Template talk:Db-afc-move

Give |page= a default?

Right now if |page= is not specified, the template throws an error. Any interest in coding this up to have a default? So for example if this template were placed on the page Abc, then |page= could default to Draft:Abc.

Another option would be to code this to not throw an error if this is omitted.

Also, I notice that the "Check if the person is an AFC reviewer" doesn't display if |page= is omitted. We might want to make that dispaly all the time. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any interest in coding this up to have a default? - no. I think it makes the process much easier for the reviewing admin (having been one on a number of occasions, both for this and {{db-move}}) to require a page name be included. I do see what you mean about defaulting to just Draft:{{PAGENAME}}, but for every page that is actually in the draft space, there will be a dozen that are either in a user sandbox or have some weird disambiguation.

That being said, I'm open to discussing the matter further. Primefac (talk) 08:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me. Let's leave as is then. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does this template need a (temporary?) wording change?

With New Page Reviewers gaining AFCH rights, that's a lot more users you can't ctrl+f and find on the linked list; some editors will probably miss the new text in bold at the top of WP:AFC/P. Would a wording change in the template help, or do people just scan over that too? (I ask because I just saw this situation play out at New Zealand Parliamentary Service.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have some thoughts. Primefac (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, I'm not sure I (completely) understand why Special:Diff/1157228788 was done. I suppose the intention was to ensure that only a person with AfC access could get a redirect deleted, since only someone with script access can mark a draft as "under review". But if a new page reviewer tags a redirect with this tag, why shouldn't I delete the redirect even if the draft hasn't been marked properly? Sdrqaz (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall a lot of bitching about tagged pages not being moved by the reviewer, even though the entire point of this template is so that the deleting admin does not need to move the page (as is customary with things like {{db-move}}. It seemed like a good way to force reviewers into actually marking the page for review, but if you do not think it is working please feel free to revert it or change the message to something else. I removed the "check the reviewer" notice since NPR are no longer listed and it is no longer easy to verify in that manner. Primefac (talk) 05:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]