Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 June 30



Template:Infobox High Priest of Ptah in Memphis

 * 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 merge and rename. JPG-GR (talk) 07:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)



These are all very minor variants of infobox viceroy of kush which differ solely in the name line. They should be merged to a single template which can have an option to select the required name, which can be moved to a neutral template title. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and rename per nom. jonkerz♠ 23:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge and rename per nom. I made a very small start on this by adding the style as an optional parameter to, but then realised that was probably abuse of process while it's listed here at TFD, so have gone no farther. Si Trew (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 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:GodsWife

 * 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 per T3 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hard-coded, low-usage succession box. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 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:ARSnote

 * 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 keep with no prejudice toward any future discussion re: redirection. Additionally, it should be noted that this close is in no way an endorsement for the ARS. JPG-GR (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)



Oh, I know this is going to be a mess, but I question what this notification actually gains to the project. This isn't a part of Category:AfD debates so it's not related to deletion sorting. The people looking from Category:Articles tagged for deletion and rescue will see the article first and then the AFD. I mean, it's possible for people to be in the AFD only and suddenly be curious about a change to the article but I don't see what that gains but if people are making decisions on AFD solely on this notification (either for or against) without looking at the article, that's not helpful. I see it's listed at Template:Afd see also documentation. However, unlike Template:Spa, Template:Page creator or Template:Dupevote, this isn't individual specific. At the same time, the only purpose I can see if it's like Template:Not a ballot (a general warning to new eyes on the AFD) but I think that assumes something about the rescue tag that I'm not sure about. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've always thought that it was intended to be an analogue to delsort, but you're right that this doesn't really make sense. Struggling to come up with a real rationale for this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Where an article's flagged for rescue and the ARS may become involved, that's relevant information that AfD participants have a legitimate need to be aware of. The template achieves that.  What alternative does the nominator propose?— S Marshall  T/C 11:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What legitimate need might that be? I have seen it get thrown on articles that aren't remotely keep worthy. Seems to me its usually being used as a way to canvass indirectly. -DJSasso (talk) 11:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ... and while I wouldn't personally accuse the ARS of any form of deliberate canvassing, the fact that it may have that effect is exactly why debate participants (and closers!) need to be aware of ARS involvement.— S Marshall T/C 12:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I didn't mean they were deliberately doing it. Thats why I said indirect. Just to make it clear. -DJSasso (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What type of canvass? Are there people looking over the AFD log for this notice who aren't looking at Category:Articles tagged for deletion and rescue and deciding to vote?  If so, what's the point of the category?  As to where the rescue tag is being used (legitimate or not), that's the ARS's problem to deal with.  If a rescue tag is placed on the article, then this in theory should be added to the AFD page.  The question is, does adding this to the AFD page add anything? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. In my view, this is good for transparency. It helps AfD participants to know that an article has been tagged and when in the course of the AfD debate it was tagged. Participants can then judge the extent to which an article was actually improved after the tag was added. And if an article has been improved substantially, a closing admin can weigh !votes made before the tag accordingly. I think it is neutral in effect and if anything helps scrutinise the ARS's activities. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I much prefer afdchanged--it is informative, focus on actual changes to the article, is much more clearly designed to be chronological, and is not specifically tied to any group. In the past, this template has been used by at least one editor in a matter that appeared to be designed to impeach the credibility of keep !votes, rather than highlight any changes or lack of changes to the article itself. Jclemens (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mkativerata's arguments. This is about transparency and giving AfD participants information about when it was tagged. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that I just modified the template a couple of hours ago to autosign. At the time this discussion was initiated, it did not do that.  If it's going to be kept, I strongly suggest my modification stays, to make it clear that this is not just saying that something happened, but when it happened. Jclemens (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mkativerata. Just like deletion sorting, it informs debate participants where other projects and groups have been notified about the debate.  I think its more for non-ARS members and general deletionists' benefit than anyone else, but I have no problem with it.--Milowent (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- I fail to see how it improves the encyclopedia. Its main purpose seems to be political, either for the ARS to indirectly say "We declare this article to be worthy and undeletable" or for opponents of the ARS to say, "Oh look, the Keep Vote Canvass Squadron have been canvassing again". Reyk  YO!  02:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * keep transparency is important... the reason we say "this page has been listed at where ever" is because people need to know where the !votes are coming from.. if anything the template should be used more often so people can track the discusion...Arskwad (talk) 04:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for above. Transparency in knowing who is aware of discussions which require consensus is paramount. -- Cycl o pia talk  20:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep but change, as one need not be a member of the ARS to so tag an article, this making the tag just a tad misleading. I suggest "Note:  The article under discussion here has been flagged for Rescue. ~ ~ " to show that it may have been tagged, but does not assert by just whom.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with that change - also, it makes it less likely the template will be used perjoratively. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And in addressing a comment far above, if "thrown on" unworthy articles, that becomes a matter for discussion with whomever "threw" it on and why. I do not see it as reasonable to throw out a hammer or saw or axe simply because the otherwise useful tool might be mis-used.  As for me, it has proven of great value in helping to guide me to articles where improvemnents benefit the project.  Might I have found some of these without the tag?  Maybe. But maybe not.  And since the actually flagging is the responsibility of an individual and not a project... my own acknowledgement toward this responsibility is that I myself never tag an article for rescue until I have myself performed some cleanup and sourcing and may need commiunity assistance in further improvements.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the edit as well. Non-ARS members will often tag things, and sometimes these are articles that cannot be rescued, but were tagged in good faith.--Milowent (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this change. You are interpreting the wording incorrectly.  The template is not a notice that an ARS member has tagged the article for rescue, it's a notice that the article has been tagged in the hopes than an ARS member will rescue it.  In that case, you might be thinking to yourself that anyone can rescue an article too, it doesn't necessarily have to be an ARS member, in which case I wholeheartedly agree with you and then we come back to the question of why the ARS exists in the first place.    Snotty Wong   confer 05:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Template:Afdrescue: it has better wording and is recommended by WP:Article Rescue Squadron. I would prefer if User:Flatscan/rescueTag.js was used to place the note automatically. Flatscan (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's useful to know that the Rescue template has been added, and I don't think this template necessarily implies anything about the motivation of the person who added it. I prefer it to the alternate Afdrescue mentioned above (and judging by the number of transclusions, so do most people). Perhaps that template should be redirected to this one? Robofish (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that exactly one template should remain. Both the addition of a signature by Jclemens and the proposed removal of "by the Article Rescue Squadron" by MichaelQSchmidt bring closer to  . You're probably correct that ARSnote has been used more – I think due to its link in  – but the counts are under-reported when the templates are subst'd. I prefer Afdrescue and its rescue link pointing to WP:Article Rescue Squadron instead of Template:Rescue. Flatscan (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I use this template all the time. It is useful to notify the closing admin that the ARS have been involved in this AfD.  This is important for two reasons:  firstly, it informs the closing admin that the article might have significantly changed during the course of the AfD.  Secondly, it informs the closing admin that the AfD was announced on the ARS project page, and therefore may have been influenced by the implicit canvassing that such an announcement involves.  Additionally, this template is better than all of the alternatives.  Afdchanged doesn't even mention ARS, and therefore it only performs half of the above-mentioned functions.  Afdrescue is essentially the same notice, but much shorter, smaller, and with a lot less information included (and a lot more likely to be missed by someone perusing the page).  ARSnote has a link both to the ARS project page and to the rescue template.    Snotty Wong   confess 05:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - In the future, when nominating templates to be deleted, it is a good idea to use tags around the tfd template so that the TfD notice doesn't get included when people are legitimately trying to use the template. From TFD: "If placed directly into the nominated template, consider using ... around the Tfd notice if it is likely to be disruptive to articles that transclude that template."  I have added the noinclude tags to this template.    Snotty Wong   verbalize 05:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 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 GCC Governorate

 * 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. JPG-GR (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)



Redundant to Infobox governorate, and was only being used on about 10 pages, so I replaced it with the standard. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant per nom. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 12:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.