 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Is Template:Delrevafd applicable for all types of DRV discussions?
See User talk:Bsherr for the full discussion:
Is Template:Delrevafd applicable for all types of DRV discussions? One type involves an XfD being reviewed, while the second involves reviews of ((db-repost)) deletions or when possibly new information about a topic deleted at XfD has come to light.
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikie Da Poet, Bsherr (talk · contribs) has removed all the Delrevafd templates I placed on it because the deletion reviews are not directly reviewing the AfD. I have tagged the AfD with the Delrevafd template to allow DRV participants to know how many times Mikie Da Poet has been brought to DRV and to prevent gaming of the system.
Bsherr advocates for using two templates to tag the two types of XfD discussions, the second of which would be Template:Olddrvfull. I do not see any need to distinguish between the two types of DRV discussions and oppose this change as needless complication of the deletion review process.
The current wording of Template:Delrevafd states that "This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review on Date". This is true for both types of DRV discussions. The discussion is being reviewed to see 1) if it is correct or 2) if it is still applicable in light of new information. One template should suffice. Cunard (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- In addition to removing DRV templates, Bsherr recently posted in a DRV discussion, "DRV does not review articles for recreation, WP:AFC does."[1] In regards to Template:Delrevafd, the Mikie Da Poet case makes it clear why there needs to be one location, the AfD, listing all of the DRV discussions. However, the template should further be revised to fix the appearance issue as seen here, such as
 | This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review on 2009 June 17. The result of the deletion review was ___________ This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review on 2010 June 7. The result of the deletion review was ___________ This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review on 2010 June 24. The result of the deletion review was ___________ This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review on 2010 July 20. The result of the deletion review was ___________ This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review on 2010 July 21. The result of the deletion review was ___________ |
- Consensus at DRV is not a XfD2 consensus. Rather, DRV uses an underlying XfD consensus discussion to make decisions, no matter they "type" of DRV request listed at DRV. Since G4 references "a page that was previously deleted via a deletion discussion," it is appropriate to use Template:Delrevafd on the underlying AfD page when the topic is listed at DRV. Also, when possibly new information about a topic deleted at XfD has come to light, the XfD discussion still forms the consensus against which the topic and new information is reviewed such that it is appropriate to use Template:Delrevafd on the underlying AfD page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I explained the problem at Template talk:Delrevafd. Since this is only about the template, why can't we have the discussion there? --Bsherr (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't grasp the problem here, and don't find any explanation at Template talk:Delrevafd, but I do think it is a very good thing for old XfDs to get linked to newer XfDs, as starting to happening automatically using a clever template, and to link an XfD to any related DRV, and I very much appreciate Cunard's work in this respect in the past many months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Template talk:Delrevafd#Cunard's revision. I don't have a problem with Cunard's purpose. Only with the means, which I've explained there. --Bsherr (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think modification of the template wording is a good idea here. I also suggest that only DRV "overturn"s belong at the top, with unsuccessful appeals belonging as footnotes, under the discussion, at the bottom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- I reiterate my suggestion to Cunard to simply use ((Olddrvfull)) which is designed precisely for the purpose of presenting a history of deletion reviews. It need only be modified to appear as an ombox instead of a tmbox on Wikipedia pages, easily done by changing the "tmbox transclusion to "mbox". --Bsherr (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- I see no benefit to switching from Template:Delrevafd to Template:Olddrvfull so have not done so. The former was created for discussion pages, the latter for talk pages. Template:Delrevafd works well so there is no need to use another template. Cunard (talk) 10:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- I reiterate my suggestion to Cunard to simply use ((Olddrvfull)) which is designed precisely for the purpose of presenting a history of deletion reviews. It need only be modified to appear as an ombox instead of a tmbox on Wikipedia pages, easily done by changing the "tmbox transclusion to "mbox". --Bsherr (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think modification of the template wording is a good idea here. I also suggest that only DRV "overturn"s belong at the top, with unsuccessful appeals belonging as footnotes, under the discussion, at the bottom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Template talk:Delrevafd#Cunard's revision. I don't have a problem with Cunard's purpose. Only with the means, which I've explained there. --Bsherr (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Uzma Gamal, I agree with your consolidation of the listings, but do not know how to implement that into the template. Do you? Cunard (talk) 10:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, I think that all the templates should be placed at the top of the XfDs because that is where they are most visible. Splitting the "endorse" and "overturn" between the top and bottom of the page would lead to confusion. Furthermore, in a long AfD, editors will have to scroll to the bottom of the page to find the DRV notice. Most users only view the first page of the AfD, so they would likely miss the DRV notice. Cunard (talk) 10:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- I wholeheartedly agree that all DRV notices belong at the top. Consistency of format is to be encouraged.—S Marshall T/C 12:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I explained that Delrevafd is used for advising that the instant deletion disucssion is being reviewed at DRV. Using it to provide the entire history of DRVs will frustrate its purpose. Contrast that to Template:Olddrvfull:
 | A deletion review for PAGENAME was concluded on (({date))}. The result of the discussion was undelete. |
Look familiar? It's practically identical to Uzma Gamal's proposal. So why not use it? --Bsherr (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to ask for a bot that would automatically update the template when the DRV was closed? The extra fiddly-ness of having different templates for in-progress and finished DRVs would be tolerable if it didn't take any human editor time.—S Marshall T/C 18:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, hold on, because the distinction isn't between in-progress and finished DelRevs. Here's an example. Let's say an article has three AfDs: years 2006, 2007, and 2011. Cunard is proposing that, when the 2011 AfD is reviewed at DelRev, Delrevafd be applied to all past AfDs: 2006, 2007, and 2011. I reverted Cunard's edits because Delrevafd says "This discussion is under deletion review...". That would be true of the 2011 AfD, but false and misleading of the 2006 and 2007 AfDs. I don't have a problem with putting notice on the 2006 and 2007 Afds that there have been DelRevs of subsequent AfDs, but not by compromising the ability of Delrevafd to notify users that the decision on the page to which the template is applied was or is under review. I explained to Cunard that Olddrvfull already displays DelRev history on talk pages, and it would be easy to adapt it for XfD pages too. Unfortunately, the use of a bot would be unworkable here because of the difficulty bots would have in transcribing the DelRev "result" automatically. --Bsherr (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, I have not proposed placing the Delrevafd templates on all AfDs. See this AfD (the 18th nomination of GNAA) for instance. I have not placed the Delrevafd templates on the rest of the AfD nominations and would not do so for the situation you describe above. Cunard (talk) 07:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- I place the new 2011 Delrevafd on the most recent AfD discussion. Cunard (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, hold on, because the distinction isn't between in-progress and finished DelRevs. Here's an example. Let's say an article has three AfDs: years 2006, 2007, and 2011. Cunard is proposing that, when the 2011 AfD is reviewed at DelRev, Delrevafd be applied to all past AfDs: 2006, 2007, and 2011. I reverted Cunard's edits because Delrevafd says "This discussion is under deletion review...". That would be true of the 2011 AfD, but false and misleading of the 2006 and 2007 AfDs. I don't have a problem with putting notice on the 2006 and 2007 Afds that there have been DelRevs of subsequent AfDs, but not by compromising the ability of Delrevafd to notify users that the decision on the page to which the template is applied was or is under review. I explained to Cunard that Olddrvfull already displays DelRev history on talk pages, and it would be easy to adapt it for XfD pages too. Unfortunately, the use of a bot would be unworkable here because of the difficulty bots would have in transcribing the DelRev "result" automatically. --Bsherr (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Would editors review this edit by Bsherr that prompted this debate? The comments by Uzma Gamal and SmokeyJoe about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikie Da Poet indicate that I have not incorrectly used the template on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somastate. Cunard (talk) 07:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- The 14 January 2011 deletion review of Somastate was of the 13 January 2011 criterion A7 speedy deletion of Somastate, not the 2008 AfD. The discussion was about whether to overturn the speedy deletion, not the AfD. A template saying that the 2008 AfD is being reviewed would be false. --Bsherr (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- It has been repeatedly explained to you on your talk page and here by both myself and Uzma Gamal why the template is applicable for the new DRV discussion. The deleting admin even cited the AfD decision as a reason for protecting the page. Please reverse your removal of the valid Delrevafd tag. Cunard (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Do you believe that a deletion review of a speedy deletion is automatically a review of the last XfD? --Bsherr (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. The deletion review of a speedy deletion intrinsically asks whether the last AfD's result is still valid. Cunard (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, there is the crux of our disagreement. Such a position is inconsistent with our practice and unsupported by the documentation. A page speedy deleted may have no likeness whatsoever with the page previously considered at XfD, possibly years ago. In some cases, the two pages may actually have no similarity except in name. For example, "Bob Johnson" is AfD deleted as a unnotable politician, and then, three years later, "Bob Johnson" is speedy deleted as an unimpotant musician (not the same person). Or "Template:One" is TfD deleted as deprecated, and then, three years later, a new and entirely different "Template:One" is speedy deleted G11. Treating a speedy deletion review as a review of the previous XfD would be nonsensical. In fact, a routine outcome of deletion review of speedy deletion is "overturn and send to XfD", clear recognition that delrev of a speedy deletion is not a substitute for XfD. The only situation in which your position might make sense is for a G4 speedy deletion (a possibility I recognized at Mikie Da Poet), but the nominator should make that explicit, so the XfD closing administrator and other interested parties are notified and consulted. --Bsherr (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- You are making false comparisons. Only pages about the same topic ought to be tagged. Let's say Bob Johnson is deleted in November 2009 at an AfD and then recreated and speedy deleted under A7 in December 2010. A deletion review is held and concludes with allowing recreation. It would not be unreasonable to document that at the AfD to notify editors and admins that the recreation has been endorsed by community discussion. Cunard (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Allowing recreation? What does that mean? In your hypothetical, either the A7 deletion is endorsed or overturned. And that would have no effect on the AfD. Just because an article is recreated does not automatically mean that the prior AfD decision was an error. If you want to document it at the AfD, I don't take issue with that. But to say that because a speedy deletion is being reviewed that the prior AfD is also being reviewed is not correct. Can you identify any documentation that supports your opinion? --Bsherr (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- For an example of "allowing recreation", see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 October 1#The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University). I have already addressed why a review of a speedy deletion is intrinsically a review of whether the result of an AfD is still applicable. There is no documentation about Delrevafd on any policy pages so there is no way to address your request for documentation. Cunard (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Allowing recreation? What does that mean? In your hypothetical, either the A7 deletion is endorsed or overturned. And that would have no effect on the AfD. Just because an article is recreated does not automatically mean that the prior AfD decision was an error. If you want to document it at the AfD, I don't take issue with that. But to say that because a speedy deletion is being reviewed that the prior AfD is also being reviewed is not correct. Can you identify any documentation that supports your opinion? --Bsherr (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- You are making false comparisons. Only pages about the same topic ought to be tagged. Let's say Bob Johnson is deleted in November 2009 at an AfD and then recreated and speedy deleted under A7 in December 2010. A deletion review is held and concludes with allowing recreation. It would not be unreasonable to document that at the AfD to notify editors and admins that the recreation has been endorsed by community discussion. Cunard (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, there is the crux of our disagreement. Such a position is inconsistent with our practice and unsupported by the documentation. A page speedy deleted may have no likeness whatsoever with the page previously considered at XfD, possibly years ago. In some cases, the two pages may actually have no similarity except in name. For example, "Bob Johnson" is AfD deleted as a unnotable politician, and then, three years later, "Bob Johnson" is speedy deleted as an unimpotant musician (not the same person). Or "Template:One" is TfD deleted as deprecated, and then, three years later, a new and entirely different "Template:One" is speedy deleted G11. Treating a speedy deletion review as a review of the previous XfD would be nonsensical. In fact, a routine outcome of deletion review of speedy deletion is "overturn and send to XfD", clear recognition that delrev of a speedy deletion is not a substitute for XfD. The only situation in which your position might make sense is for a G4 speedy deletion (a possibility I recognized at Mikie Da Poet), but the nominator should make that explicit, so the XfD closing administrator and other interested parties are notified and consulted. --Bsherr (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. The deletion review of a speedy deletion intrinsically asks whether the last AfD's result is still valid. Cunard (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Do you believe that a deletion review of a speedy deletion is automatically a review of the last XfD? --Bsherr (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- It has been repeatedly explained to you on your talk page and here by both myself and Uzma Gamal why the template is applicable for the new DRV discussion. The deleting admin even cited the AfD decision as a reason for protecting the page. Please reverse your removal of the valid Delrevafd tag. Cunard (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)