Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archives/2021/January

DRV archives on mobile

So basically DRV archives are invisible on mobile most likely due to the template used. Any possible fixes for this? SK2242 (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The issue is the collapsing template. We can fix the template presumably. I usually just click edit source and read the wikitext, but in hindsight it’d probably be smarter to just click desktop mode for a while. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Where to review non-speedy deletions?

Despite its general name, this page specifies several times that it's only intended for reviewing speedy deletions. Where does one need to go for reviewing other deletions? ◅ Sebastian 12:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• Does it? Where? It opens with this "This page is for reviewing speedy deletions and deletions made as the result of a discussion". That really only leaves proposed deletions, which are reversed on request, so there's never anything to review there. WilyD 12:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • You're right, Wily, my mistake. That already answers my question, and we could close the discussion. But since there are suggestions for how to improve that sentence, I will reply below. ◅ Sebastian 10:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  WilyD, What about blanking by redirecting? Which is the case I just reported in a new thread below. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• If “deletion” was involved, meaning it was deleted and shouldn’t have been, or it should have been deleted but wasn’t, then this is your forum. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  SmokeyJoe, I think part of the problem is the tendency for wiki-instructions to over specify things. So, where we say disputed speedy deletions and disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions, we could just say, any disputed deletion. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  How about Deletion review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal any disputed deletion. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion, but not articles which have been procedurally deleted, which are eligible for restoration through WP:REFUND. More characters, but I think it's simpler. SportingFlyer T·C 20:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Splitting the sentence up is certainly an improvement. But now that we're trying to make it simpler, I see more chances for that:

“designed”

The simple word “for” could express the same meaning. In this place, “designed” is puffery, IMHO.

“primarily”

The change from “designed” to “for” would naturally relieve us from having to mention secondary design goals. Or is there is any secondary design goal of this page which the reader needs to know immediately? If so, it should be mentioned explicitly.

“forum”

This could be replaced with “page”, which is the general term we use for anything that's not an article, and “forum” is something we're trying to avoid per WP:FORUM.

“appeal ... disputed”

The intention of this wording is not clear. It could mean (a) that by appealing a decision, it becomes disputed. This seems to go without saying, so one of the two words would be redundant. Or (b) that only discussions which are already disputed can be appealed, which seems to be misleading. So I'm assuming meaning (a) was intended. Possibly someone felt that the double wording was needed to make the connection between “appealing” and “disputed” clear. But that intention backfired through the introduction of the possible reading (b). To make it really clear, that connection should be stated in its own sentence, preferably not in the lede.

So, how about the following: Deletion review (DRV) is the page for appealing deletions. ... ◅ Sebastian 10:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

SebastianHelm, Even simpler, "the page" doesn't add anything. Everything on wikipedia is a page. How about: Deletion review (DRV) is for appealing deletions.

BTW, maybe it's just me, but I always mis-parse "Deletion review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal...". "Appeal" has several meanings, one of which is "to be pleasing to", as in, "This book will appeal to children ages 6 to 10". As I read the sentence, my brain would assume that's the meaning being used, and then as I read the next few words, I'd realize that didn't make sense and get stuck trying to figure out what was really meant. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Good points, I like your even simpler version. Instead of “appeal”, maybe we could use “dispute”, which at least would make the connection to “disputed” straightforward. There are of course more synonyms. Your story about the two meanings of “to appeal” reminds me of when I overheard the conversation between a mother and a toy merchant at a fair. The mother was trying to hold back her child, but the merchant said “Don't worry, these toys are child-repellant.” ◅ Sebastian 15:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Merging with WP:MR

I've floated the idea of merging this page with WP:MR at the Village Pump. Feedback is welcome there. Thank you -- Calidum 21:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

archived. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)