Template talk:DRV links

Edit request on 9 April 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This edit removing the default for the xfd_page parameter broke afd links in hundreds of drvs; Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 February 20 is typical. It also prevents the default of just {{DRV links|articlename}} from doing the right thing; editors new to DRV almost always get the parameters wrong when they try to fill them in themselves (this is typical). On top of which, the justification for the edit is plain wrong-headed: if we're reviewing a speedy deletion of an article that has an afd at that title, the afd is essentially always relevant; and if the afd is created after the DRV, it's relevant to it then, too. Someone undo it, please? 74.74.150.139 (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not knowing the reasoning, I've informed Armbrust (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The default also added links to XfD discussion pages, which were not relevant to that DRV discussion. The function of "xfd_page" is to link to the discussion, which is reviewed and not to link blindly to pages, which happen to be in the format "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/articlename". If there is no XFD discussion at the time of the DRV, than that link should not appear there later. Also if someone find the DRV process, than I would assume that he can read Wikipedia:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've really thought this all the way through.

Linking to the wrong discussion is not the common case. I can't remember this ever happening (I've watched DRV for nearly a decade now, since before it was DRV), nor can I find any examples going back six months in the DRV archives. (Of course, they're a lot harder to notice now.) I assert that it's also not the common case for an article to be speedied without ever having appeared at afd, be overturned but not listed at afd as part of the close, and then get afd'd independently by someone else. I couldn't find examples of those, either, though I recall seeing them in the past. Even when that happens, the previously-automatic link from this template is either harmlessly redundant or exactly the right thing to do; if someone has to manually document every single afd listing, you end up with errors like this.

On the other hand, I didn't have to go all the way back to February 20 to find drvs that used to properly link to their afds but no longer do; I picked that date because it was your own edit that you subsequently broke here. I see you've gone back and fixed that page now; are you really proposing to doublecheck all the archives back to 2009 when this replaced {{drvlinks}}? The defaults have been there since the second day of this template's existence; you'll have a lot of broken discussions to fix.

Furthermore, your assumption that people can read instructions is manifestly incorrect. The DRV instructions are notoriously complex; even admins get them wrong, and somewhere around one in five or six listings need correction. A lot of the time, the person who ends up fixing these is me. Fixes like this one, where the nominator doesn't refer to the afd at all but happened to break the xfd_page parameter, are depressingly common, and now 1) the nominator doesn't even have to put a bad link in xfd_page, because you've already done it for him here, and 2) they're much harder to for the people fixing them - or worse, commenting on the drv - to notice. I know I won't be bothering anymore. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm closing the edit request, without any comment as to the outcome of this discussion. I doubt many of the editors reviewing edit requests are going to be of much help here, given that it's been on the list for three weeks now without any further reply. --ElHef (Meep ?) 04:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

80.202.166.93 (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --Stabila711 (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

misdirection issue with this DRV links template

Please see Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#misdirection about what decision is being reviewed. I have made a fairly specific proposal there about how this links template should be changed. --Doncram (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]