Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archives/2018/October
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Deletion review. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
misdirection about what decision is being reviewed
Hey it has always stumped me, when coming to deletion review, to figure out what the heck is the decision that is being reviewed. There needs to be a link provided in obvious salient fashion. Someone points out to me that the "XfD" link, although obscure, might be what I would be looking for, but that is not labelled as being the decision to review, and I am not sure it always is the answer.
What is given, saliently/first is a link to an article, which is definitely not the decision. And by now that link might be a redlink, or it might be a new article, or it might be a redirect, and there might or might not be any clue in its edit history of where is the AFD or whatever. And the XfD link is 9th out of 10 links provided! (E.g. count to 9 within: "John Iadarola" / "John Iadarola" ("talk"|"edit"|"history"|"logs"|"links"|"watch") ("XfD"|"restore"))
This has to be confusing to many editors besides me. --Doncram (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- This is probably about what {{Drv2}} displays. I posted notice at Template talk:Drv2, directing to here.
- For any AFD, I think it would be better drop some of those links and change the order and retitle the item, i.e. to display something like "AFD on John Iadarola" / ("AfD"|"talk") ("Article subject of AFD"|"talk"|"history"|"logs"|"links"|"restore (admins only)"). --Doncram (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- Note that "restore" does not apply to the AFD discussion, it is an action about the article, so it not be put in that order. But we don't need a link that can only possibly be used once by one person, and only by an administrator, so drop the "restore" action button. But do add a link to any possible temporarily restored article, which is fairly often made available for the duration of a review, and which would be followed by many participants.
- And about "links" i am not sure that is relevant, but label it as inbound links if keeping it. And note that any Talk page of the AFD is relevant to link (often will be a redlink, but it is informative if there was debate there during the AFD).
- So for any AFD, display something like "AFD on John Iadarola" / ("AfD"|"talk") ("Article"|"talk"|"history"|"logs"|"inbound links"|"temporarily restored"). --Doncram (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- Is there really not any support or opposition for this proposal?
- What needs to be changed, more specifically, is what is displayed by Template:DRV links, which is linked from Template:Drv2. I posted notice of this discussion at Template talk:DRV links.
- Following up on one assertion I made above, the "XfD" link does not work in the case of the Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 September 25 deletion review about Joseph Kropschot, where the decision to be reviewed was not a year-old AFD on the topic, but rather the recent action by an administrator to delete a recreated article. What was being reviewed was hugely not obvious, when the deletion review started, and I provided a clarifying note. I believe the DRV links header should have linked somehow to the deletion edit by the administrator, but that is not supported currently by any instructions.
- If there is not any discussion soon here, I will proceed with changing the DRV links template myself if I can, or with making edit request referencing the consensus of one here. --Doncram (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- I can't say I've ever had a problem with the current layout, but if you think you have a better way go ahead. It can't hurt. – Joe (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- I pretty much agree with Joe. I think what we've got now works well enough, but have no objection if you want to try and improve it. My one concern is automation. Are there any automated scripts (along the lines of User:Evad37/XFDcloser) which know about these templates? If there are, you should coordinate with whoever maintains those scripts. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Update: take a look at User:Lifebaka/closedrv.js to make sure you don't break that. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- I pretty much agree with Joe. I think what we've got now works well enough, but have no objection if you want to try and improve it. My one concern is automation. Are there any automated scripts (along the lines of User:Evad37/XFDcloser) which know about these templates? If there are, you should coordinate with whoever maintains those scripts. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- I can't say I've ever had a problem with the current layout, but if you think you have a better way go ahead. It can't hurt. – Joe (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Good Ol'factory, Nothing personal but there simply has to be a better way to let people know of proposed deletions. I'm thinking of Category:People of Huguenot descent which I have just discovered. Absolutely No chance of recording objections at all. A very bad job. Eddaido (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC) (of no known Huguenot descent)