Wikipedia talk:Deletion review

message: The deletion review process now requires us to manually copy and paste a series of templates onto several pages in order to start a review. This is quite tedious; can we request a bot to automatically add the , , and  templates? Jarble (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Just passing by due to a cross-post, but could a script be written to deal with this, similar to how Twinkle takes care of all of the XFD nomination steps? Primefac (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this sounds more like a script is needed. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Over half the time, even the first template (, on the deletion review subpage (no, there's no )) gets filled out wrong.  The deletion discussion isn't linked, or the wrong one's linked, a non-deletion-discussion is linked in the xfd field, or a full url is used for the deletion discussion or page name or both, or even the page name is wrong.  Mostly it's me who ends up cleaning it up and placing  and sometimes , and the problems aren't consistent enough that I've ever considered automating it.  A bot that assumes the first step was done right is going to break at least two other pages and probably end up being a net increase in manual labor. —Cryptic 20:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wouldn't the bot or script detect incorrectly-formatted  templates in order to prevent errors like this? Jarble (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Jarble, as a bot op, no. There are a million different ways editors can mess up wikitext. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

text:  If users screw up the  over half the time, that seems like the bot would run into too much GIGO to be useful. Anomie⚔ 21:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything, it gives more reason to have a script, as there can be #ifexist checks and the like to make sure things are input properly. Primefac (talk) 07:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: +1 to incorporating functionality into something like Twinkle or Ultraviolet (with preference towards the latter). — Frostly (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Automating this would be great.  But the process wasn't too horrible... SmolBrane (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

text: On that note, I have to look at the instructions again every time I close DRV, and dearly miss WP:XFDCLOSER. – Joe (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can this process be automated? 

message: The article Salman Farhan Sudi was deleted due to several points which should be corrected instead of deletion the whole article, Please I am requeating to undelete that article and return it to discussion.
Thankz. Hawali Nur (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for undeleting the article: Salman Farhan Sudi 

message: Several months ago, I found the following note on my talk page:An editor has asked for a deletion review of :File:The sun1.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.As you can see, the link is useless now.  Just now I was curious to see what was involved, so I had to go to the image and check WhatLinksHere to find Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 September 23.  Why must this be the case?  Active DRV discussions are transcluded in log pages, so it's not like we have some technical barrier; the latest active discussion, for Elizabeth Shown Mills, can be linked either Wikipedia:Deletion review#Elizabeth Shown Mills or Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 February 21#Elizabeth Shown Mills.  As far as I can see, the template could easily link to the log page, which won't change, instead of to the main DRV page, which will always be changing.  Nyttend (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: has a parameter that makes the "a deletion review" link point to a log subpage.  (Example.)  Whoever left that on your talk page didn't use it, so the best the template could do was point at Wikipedia:Deletion review#File:The sun1.jpg. —Cryptic 20:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be worth changing  so that - in the absence of the  parameter being specified - it assumes that the DRV has been filed on the current day? To my understanding, this is what currently happens with (e.g.)  & . All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 20:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be more harmful to point at the wrong log subpage than to point at DRV proper.  If someone notifies late - either because someone yelled at the original requester for not notifying, or they're less of a jerk and are just doing it for them - and the template's not invoked until after midnight UTC, they're left pointing at the wrong page entirely with no hint of what went wrong.I suspect most people besides me just paste the drv notice syntax from either the log page's commented text or from step II.2 of WP:DELREVD.  (I don't, for example, ever recall seeing anything other than "An editor" at the start of the notice when I've checked to see if someone's been notified.)  If  could accept an explicit date instead of the horrifically unfriendly days=0 syntax, we could make at least the commented text always be right ("
replies: text: What if instead we just added a permalink to the current revision of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active—something like "An editor has asked for a deletion review of :Lunatic Lateral (permalink)."? I wouldn't think that'd be too hard to implement, it's valid for the whole week, and the section anchors still seem to work even after the discussion is closed (here's the one for Nyttend's example). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not seeing an interface for getting the current revision of a page in the Scribunto documentation (I'd expect it to be in the title object).  I know it's not possible short of that. —Cryptic 23:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Template wizardry is all Greek to me, but wouldn't it work to just use whatever Template:Link current revision is using? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The documentation for what it's using says it's disabled on WMF wikis.  Serves me right for trusting it. —Cryptic 23:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Anyway, the other issue with permalinks is that there's no section edit links unless you're still pointing at the current revision.  If Fastily were only now seeing the notification for yesterday's review of :File:Wadea al-Fayoume.jpg, the link would look like Special:Permalink/1209451477#File:Wadea al-Fayoume.jpg; that would let him see the discussion but have no way to edit it other than clicking on the only-barely-intuitively-linked date header. —Cryptic 19:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links in DRV notice 

message: I messed up and added the deletion discussion instead of the article itself, can someone fix this? 108.49.72.125 (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Squatch 

message: I have proposed to split off WP:DRVPURPOSE#3 reviews off to a new forum Mach61 13:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  You may be interested at participating in a discussion at {{slink|Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Split_WP:DRV_into_two_pages?}} 

message: I am asking for a clarification about DEEPER.  Within the past 36 hours there was a tendentious DRV request about an actress who had already been the subject of a DRV, in which the AFD was endorsed, and the title was listed at DEEPER.  The DRV was speedy-endorsed because it was listed at DEEPER.  I agree with the dismissal of the DRV, but would like to confirm that my understanding of DEEPER is correct, and that its purpose is to prevent frivolous DRV requests when there is a history of vexatious or frivolous requests.  Is there agreement that DEEPER is meant to be a blacklist against DRV requests?  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the correct procedure is demanding a presentation of a draft that is prima facie worthy of a review, and if it seems that thre is no prospect for that submission to even be reviewed because it is obviously not worthy of a review, and a few participants have noted so, the DRV can be speedily closed as 'speedy endorse' due to no prospect of success. There must be a path to recreation. We can not know that BDFI will not be a notable topic in the future. If I start believing that BDFI has become a notable topic I will want to create an article, I will be able to draft something suitable for a quick review at DRV, and I will not be satisfied with my submission being dismissed on purely formal grounds (a fantasy scenario, don't take it at face value). —Alalch E. 22:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification on [[WP:DEEPER|DEEPER]] 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion § Process for requesting revision undeletion.  ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 22:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[:Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion#Process for requesting revision undeletion|Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion §&nbsp;Process for requesting revision undeletion]]

message: You are invited to join the discussion at WT:Deletion process § Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues.  Nickps (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[:WT:Deletion process#Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues|WT:Deletion process §&nbsp;Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues]]