Template talk:DRV notice

On 12 October 2023, it was proposed that this page be moved from Template:DRVNote to Template:DRV notice. The result of the discussion was moved.

Suggestion

Hello. You recently speedy-deleted, or closed the deletion discussion for, the article [[{{{1}}}]]. An editor has nominated this result/decision/outcome for [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#{{{1}}}|deletion review]]. Your opinions on the closure or speedy-deletion of this article will be greatly appreciated.

(Put here, as there are multiple word options, but the pedant in me thinks it's important to be clear that it's not the article thats being reviewed on DRV, rather the decision. MartinRe 15:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. There's also an option of providing two different versions for closing the discussion or speedy-deleting the article, but methinks it's best to make the process as simple as possible. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DVRU note wording

I created a new version for the relatively new Userbox debates, making the text more concise and generic. I'd like to do the same here.

--William Allen Simpson 15:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(CC from WAS's talk page) Your above comment was nearly lost until I started tweaking the template again. Thanks for your suggestion, I made changes to Template:DRVNote based on your Template:DRVU note. Thanks! --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generalized

I made the text more general so that the template can be placed on the pages of editors other than those who closed the deletion discussion or speedily deleted the article. I had had the template placed on my talk page twice over the last three weeks for articles where I was neither the closer nor the speedy deleter, so I figured it might be better to allow it to be placed on the talk page of any editor with a relevant interest. (This is not intended to endorse canvassing in deletion reviews.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to log page instead of regular DRV page?

The DRV page itself is really freakin' huge, and takes a while to load. I've been working on a way to link to the relevant log page itself, but the best I can come up with automatically links to today's log, which won't always be the right one. For the record, my fix was:

==Deletion review for [[:{{{1}}}]]== An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/<includeonly>{{subst:</includeonly>#time:Y F j}}#{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}|deletion review]] of [[:{{{1}}}]]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

I also thought of adding a new optional parameter to link to the log pages, possibly defaulting to today's log page, but I haven't tested this out yet. I'd suggest naming the paramter something (how about "date"?), so that ordering isn't that big an issue, but I haven't tested it yet as I said before. Let me know what you think. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've got a working version of the code (in a way I like) at User:Lifebaka/DRVNote, and I at least am starting to use it. I'm thinking a better solution here would be an optional |date= parameter with the code looking like this:

==Deletion review for [[:{{{1}}}]]== An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review{{#if:{{{date|}}}|/Log/{{{date}}}}}#{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}|deletion review]] of [[:{{{1}}}]]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

The usage would have to be updated, but since the |date= parameter is completely optional no changes would need to be made on the part of those who use it. Let me know what you think. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lifebaka and revised the template accordingly. -- Suntag ☼ 17:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It'd probably be nice to make |days= (or |date= or whatever) completely optional, but subst'ing #if parsers causes issues I've found, so there's no clean way to code it. We could put in another optional |subst= parameter which can be set to |subst=subst: to subst properly, which works in other boilerplates, but... I'm hesitant to want it. Anyways, just some thoughts. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please revise as you see fit. If the new parameter's don't require new users to think any more than the now have to and the new parameters are for experienced eidtors, just add them. However, I just discovered that a link Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Matt_Lee_.28musician.29 will bring you right to a particular deletion review. Couldn't the notice have something like

==Deletion review for [[:{{{1}}}]]== An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review#[[:{{{1}}}]]|deletion review]] of [[:{{{1}}}]]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Just a thought. -- Suntag ☼ 20:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that link would resolve to [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#BLAH]] after you put something in for {{{1}}}. The current version works like what you're suggesting ({{{2|{{{1}}}}}} resolves to {{{1}}} if {{{2}}} isn't given or is left blank), if I understand what you're suggesting right. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

I am thinking of reverting this because the link fails if the deleter isn't notified on the same day. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't actually built code that I expected to put into here yet. Feel free. When I do, the |date= parameter will be optional. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 October 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 06:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DRVNote → Template:DRV notice – Consistency with the naming scheme for the XfD notices, as established in 2020 at Template_talk:Afd_notice#Requested_move_21_April_2020. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I'm likely the most frequent user of this template by far (since it's usually me who cleans up incomplete or broken DRV listings), and I'm no more likely to transclude the new official name than I am for the current. As long as Template:drvnote stays put, where it points really doesn't matter. —Cryptic 05:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. But for future moves, just be bold and rename these per WP:TPN. Gonnym (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review § Links in DRV notice

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review § Links in DRV notice. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 20:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]