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.

Hi all, looking at current DRV's and some recent ones, in more than half the cases, we get a flurry of input (that is all aligned to one viewpoint) in the first 2-3 days, then most DRV's sit inactive (with maybe one or two further comments) in the subsequent days waiting for 7 days to elapse when action can finally be taken. DRV does not suffer from a lack of participation like AfD and some other venues do, and more importantly, the quality of contributions is generally very well-thought out and well-expressed, which definitely helps in being more sure of the consensus when you are evaluating a debate.

I'm not very good with wording policy change proposals, so please don't kill or love this proposal based on the specific wording, but was thinking of proposing a slight change to Wikipedia:Deletion review#Closing reviews, along the lines of:

(Prior:) A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists.

(Proposed new:) A nominated page should remain on deletion review for seven days, although if there is sufficient participation to determine an overwhelming consensus, it can be closed after a minimum of five days. After this period has elapsed, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists, and close the discussion.

'Overwhelming' is obviously the key word here...would 'unanimous' be better? (I don't think so, it's a version of vote-counting.) 'Near-unanimous'? (Probably not, for the same reason.) 'Obvious'? 'Unequivocal'? I don't know what the exact word I'm looking for is, although hopefully you can all pick up the sentiment of what I'm trying to convey. I guess it's a kind of snowball clause, just not as wishy-washy as that is written.

Is there any appetite for this potential change, based on what we're seeing? If there is, what is the feeling around the wording? Does this have any significant drawbacks I haven't envisaged? Keen to get everyone's thoughts on this. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily for or against this, but my initial thought is: How is this different than just closing per WP:SNOW ? - jc37 18:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm away from the norm on this, but I have always avoided using SNOW at DRV, it felt like a "if there's one place the written process should be followed to the letter, it's here" kind of mentality (given we are often reviewing situations which are process-deficient). The only discussions I commonly see closed early are admins reverting WP:BADNACs, which is interesting because they are explicitly allowed to do so per the final sentence at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions, final sentence. I wonder if a bit more structure to SNOW in this setting might beneficial and help the process along a bit more. Daniel (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

If SNOW needs clarifying or even to be re-written, then yes, let's definitely do that. That said, as a main point of SNOW is NOTBURO, we should also be cautious about over-definition.

What do you see as needing "more structure" or is too "wishy-washy" as written? - jc37 18:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, seeing the application of SNOW in context of DRV is what I believe needs more structure, not SNOW as a whole. Which may be antithetical to the principles behind SNOW, but I am somewhat of a realist having observed this space closely over a long period of time. The three discussions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 July 28 are a poster child for this situation (Anker Innovations could already be back in mainspace and being worked on or AfD'ed, Ad Hominem Imperitum could have been put out of its misery, etc etc), as well as the day before it (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 July 27). Daniel (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, then let's clarify SNOW for DRV. Maybe a section under Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Closing_reviews, similar to the "speedy" one? - jc37 19:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

"While a deletion review discussion should generally remain open for at least seven days, if there is sufficient participation to determine an overwhelming consensus, and discussion has slowed or stopped, the discuusion may be closed after a minimum of five days. After this period has elapsed, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists, and close the discussion."

Seems a bit wordy yet, but it's a start I guess. Thoughts? - jc37 19:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

7 days seems fine to me. It's shorter than almost all other processes with a minimum time (including AfD if you consider that many are relisted). Remember that the purpose of these isn't just to ensure a sufficient level of participation, it's to give specific interested parties (e.g. an AfD nominator or closing admin) a reasonable chance to respond. – Joe (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree entirely. Also, it allows for a more representative sample of the community to participate (if they want to do so), e.g. weekend only editors. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

What's the harm in leaving it open another two days? Reyk _YO! 20:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

In the case of clear restores, or potential reopen and send to AfD - a malaise in the process, delays in allowing people to improve articles which are clear overturns (see the Delta Launches & Anker reviews currently on the main DRV page), and where it has to go through a subsequent further deletion discussion as a result of the close, just extending out moving the process along. Daniel (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Until 2009, it was 5 days. I asked the community to change it to 7 days in this discussion.—S Marshall T/C 09:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Good Lord. I remember that. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason to change the current practice. There's something nice about "discussions last 7 days" being the norm across all kinds of discussions everywhere in WP space, and I don't see any advantage to making this the exception. And per S Marshall. As for SNOW, I'm conservative about applying SNOW in general, and at DRV in particular, but I don't see any reason to ban it entirely. When after the first day, you've got 10 people saying "No, just no", or "Yes, of course, this is so obvious it didn't even need to be brought here", with no dissent, there's no reason to drag on. Which is basically how things work now. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• I think seven days is a reasonable time. SNOW can apply at DRV, especially if it is clear that DRV is the wrong forum, and should probably be used more when it is clear that WP:REFUND could or should apply. --Enos733 (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• 7 days is fine. I don't see what benefits we get from. Dhaving 2 days off and the appearance of fairness and transparancy is just as important as actually being fair and transparant. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
• There is no good reason to change from 7 to 5 days. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC).
• I don't see any advantage to cutting two days off the process. It's true that most discussions are front-loaded in terms of when people participate, but there's really no harm it it sitting for an extra few days and there's something nice about waiting a full week. There may be people out there whose IRL schedule is such that one day of the week is when they get to work on wikipedia and it would be unfortunate to disenfranchise them. DRV has often been referred to as the court of last resort to correct problems. For something like that, taking it slow and spending the time to make sure you get it right is a good thing. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Step 3 to Inform the closing editor uses ((DRVNote)) with a single parameter PAGENAME, however per the template's documentation that leads to the "An editor" being placed on the closing editors talk page, and missing the Nominator's name leads, per Template Documentation to insultment, per "NOMINATOR'S NAME is the name of the user requesting this review. You should use the first person pronoun "I" if you are the editor requesting the review or the user's name if someone else is. If this parameter is not specified, "An editor" will be used, which may be considered insulting if you are the user making the nomination. May I apologise if I've missed something here, and to several closer's I've insulted following the instructions. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Can't see why it would be insulting myself. That text was added by one person and I can't see any discussion leading to it, so can't really tell why they'd think it was insulting. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)