Template talk:DRV top

Archiving DRV debates
OK I set this up so that the general mechanism should be clear, although there is still tweaking to be done with the CSS markup. In any case, the advantages of using hideboxes for archived debates are threefold: I'd think it could become the standard format for all XfD's (especially non-AfD) in time, but DRV is probably as good a place to field test them as any. Any comments, technical and procedural, are welcome. ~ trialsanderrors 22:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Reviewing archived debates becomes much easier.
 * 2) Archiving them becomes easier, essentially following the current procedure of closing AfD's with substed headers and footers. Nothing else needs to be done.
 * 3) Early closure can be done simpler. The debate itself is archived and removed from the "live" discussions, but the result (and by clicking on [Show]) the debate can quickly be reviewed.

Oh, another advantage is that we can fold the current "alternative" processes into the standard review process. Someone asks for a prodded article to be restored, an admin sees the request and restores and can close the debate right away. If then someone later reviews the debate and decides to send the article to AfD, that's easily done. ~ trialsanderrors 22:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Much, much better than the edit diffs currently used. Fan-1967 22:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks great. What's the workflow?  When adding the header & footer, what steps are required to convert the existing header?  Adding the closure decision and timestamp I understand.  Retype the pagename?  Could you please add a reference to the templates you're using?  Thanks.  Rossami (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Currently User:Trialsanderrors/Drt and User:Trialsanderrors/Drb. Two of the boxes in the example are substed, the last one is transcluded.
 * On workflow, the current protocol looks something like this (after moving the templates in template space):

Stonerband Remove section header Discussion goes here
 * The remove section header step is optional, it just simply removes the possibility to edit inside the box after it's closed. Alternatively, you could just simply replace the ===='s around the header with the template text. ~ trialsanderrors


 * I'm going to buck the trend: I prefer the status quo, with the discussion blanked, while the monthly summary page with a diff to the discussion is still findable from the article via whatlinkshere. WP:DRV frequently finds itself faced with a review of a deleted article, particularly one about web content, where the nominator or other advocate of undeletion attempts to provide evidence of notability from the site itself.  (I see two such on DRV right now.)  For many of these, any pagerank is good pagerank, even if it comes from a discussion with a half dozen editors all saying some variant of "Endorse deletion and go away, totally insignificant spamvertisement. ~ "  More importantly, unblanked discussions of living persons (I count six such currently on the page) will appear high in Google results, just as AFD discussions used to, with the same unhappy consequences. &mdash;Cryptic 12:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. Why would this be a concern solely for DRV? And 2. There is not much difference from the current system, as the article name still appears in the archive page, and therefore creates a Google hit. The way to resolve this is to search using -wikipedia. On BLP concerns, I think the common procedure of blanking can easily be implemented in the proposed system. ~ trialsanderrors 08:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The name will make a google hit, yes, but that's not really a concern: the sites I'm referring to aren't trying to create google results for people searching for their name specifically, but to improve their position in more generic searches. Every outbound link from a site as highly rated as Wikipedia is a huge bonus for them.  This is of course not a concern solely for DRV, but in the egregious cases I'm thinking of, the article specifically about the site will have been deleted, links from other articles to the site will be (properly) removed, but editors will leave links from a DRV page alone as they do on AFD, forgetting (if they even knew) that we now instruct Google and other well-behaved spiders not to access AFD.  Selective blanking sounds good in theory, but it never worked on AFD (when it was still indexed) until complaints got up to the foundation level. &mdash;Cryptic 23:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that's something to discuss at the Village Pump. I brought it up there. ~ trialsanderrors 08:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Section headers
One problem I recognized is that if I speedy-close a debate the section header disappears and editing the section on top of it will then also include the whole code for the closed debate. I can think of a couple of workarounds, but none are very elegant. Right now I simply set a ====&amp;nbsp;==== on top of it. ~ trialsanderrors 03:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea!
I like this a lot. ( Radiant ) 10:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

DRV new layout test run
I have to say that the new layout looks really good; however, is there a particular reason it uses a smaller font? ColourBurst 04:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no particular reason other than I currently use a CSS class called "navbox collapsible" for the boxes, which sets the font size to 90% (and I can't override it). I'm planning to talk to one of the guys with more CSS experience to create a class called "debatebox" that has some different settings, e.g. 100% font size. ~ trialsanderrors 04:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Timestamp
I had to move the timestamp out of the template since it either shows the last time the template was edited or the current time, instead of the intended time when the discussion was archived. Anyone know a workaround? ~ trialsanderrors 19:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Header added
I changed the template to include the level 4 header with (closed) in brackets. The template was originally set up for me to close a whole daily log at a time, but since closing DRV's is now a shared duty, keeping the header until the log page is archived is a better solution. ~ trialsanderrors 08:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Signature
I've reverted JzG's edit and re-added the autosig in this template, because the DRV closure scripts (as well as everyone's habits) leave it out. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be better to have it as a parameter. MfD has removed it because it's everyone's habit to sign and so what happens is you end up with a double sig that you have to then remove.  The closing scripts can easily be modified to accommodate the signature as tfd already did and mfd has been changed to do.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 13:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Substing
As most DRV-closers know, this template needs to be substed in order for archiving to work. Sometimes folks forget, though, and it takes several edits to fix after the fact. Any interest in making one of those big red not-substed notices, as in prod? Chick Bowen 22:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Default result clarified
I've just changed the language in the documentation as well as default parameter 2 slightly. The old language was "default DECISION is 'Deletion endorsed'". I changed the word "Decision" to "result" just to be consistent with XfDs and to avoid confusion with my other change which was to change the word "Deletion" to "Decision" because a DRV of a "Keep" at an XfD will default to "Keep endorsed" not "Deletion endorsed", obviously. I also changed "Deletion endorsed" to "Decision endorsed" in the parameter. It would really be perverse if a closing admin didn't put in a result so it defaulted to "Deletion endorsed" when the original decision was "Keep".--Doug.(talk • contribs) 08:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)