoenix Suns playoffs game log is transcluded in Template:2009–10 Phoenix Suns season game log) per precedent at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_16#Game_logs, among others. TimBentley (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Note to closer: I'm willing to help with substing. TimBentley (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete all These are single use and not needed as a template.—Bagumba (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete all per nominator. Single use templates, each used on 1-1 article only. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete per nom. No reason for these to exist as separate templates. Reso lute 16:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:F.C. New York squad

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:F.C. New York squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The club is defunct, according to the club's Wikipedia article. Echetus Xe 14:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, the template serves no purpose now. Giant Snowman 16:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Rescue

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete and salt. The consensus at the recent TfD was that the template should be deleted. The even more recent consensus at Deletion review upheld that consensus to delete. There is no consensus in either of those discussions that it should be anything other than a red link, and the arguments below that it should be kept but marked in some form are outweighed by those made by those who believe that it should simply be deleted. Furthermore there is consensus opinion that it should be salted to prevent another recreation.
While some of the arguments for presenting viewers of old revisions with something other than a redlink, it would most likely be more fruitful to establish consensus for doing so as a general policy without specific reference to such a controversial specific example. I recall some previous discussion at a Wikimedia UK meetup about the possibility of displaying old revisions of a page with the version of transcluded templates that were current at the time of that revision (i.e. a revision from 1 January 2010 would display transcluded templates as they appeared on that date). I cannot immediately find on-wiki discussion of this, but it would seem to be an alternative way of achieving the desires of most parties here.
If anyone wishes to challenge this closure, you have my explicit permission to take it directly to DRV rather than inundating my talk page (although I hope that the drama would not be necessary). Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This thing is like a vampire that just keeps twisting ever so slightly so that the stake missed his heart. Now then, the result of the last discussion was delete. Not preserve for posterity, not delete but deprecate, or to keep a template talk page alive for discussion about something that does not exist. This should have been an obvious G4 speedy but I see in the history it was removed by an ARS member, who along with others opposed a simple "this no longer exists" message and repeatedly restored the old Rescue template's life preserver message. This could have been dealt with quietly, but it seems the only way to deal with this problem is through public discussion. Unless there's an admin that wants to accept a G4 now and close this early. Tarc (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As I understand it, the template was restored so that it would show up nicely when editors are viewing old revisions of articles to which the template was applied. There is no precedent for restoring deleted maintenance templates to avoid redlinks when looking at old revisions. I think everyone at the last TfD fully understood the ramifications of deleting the template, including that Template:Rescue would show up on a vanishingly small percentage of old revisions (when you consider that there are currently 1,225,758,906 revisions on Wikipedia, and this template would have only existed for less than a week on each of the couple thousand articles to which it was applied, it is clear that the deletion of this template affects an infinitesimally small number of old revisions). Therefore, if the consensus has been determined to delete it, it should remain deleted. No prejudice against restoring the corresponding Template Talk page and its archives, as there is a long discussion history there which some may legitimately want to preserve, but this should only be allowed if the corresponding template page is non-existent. —SW— ^verbalize 14:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The
ARS still exists, is still working upon articles at AFD and contributing to AFD discussions. Nothing significant has changed about its functioning and a recent attempt to disrupt its actual list of work-in-progress was peremptorily dismissed. The tinkering with this template is therefore in the nature of a procedural tweak rather than being a fundamental finding about the propriety of this project. As the template is a bit of procedural machinery rather than the project itself, it and its history should be left visible so that the members of the project are able to understand what's happening and contribute to further refinement of the process. Warden (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: This TfD arises out of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Template:Rescue.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Scottywong. There is no precedent for unilaterally restoring things deleted through community consensus so that old revisions don't look ugly. If the community wished the template to be kept and marked historical, it could have voted for that. It chose not to, and instead supported a straight delete, so it's unclear to me why the restoration of the template now, in defiance of that community consensus, is even being discussed rather than just undone. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt this is a CLEAR speedy deletion. The community not only spoke once but twice that this should be deleted. If you want this back, take it to deletion review again. I am not thrilled thatan admin summary undeleted this less than a month after a community discussion that resulted in a delete consensus. --Guerillero | My Talk 15:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Guerillero; this template is not special or essential for historical purposes. MBisanz ^talk 15:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close, restore consensus and salt Consensus, as was already firmly established by the previous discussions, is that this template be deleted. It never should have been restored without a discussion first as with any action with such an obvious potential for controversy. This is now the fourth discussion about this when we already made a firm decision in the first discussion and nothing has happened in the meantime that justifies overturning the community's expressed desire that this be deleted.
talk) 18:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

The numerous nominations, reviews and discussions demonstrate a complete lack of firm consensus. And "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". Warden (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are probably more familiar with the template's history than I am, do you happen to know if there were any other discussions related to the template other than the TFDs linked here? (I've also just discovered that the talk page archives have yet to be restored.) --Tothwolf (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warden, the "numerous nominations, reviews and discussions" demonstrate that some ARS members simply cannot drop the stick and let go. Nothing more. Tarc (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leave as historical as currently handled by {{
battleground mentality held by the TFD nominator and a small minority of the AN discussion participants is harmful to Wikipedia.
As discussed on AN, {{Deleted template}} does not allow {{Rescue}} to be used on any new page transclusions (try it out in the Sandbox). While I think a small number of people have been blowing a lot of things out of proportion, the very idea some have put forth that "ARS is going to continue to use {{Rescue}} now that its history and talk page have been restored" is simply absurd.
To recap, the logic code used for {{Deleted template
}} works like this:
New transclusions and edits display the red notice and do not display {{Rescue}}'s original message box. If the page is saved anyway, it is then categorized in the Category:Pages containing deleted templates maintenance category where we can monitor for and remove any transclusions. (This is also far better than editors who didn't know of the TFD being confused as to why they are getting a red link when they attempt to use the template, etc.)

Old page revisions prior to the template's deletion show the original message box of the {{Rescue}} template.

The template page for {{Rescue}} itself shows both the red notice and the original message box.

Despite the shouting and campaigning by a small anti-ARS minority within the Wikipedia community, it is simply impossible for {{
particularly happy with the current situation. ARS doesn't have their template anymore, and the anti-ARS camp isn't happy that the template has had its talk page restored with the template itself wrapped in {{Deleted template}} in order to prevent new transclusions and allow old page revisions to continue to work. If the two camps can't get along, this seems to be a pretty good middle ground and it leaves the talk page and edit histories intact and preserves transparency for the larger Wikipedia community.
While there may have been some issues with how certain people used {{Rescue}}, the prior TFD of {{Rescue}} itself appears to have largely been turned into a cause célèbre by a small anti-ARS minority within the Wikipedia community who have continued to try to use it as a staging ground to further propagandize and attack their perceived enemies within ARS.
After seeing all this fighting, as I mentioned to one person the other day, I think if it were up to me, I'd lock both camps in a small room and force the ARS members to do new page patrol and nominate junk for deletion, while forcing the anti-ARS group to improve articles listed at AfD...with everyone having to share a single netbook. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Take all this ARS-vs-deletionist boogeymen nonsense elsewhere. That is not the point at all.
There was a deletion discussion. It was closed with a result to delete the template, not to mark it deprecated.

That decision was appealed at DRV, and to my recollection the deprecated thing was not mentioned there either, but even if it was that was not the decision reached there either, the decision was to uphold the decision to delete.

This is not about ARS, it is about the fundamental principle that
talk) 19:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Just as on AN you've still not addressed any of the actual points I've made. Instead, you've attempted to attack and/or discredit everything with a small part of my overall comments. While you may be in denial, to the larger Wikipedia community, it is quite clear there is an ongoing and escalating problem between the ARS and anti-ARS camps. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your points are irrelevant to this discussion, though. All we're here to do is discuss why the last deletion discussion is not being honored. Tarc (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize you just contradicted yourself, don't you? --Tothwolf (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one is interested in you rehashing or refighting the prior deletion discussion. No one cares about your pro or anti-ARS twaddle. All we're discussing here is why a template that was deleted isn't actually, y'know, deleted. Nothing contradictory there in attempting to keep you from derailing this discussion. Tarc (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as historical, can no longer be used for "canvassing" with the {{deleted template}} on it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the closing admin of the last TfD didn't give much weight to the "delete because of canvassing" arguments, so I'm not sure I see the application of it here. Deleted means deleted, not "mark historical". Tarc (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ironholds, the admin who closed the TFD, stated on AN: "As the deleting admin, I have no problem keeping it as a deprecated template." [1] --Tothwolf (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not the point. Sarek cited the inability to use it for canvassing as his reason to keep, I pointed out that there was never a major concern with the canvassing argument. Tarc (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's all totally irrelevant. The template was deleted after a thorough community discussion. That finding was upheld at DRV. It never should have been restored without another discussion first. That is the one and only issue here.
talk) 20:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and salt- This template was deleted by community consensus and the DRV upheld deletion by equally clear consensus. Restoring it unilaterally and without discussion was not the right thing to do. The arguments for keeping it around as a memorial seem to boil down to this: that some old revisions of some articles look ugly now, and that having a moribund, nonfunctioning template is some sort of "middle ground" between the ARS and the Evil Scary Deletionist Legion of Doom. Both are pointless and irrelevant arguments. As Scottywong points out, the community understood the consequences of deleting the template in the first TfD, and chose to delete anyway, so that argument was shot down before it was even brought up. As for the middle ground nonsense, let me explain why it's stupid by means of a hypothetical example. Say we have a well-known and prolific, but frequently troublesome, editor. After years of sporadic clashes between his supporters and opponents there's finally a community ban decision and the consensus in the wider community turns out to be an indef ban and block. Would it be acceptable for one of his defenders to get together with the blocking admin, hash out a partial unbanning that allows the banned user to edit a handful of pages every other Tuesday, and present this to the community as a "compromise" solution? After all, the banned editor is unhappy about still being banned and his opponents are unhappy that he's still around to some degree, so this must be a perfect solution right? Of course not. What a load of crap. It's not "us-v-them", it's a wider community discussion involving input from a large number of uninvolved editors. You don't sneak around behind the community's back like that, not in the face of clear consensus. Reyk _YO! 21:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The community has confirmed delete, and there is no need to keep this to beautify some old revisions. The divisive include/delete battles revolve around different understandings of what material is of encyclopedic value, and I suppose this template is another instance of that. However, keeping a deleted template just adds fuel to the fire, and does not help the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Put simply, some peoplewould rather delete articles than rescue them. This is so alien to the basic principles of Wikipedia that any temporary apparent consensus that way should be ignored. We're an encyclopedia , and we're open to editing. Two basic principles which imply that nything that can be rescued should be, and attempts to harass the people who do it are at best misguided. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you would have us ignore consensus, despite the fact that it was already challenged and upheld at a second discussion because you think consensus was wrong in this case? Can I start ignoring consensus when I disagree with it and/or feel it was only temporary, or is this new privelege only granted to "rescuers". Like most users, I don't have a problem with honest attempts to save an arricle from deletion, but that really isn't the point here. The point is that we already established what the community wanted done in several previous discussions, and that consensus was blatantly ignored to recreate it on a very flimsy pretext. That's not ok, and it would be equally not ok if this were some sort of deletionism related template. The underlying philosophy is not the issue, the issue is do we still use consensus to make decisions, or are we abandoning that model in favor of.... whatever wacky logic makes it ok to just ignore it and do whatever we want?
talk) 01:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

(ec)No, sorry. You don't get to declare consensus invalid just because you disagree with it. As for "harassment", you're kidding right? The community determined that the template wasn't being used productively and that there shouldn't be an exception for one wikiproject to stick its template in the mainspace when other wikiprojects can't. I get that this is an unpleasant result for you, but it's not harassment, and calling it that is just more of the same persecution complex the ARS tends to trot out whenever it doesn't get its way. Demanding that deletion should only mean deprecation is yet another instance of the ARS requesting special rules and privileges that only apply to the ARS. Things don't work that way. Finally, I point out that the rescue list is already working better than the template ever did, because the articles in question are actually being discussed- it's no longer a case of slapping on a tag and waiting for keep votes to roll in. It's actually productive and a good idea. Resuscitating the failed template would be a step backwards. Reyk _YO! 01:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reyk, it's not resuscitated. Please read what Tothwolf wrote. Rich Farmbrough, 02:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Please read what I wrote. I know the difference between deleted, deprecated and fully functional and I see no reason to draw a distinction between unilaterally reviving a deleted thing for its original purpose and reviving it for a different one. If the community wanted to deprecate the template rather than delete it, that's what we would have said and done at the first TfD. Reyk _YO! 02:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The normal practice is to delete templates, not to simply mark them deprecated. No reason why this one would be any different. It does not play any crucial role in the history of any Wikipedia articles. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Why wasn't this speedied? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are discussions of that above, but actually, its all part of our new ARS plan. We keep creating ANI and rescue template related discussions (look at the TFD discussions for today, 90% of the content is on this one discussion), which diverts all your attention from our vapid keep votes on articles with absolutely no references, hoaxes, copyright violations, horrific BLP attack pages, and the like. We also create articles on semi-pro U18 Croatian footballers. When we really want to get someone upset, we'll trot Okip back out with particularly insane rants about the evil deletionists.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was skimming Potential biographies of living people (3) (configuration) and Potential biographies of living people (4) (configuration) and a few other reports yesterday. Your comment about the Croatian footballers would be more amusing if it weren't so spot-on. Good riddance to this template and, one day God willing, good riddance to those awful stubs. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Neither most of the deleters not most of the keepers seem to realize this is irrelevant to ARS vs deletionists. The template is only doing (part of) what a proper history system would do, enabling us to see historical pages more accurately, as they were, rather than with palimpsests. Really guys and gals, please understand this template cannot be used to tag articles for rescue so most of the delete and keep !votes are based on completely invalid premises. Rich Farmbrough, 02:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I think everyone's clear on this and it Simply. Does. Not. Matter. Reyk _YO! 02:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there is an issue with the way Mediawiki software deals with deleted templates in old revisions, then the solution is to fix Mediawiki software, not take it upon ourselves to cherry pick beloved templates and restore them against consensus. Wikipedia has survived for over a decade with deleted templates displayed as redlinks in old revisions, I don't see any urgency to change the way things work now. —SW— ^soliloquize 04:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my fuckin' God: We had a long discussion about whether the template should have been kept last month. It was deleted. The deletion was reviewed and strongly endorsed. Now we're back at TfD again? Really?
89≈≈≈≈ 02:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
The point is that it is effectively deleted and salted. It can't be used to tag articles, and it is protected. Why people want to break something just so they can do a little dance and sing "We deleted rescue, We deleted rescue" is beyond me. Rich Farmbrough, 02:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Why is it that the only people making this personal are the ones who want the template restored? Reyk _YO! 02:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rich sums up pretty well some of what I was trying to point out above. I myself hadn't even considered that {{
drive them away from Wikipedia that they will somehow feel better about themselves. Unfortunately, they won't and instead will continue to do the same things to others until they eventually realize it won't make them feel any better. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
The only divisiveness and personal attacks are coming from the likes of you, really. Not a single one of the tiny handful of "keeps" has articulated an actual reason to keep what was already delete at a prior discussion. The keep votes either attempt to rehash the original template debate, spin a variation of
WP:NOHARM, or attempt to denigrate those who simply wish to see consensus honored. Tarc (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm sorry you feel that way. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, in the first discussion, I voted delete because the template was being misused. This time, I voted delete because it should've been gone after the first TfD and subsequent DRV
89≈≈≈≈ 16:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

I also second Resolute's call below to block editors who continue to engage in this tomfoolery
89≈≈≈≈ 17:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, again This is drama for the sake of drama. We do not need to maintain the history of articles in this manner. Alarbus (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and
Mtking ^(edits) 04:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

This discussion is already being had at [2] where its still open and ongoing. Why not finish it there, instead of waiting a few days, and starting it all over again here? Dream Focus 07:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt, there is no reason to keep it for old revisions, since it doesn't add anything of value to the article. this is not an infobox or a sidebar or something like that. Frietjes (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, salt and start blocking editors who continue to waste the community's time with this nonsense. Reso lute 16:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt solely because prior results clearly indicated this should have been deleted. This is being repeatedly recreated against the wishes of the community at large, and for that reason solely, it needs to go and be salted. --Jayron32 17:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, salt, grill to medium rare, add pepper to taste, and then nuke from orbit. I actually think that deleted templates should categorically be preserved like this (unless they were vandalism/blp violations or something) but since that is not currently common practice, this is not an appropriate template to try it out on. I would welcome an rfc/other proposal suggesting we take this approach categorically to preserve old page revisions, but the attempt to preserve this template has generated way more heat than light and preservation should be first implemented somewhere less controversial.
talk) 17:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Snowball delete, salt and vinegar potato chips per above. Everyone's calling for deletion and salting, so let's pile on and get this out of the way early. Ten Pound Hammer • ⁽What did I screw up now?) 19:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, salt & nuke Bulwersator (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, salt, pepper, and chargrill. Template holds no meaningful purpose in article histories. It's not like it's an infobox template that is needed to preserve the format of the page. Als, start blocking editors who draw faction lines over these issues as
disruptive editing.--v/r - T P 21:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep perhaps with indefinite full protection to prevent shenanigans on the page. The admin who closed the TfD about the tag recreated the page so it could be used for documentation and I see nothing wrong with preserving it for such a purpose. As it was a matter of great controversy allowing people to be informed about it makes sense to me. This was deleted based on it being used and so its recreation solely for documenting the subject of controversy, while denying it the ability to be used, seems reasonable. It is not like it is a copy-vio, BLP violation, vandalism, or any other obvious case where erasing it from history is best. Honestly people, there has been enough drama. No need to create cause for more drama based on
something as trivial as this.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The Devil's Advocate makes a good case. Dream Focus 22:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, salt, pepper, drive a stake through the heart of this zombie, burn it, nuke it, and threaten it with something really nasty it ever resurfaces. The community made a decision to delete this thing. That decision was upheld at DRV by a numerical majority of about 8:1, and
WP:ARS has adopted a new way of working. Time for everyone to move on.
Right or wrong, its deletion is a done deal, and its return in this zombie state is no more welcome than any other zombie; it is just reopening a dispute which generates huge amount of heat. As other editors have noted, this template is not integral to the history of an article in the way that infobox is, so there is no practical benefit to retaining it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Why are we asking again? Bored now. Begoon ^talk 03:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, consensus was already clearly in favor of deletion, not "delete and recreate for historical purposes". Kcowolf (talk) 05:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. There has been overwhelming consensus to delete and no good reason has been presented as to why this deleted template should be treated differently from any other.
talk) 08:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and salt. I don't see why {{
db-repost}} doesn't apply, but the reason the template was deleted is that it served no purpose consistent with Wikipedia policies. I don't see why it serves a purpose in archives. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: Because I only know how to vote keep in every AfD TfD etc evah. Its nice that non-ARS members are keeping the drama going (including being responsible for the template being resurrected for historical purposes only), however, whilst I create articles on pokemon ice cream fan clubs.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rule 34.5: If it exists, there are Pokemon fans of it ; [3]. Tarc (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell if your keep vote is sarcastic or genuine, Milo
89≈≈≈≈ 15:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Knowing Milowent, probably a little bit of both?
On a more serious note however, I for one am glad that these discussions are decided on the strength of their arguments and not simply on head counts. The vast majority of the later !votes don't appear to have read others' comments earlier in the discussion and don't even address any of the issues or points others have made. In the larger sense, I still find it amazing one person can take something so minor such as the use of {{
FUD and drama feeding yet more FUD and drama. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm sure the later voters read them, they just see those comments as irrelevant. I realize your only shot in this is to widen the debate to discussing the merits of the template itself, but we already discussed the template last week. The only reason I filed this is because a call for a quite justifiable speedy delete was reverted and it wasn't worth it to fight on that front. So we come here to get a firm assessment that last week's TfD meant delete, not some useless Kilroy was here remembrance. Tarc (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Unless you happen to have a personal time warp device of some sort, January 13 was not last week.
We weren't discussing the merits of {{Rescue}} on AN before you filed this TFD. We were discussing how {{Deleted template}} functions and how it helps solve a number of deletion-related problems (which as others have discussed, are not unique to this template). Heck, the template which was used to "salt" {{Rescue}} is named {{Deleted template}}. It doesn't get much more clear than that.
As far as speedy deletion goes, I can see from the edit history after Ironholds (the deleting admin) added {{Deleted template}} [4] and after another editor attempted to correct the arguments, [5] another well meaning editor thought the template page was blank and tagged it for speedy deletion on Feb 7th [6] and then self reverted. [7]
It then remained drama free until February 11th when someone who had been involved in the Jan 13th TFD again added a speedy deletion template [8] and then initiated an AN thread. This was followed by a small number of editors, including yourself, edit warring [9] [10] (while using the wrong parameters for {{Deleted template}}) and repeatedly applying speedy deletion templates. [11] [12] [13]
...Never mind the fact that template [still] couldn't be used, because as Rich Farmbrough pointed out, it was/is already salted by the use of {{Deleted template}}.
For those who've not already done so, I suggest trying to transclude {{Rescue}} in the Sandbox. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A week, a month, whatever, don't be pedantic. And I only edited the template once before tagging for deletion, one edit isn't "edit-warring"; I'd appreciate not being lied about. All we're here to discuss is why Template:Rescue is not a redlink, I have no interest in responding to diatribes that go beyond that. Tarc (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantic? If you are willing to give misleading statements such as "we already discussed the template last week" then logic would indicate that we can't take any of your statements at face value.
Thank you. You finally explained your true motive -- you want this template to be a red-link at any cost, even if you have to disrupt the larger Wikipedia community in order to reach that goal. You don't actually care if {{Deleted template}} takes care of the issues we had with {{Rescue}} (while also dealing with the other issues noted above), you only care if this template is a red-link or not. With that finally out in the open, I've got other tasks to take care of, so if anyone needs to contact me, please use my talk page or send me a short note via email. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My god, you're as bad at the notorious A Nobody ever was, and that's saying something. We already had a TfD that resulted in a delete. We already had a DRV that resoundingly endorsed that deletion. The only reason were here now is because of a jack move by Farmbrough, and subsequent edit warring of a speedy delete tag. My "true motivation" is ensuring that a consensus to delete is upheld, not circumvented. Tarc (talk) 06:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Community consensus was clear at the previous TFD. Community consensus was clear at the DRV. So why on earth are we back here again? This should never have been recreated; when it was, it should have been quickly disposed of as a {{db-g4}}. Given the utter disregard for community consensus from some quarters, it should also be salted. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as {{
db-repost}}. It seems that this is only the second deleted template to receive this treatment, and no argument has been advanced for singling it out in this way. Kanguole 10:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually, had the recent TfD for {{Cleanup}} been closed differently, it too would most likely be using {{Deleted template}} now. What some editors might not be aware of, is Ten Pound Hammer was initially somewhat against the use of {{Deleted template}} for {{Expand}}, however after it worked out very well in practice, he seemed to change his mind. While noting Ten Pound Hammer's attempt at humor in his !vote above (I'm partial to BBQ flavor myself), in the {{Cleanup}} TfD nomination Ten Pound Hammer wrote: "[...] so I suggest that it be deprecated much like {{expand}} was — this will prevent further (mis)use but keep it around for the purpose of article histories." (diff) --Tothwolf (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My comment wasn't based on a reading of TPH's views. Kanguole 13:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per the consensus of the previous TFD which was upheld at DRV. There is no need to keep a historical version of the template and if there was then the case for that should have been made at the last TFD. There is no general practice of recreating historical templates like this, and the only one which has been recreated is Template:Expand (which saw much wider use than this template). About the only use of recreating it is to perpetuate drama and conflict. Hut 8.5 17:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The decision to eliminate use of this template was wrong. The attempt to obliterate all historic use of this template is an attempt to make this wrong decision ironclad. Carrite (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't the decision be ironclad? Large majorities at both TfD and DRV (and again here) support it
89≈≈≈≈ 17:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
There was not a large majority at TfD - there was just a supervote from an admin who had failed RfA six times due to his hotheaded and intemperate deletionism. It is hard to imagine anything less likely to foster consensus and collaboration and that is why the matter continues to rumble on. Warden (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, your "side" lost twice and now you are stooping to making it personal? Disgraceful.
talk) 17:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree with Beeblerox. Your refusal to accept that this happened and your subsequent attacking of a widely-respected admin are deplorable
89≈≈≈≈ 19:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Colonel, I don't feel it is fair to make such statements with regards to Ironholds, who was the deleting admin. I can testify from my experience working with Ironholds on a number of tasks over the years that he is genuinely trying to work towards improving Wikipedia. Ironholds, not Rich Farmbrough as a few have ranted about above, installed {{Deleted template}} [14] when I asked him about doing this on his talk page. Where Rich Farmbrough came into this is Ironholds was unfamiliar with Deleted template's parameters and usage, and with his blessing, I asked Rich Farmbrough if he could work on it. (I previously mentioned this on AN when the ARS detractors came out with torches and pitchforks at the ready for Rich Farmbrough and Ironholds.) --Tothwolf (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt There was no consensus at either the DRV or previous TFD for this template to exist. It should never have been recreated and it reflects poorly on the admin who restored it. -DJSasso (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's noted as deprecated, and is marked within deleted template. Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 00:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how mentioning its current state is an argument to ignore the previous consensus which was determined through not one but two prolonged discussions.
talk) 00:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Leave as historical as currently handled by {{Deleted template}} per Tothwolf's persuasive argument. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This should be kept, this new historical template is technically useful. The delete and salt comments make no sense except as partisan viewpoints without a policy basis. There is no relationship between the arguments advanced at the previous TfD and those that are relevant here. There is a ton of talk page history that I should be able to reference, just like the admins will be able to do if this is deleted. Unscintillating (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the discussion that shows the community consensus that deleted templates should be kept in this way ? I have looked and cant find it, talk page archives can be moved to the ARS if that is the issue. The bottom line is that there is no policy based reason or demonstrated community consensus to keep this template for page history reasons.
Mtking ^(edits) 04:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Were this the same template, your !vote at the previous TfD would be relevant, here is what you said:

“ Delete there is no need for a project to ever put it's own template on an article page, it is also the only template (that I know of) whose instructions proscribe how it is to be removed. Mtking (edits) 04:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC) ”

QED, your delete and salt comment in the current TfD is a partisan viewpoint without a policy basis. Unscintillating (talk) 06:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or to put it another way, all the current keep !votes are a partisan viewpoint without a policy basis.
Mtking ^(edits) 01:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Every delete is based one one simple premise; uphold the most recent TfD and the DRV affirmation. The recreation of this thing as a "historical template" or whatever is what was against policy, and most calls to keep fail to advance an actual argument, but rather...like you...simply attack other editors. If the ARS really wishes to preserve the talk page history, then I see no problem with copying that to a sub-section of the ARS project space. A call to keep just to preserve the talk page archives would therefore be unnecessary. Tarc (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since the keep !votes agree with "uphold[ing] the most recent TfD and the DRV", you've just argued a truism. The delete and salt !votes are saying something a bit different, that we are having the same discussion that we did at the previous TfD, so we need to salt the recreation of this template so that this discussion won't happen a third time. Evidence to the contrary: at the previous TfD, the word "canvas" appears 139 times, here six times (or seven after this comment). Unscintillating (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's one way to put it. The canvassing claims in the first TfD were also that ARS was "canvassing with the template" which are not the arguments now (probably because the template can no longer be transcluded in new edits?) The current claims have largely been that the template is "useless", a "memorial", etc. none of which make much sense.
What I witnessed with regards to the AN discussion just prior this TfD appeared to be more along the lines of
campaigning with the intent of "rallying the troops" to votestack a new TfD so it might have a higher likelihood of leaning towards deletion. As someone who is neither an ARS member or ARS detractor, I don't see how this is any better than how the ARS detractors have been claiming that ARS has been canvassing at AfD... --Tothwolf (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree. This is really just a review of the DRV, and a (strong) majority of people are endorsing it. They are fed up with all the drama surrounding it as well, hence the requests for salt
89≈≈≈≈ 14:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Ironic quote of the day: "The delete and salt comments make no sense except as partisan viewpoints without a policy basis." —SW— ^gossip 17:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per clear community consensus among those actually interested in building an encyclopedia and block User:Tarc for this disruptive nomination as well as long history of useless editing. Really, is there ANYTHING Tarc actually contributes to Wikipedia aside from childishly calling people names, swearing, starting pointy threads such a this, etc.? Too bad at the next Wikimania, he cannot volunteer to be the spankee in the annual spanking booth to redeem himself from years of vandalizing this project while engaging in meat puppetry. And yeah, everyone who also reads and emails with the Wikipedia Review crowd know exactly what I am talking about. This, like every Tarc spawned discussion is little more than the Tarc/Wikipedia Review Canvassing Squad trying to delete as much of Wikipedia as they can just to play heads games in the same manner that goof running Iran is trying to pull a fast one on the world community. Well, who's the fool in the end? TELL ME!!! And not just because I just ate a yellow fruit-like thing! I wonder how many articles could have been improved in all the time wasted with these idiotic discussions about a harmless template used in good faith by actual contributors to this project? --WR Reader (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note WR Reader has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of A Pocket Full of Sunshine [15]. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Tarc deleted the above comment as trolling. I reverted. I am not going to defend further if everyone is against me, I don't have time for this discussion anyway. The comment may be "trolling" but I think it intends to make a point regardless of the hyperbole.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is a "vote" in the sense that there is a magic word "keep" in the beginning, sure, but the rest is just a pity party being thrown by one of your ex-ARS comrades. A Nobody is my guess. So if you wanna attach your name to that...since restoring a trolling attack screed is a de facto endorsement of the message...then knock yourself out. Tarc (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
tarc, you know how to dish it out, i hardly think you can't take WR Readers comments.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we still bickering about this? In a few hours, the discussion will be closed; almost certainly as delete and hopefully as SALT as well. Tarc, while I admit that the dude's comments were abominable and a blatant personal attack, you yourself removing them might not have been the best course of action.
89≈≈≈≈ 17:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Disregarding Milo's dodging of the actual point and getting to the "you shouldn't have been the one to do it" argument, I disagree. This "new user" (derp derp) isn't really voting, he's just taking a swipe. By removing it I made a statement that it was over the line. Milo reverting it says he agrees wit the message. It isn't something even remotely worth editwarring over though, which is why I didn't. My objection to the words left by a likely ex-ARS sock puppet is duly noted, and that's what matters. Tarc (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a close based on consensus per strength of arguments would be a clear keep, maybe no consensus. The mostly canvassed calls to delete are pretty weak in this case, basically I don't like or know about it type of thing McBobs. --WR Reader (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's inaccurate, and saying they were canvassed is completely inaccurate. The reason they might appear weak is because people didn't feel the need to expound on them for a third time. Now stop this disruptive tomfoolery before somebody hauls you off to ANI, AIV, WQA or whatnot
89≈≈≈≈ 20:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep it is effectively deleted and unusable as its original purpose, and what is there now makes it clear for historical uses. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have already established that the "historical uses" are a furphy. If the ARS want to keep the talk page archives they can copy them to their project space; the past page revisions issue is a non-issue because it affects so few pages, and in an irrelevant way; and the entire restoration of the template was just an end-run around community consensus by a user who, if you'll read their comments regarding this issue, has serious problems assuming good faith of those who wanted the template deleted. If the community wanted it merely deactivated rather than deleted, we would have said that at the first TfD, the DRV, and the ANI discussion. All those discussions showed a major consensus to remove the template, not retain it as a memorial, and I do not think it's appropriate for one or two editors to get together and sneak it back under false pretenses. Reyk _YO! 21:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal of copying talk page archives to project space and the "memorial" comment are nothing more than a red herring. This has already been discussed on AN and I wrote there:
"How would we deal with existing incoming links and pointers to the original location though? How are editors in the future who wonder "What the heck was this {{rescue}} template and why was it deleted?" going to know that the talk page archives can be found in a different location in project space? This could be solved with a soft redirect of course, but that too would end up deleted under CSD G8 due to the use of automated tools and would defeat the stated purpose for maintaining the talk page archives in project space anyway.
It seems the most logical and straightforward thing to do is simply leave the archives in their original location and use {{deleted template}}. If not for the apparent vendetta some people seem to have for certain ARS members, this would most certainly be a non-issue. Even with {{expand}} we never had this much drama, and the TfD for {{expand}} was pretty darn contentious." [16] --Tothwolf (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and while I'm not sure if your personal attack/swipe was directed at myself, Ironholds, Rich Farmbrough, or all of us, despite your comment, there never has been an "entire restoration of the template". --Tothwolf (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. This whole time you've done nothing but accuse everyone of wanting to delete the template just because they have a grudge against the ARS. You've done nothing but assume bad faith, and throw out baseless speculations about peoples' motives. Never mind that these discussions have been well-attended by people with no "side" in this debate, and the consensus has been clear as day. Never mind that the vast majority of personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith have come from the people wanting the template restored, and that you're one of the major culprits. No, it's all a giant conspiracy by the evil nasty deletionists. As for people wanting to know what the rescue template was, they can click the redlink, which links to the deletion discussion. And their answers will be there. Red herring indeed. Reyk _YO! 22:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If not for the verifiable history of personal conflicts certain people have with certain ARS members, no one would have anything to be concerned about. I suppose now you will argue that Ironholds, the deleting admin, never said "As the deleting admin, I have no problem keeping it as a deprecated template." [17] during the AN discussion after certain people had torches and pitchforks at the ready (and in some cases calling for desysoping)... --Tothwolf (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again more unfounded allegations. It never stops with you, does it? Reyk _YO! 22:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Islam-start

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete after replacing with {{Islam|expanded=all}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Islam-start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It's a copy of an already existing template
talk 02:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. This template was created after consensus was reached that an expanded design of {{Islam}} is more informative at article Islam (where there is enough room for a long/expanded template). See Template talk:Islam. Also, it is not a copy of any other template, rather the current design of {{Islam}} is a shortned copy of this template and used where there is no room for the longer one. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 05:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the same reason. — cocomonkilla | talk | contrib 16:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - use a parameter to control collapsibility. Otherwise you will have to keep the two in step (not that there will probably be many changes). Rich Farmbrough, 02:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Merge. I agree that merging the two is better than maintaining two separate templates for essentially the same purpose. As above, one template can have both an expanded and a collapsed version, to fit the article's needs. Knight of Truth (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. per nom
talk 12:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:2012 Bangladesh Premier League schedule

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2012 Bangladesh Premier League schedule (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Contains content that should be in an article instead of a template.
SocietyBox (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom - content should be included at 2012 Bangladesh Premier League, not in a template. Giant Snowman 14:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:2011–12 ABL finals bracket

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete after substitution Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2011–12 ABL finals bracket (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The 2011–12 Australian Baseball League season season has ended, and thus this template is no longer needed. It can be deleted after the template is subst-ed in the 2 articles on which it is used. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 01:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete per nom. TimBentley (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Upcoming television series

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 12:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Upcoming television series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

If an article is about a notable subject, then such a template is not needed. Template is basically an excuse to keep non-notable and/or unreferenced/poorly referenced articles afloat. Logical Fuzz (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Against the spirit of
WP:RS. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I like the idea of it but I agree. JayJay^{Talk to me} 02:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It was decided in 2009 that all 'Future X' and 'Upcoming Y' templates would be deleted. If a 'future' topic is currently notable – i.e., it has already received coverage in reliable sources – then the article may be created with the sources. If the sources do not exist yet, then the article should not be created until they do. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This template essentially is a variant of Template:Future television, which was deleted as a result of the 2009 discussion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 08:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete apologia template. Rich Farmbrough, 02:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Template seems to be exclusively for the use of speculative TV series/episode articles, which are heavily discouraged. Get the sources then write the article. chatter) 10:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per precedent that "future" template should not be used. Ten Pound Hammer • ⁽What did I screw up now?) 19:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails
WP:CRYSTAL. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:''Suamico''-class oilers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:''Suamico''-class oilers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per conversation at WT:SHIPS this template is inaccurate as to an Escambia subclass. All three types of ships listed on this template have templates of their own as they're not related as a group. Brad (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_16&oldid=1142534616"