Template talk:Article Rescue Squadron invite

Proposed change
Cut and pasted from my talk page, please notice the newest template suggestion:
 * I've used your version and created Template:Article Rescue Squadron invite so we have an "official" template. If you want to include comments regarding inclusion and per someone's user page perhaps that could be bonus comments instead? -- Banj e  b oi   16:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice job. I had myself booted voluntarily for two weeks, so I can't make any improvements. The inclusion idea in the template was a bad attempt at comprimise.


 * this is my latest version:


 * {| cellpadding=5 style="border: thin solid red; background-color: white"


 * Barnstar search rescue.png
 * valign=top|Hello, Article Rescue Squadron. You may be interested in participating in the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue members are focused on rescuing articles in jeopardy of deletion.  If this interests you, you may seek more information on the Project Page. You can join >> here <<. ~
 * }
 * }


 * This is yours (thanks for taking the initiative on creating this)


 * {| cellpadding=5 style="border: thin solid red; background-color: white"


 * Barnstar search rescue.png
 * Barnstar search rescue.png


 * valign=top| You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion when they can be improved through regular editing. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join and help rescue articles tagged for deletion and rescue. ~
 * }


 * Newer version:


 * {| cellpadding=5 style="border: thin solid red; background-color: white"


 * Barnstar search rescue.png
 * Barnstar search rescue.png


 * valign=top valign=center|Hello, you have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, where members are focused on rescuing articles in jeopardy of deletion by improving the article. For more information, please visit the project page, where you can join >> here << and help rescue articles tagged for deletion and rescue. ~
 * }


 * What do you think about the last one?


 * Ikip (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes to adding the name parameter, I wasn't able to get it to work. Yes to the >>join here<< function. I'd rather keep the rest very neutral as this project has a history of being accused of inclusionism which we should work to avoid. Part of that is all our project templates and content need to avoid emotional appeals and remain as neutral as possible. I'm using the new welcome template which I'll post below. Sorry I didn't see this discussion sooner. -- Banj e  b oi   17:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I got blocked voluntarily because so many editors were worried about me. So no problem about not seeing this earlier. Here is a newer version:
 * {| cellpadding=5 style="border: thin solid red; background-color: white"


 * Barnstar search rescue.png
 * Barnstar search rescue.png


 * valign=top valign=center|Hello, you have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, where members rescue articles from deletion by improving the article. For more information, please visit the project page, where you can join >> here << and help rescue articles tagged for deletion and rescue. ~
 * }


 * The sentence a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion when they can be improved through regular editing. needed a slight rewrite.
 * I want to use an approved template, so that accuations of canvassing by editors who delete are nulfied even further. Ikip (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not bothered by the allegation if the wording is still neutral. "rescue articles from deletion when they can be improved through regular editing" is the key phrase as it is AfD policy whereas "rescue articles from deletion by improving the article" implies that all tagged ones are rescuable and the only way we rescue is by improving them. Neither of those is true, often we rescue articles simply by pointing to notability and sourcing on the AfD. -- Banj e  b oi   21:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "rescue articles from deletion when they can be improved through regular editing" needs to be written clearer. I am not sure how at this point. Maybe:
 * "rescue articles from deletion if they could have been improved through regular editing"
 * Ikip (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The wording though conveys an "out" for all involved, we rescue articles when they can be improved through regular editing because we are referring to those articles in process not that someone should have improved them before AfD. -- Banj e  b oi   13:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh?
I can't tell what changes you propose? -- Banj e b oi   01:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * sorry for the confusion, this version:
 * {| cellpadding=5 style="border: thin solid red; background-color: white"


 * Barnstar search rescue.png
 * Barnstar search rescue.png


 * valign=top valign=center|Hello, you have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, where members rescue articles from deletion by improving the article. For more information, please visit the project page, where you can join >> here << and help rescue articles tagged for deletion and rescue. ~
 * }
 * which made the recommended changes. Ikip (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * From: a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion when they can be improved through regular editing.


 * To: - where members rescue articles from deletion by improving the article.


 * This seems to be the major change and I can't see supporting it as such. "Collaborative effort" is pretty standard wikiproject lingo and we certainly do promote collaborating. "When they can be improved through regular editing" is from AfD and is the crux of why we exist. Articles that can be improved through regular editing are not good candidates for AfD, but as we know many articles are AfD'd regardless. Whereas "by improving the article" is, IMHO, misleading. We do often do that but many times we simply point out that a subject is notable and sourcing exists. I'm concerned that this change would be limiting the scope of what we do. -- Banj e  b oi   14:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * From: a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion when they can be improved through regular editing.
 * How about to: rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing
 * The current version, using "when" is a little unclear. Ikip (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * When to if seems fine. If a grammarian finds a reason one is better than the other I'm fine as well. -- Banj e  b oi   03:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I restored: . I am confused why your signature and a date are in the template.
 * You have to use: for it to work.  Ikip (talk) 12:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I just realized that. I'm sooo technically challenged. Maybe we should tack ona note that the template should be subst'd.  -- Banj e  b oi   12:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible inspiration
see: Category_talk:WikiProject_invitation_templates Ikip (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)