Template talk:Deletion review

Untitled section
This template may be placed on articles which have obtained a "keep" (or "no consensus defaulting to keep") decision on Articles for deletion, but have had that decision appealed on Deletion review. It replaces the curiously titled NTSA, which now redirects here. — Encephalon 11:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If an article that was deleted has had its history page temporarily restored by an administrator to facilitate a discussion on Deletion review, the template TempUndelete may be placed on that article page. — Encephalon 12:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Substitution
Removed following text from the template page: Note: the review will not work unless the template is subst'd.

Why do we say this? It isn't true, the template works just fine in transcluded form, at least so far as the link to the appropriate page is concerned. Why do we substitute this template at all? Also, this template has a parameter for a link to the discussion which is needed for non-articles and is often useful for group reviews and should be noted.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I came here wondering the same thing. I'm removing the subst instruction. Equazcion  ( talk ) 15:56, 14 Mar 2010 (UTC)

"Template" parameter
Tothwolf, could you explain the purpose of the template parameter? Was there a problem it was adopted to solve? There may be a more efficient way to do it. Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we display a small notice for tfd above templates transcluded in mainspace but lacked a similar notification for delrev. As far as efficiency goes, I was thinking of making the code more generic in the long term, which may later involve removing the template parameter entirely and instead using page. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've implemented better logic code which now uses page instead of template. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It might be better to simply noinclude Template:Being deleted, or create a "delrev" parameter in the template to modify the message there. --Bsherr (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Convoluted sentence
"A decision in a deletion process of which this page is the subject is being discussed in a deletion review."

Can anyone think of a way to make this sentence easier to understand? 86.176.214.139 (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Legacy undocumented unnamed parameters

 * The initial 10 March 2006 version of this template had one unnamed parameter which defaulted to the (page title excluding namespace) if not specified
 * On 14 February 2010, (diff) a |date= parameter and "name for other parameter" |page= were added. To be clear, the unnamed parameters ( and  ) are distinctly different parameters than the named parameters, but the template is coded so that the unnamed parameters may be used in lieu of the named ones. Sometimes there may be good reasons for maintaining support for legacy parameters, but in this case, the template, which seems intended for only short-term use, isn't currently transcluded in any mainspace pages. Their presence here just contributes confusion and an Intricate template tag on the documentation. Any objections to removing these undocumented unnamed parameters? Wbm1058 (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 4 April 2022

 * 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. (non-admin closure)  NW1223 &lt; Howl at me &bull; My hunts &gt; 01:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Template:Delrev → Template:Deletion review – The new title makes it more clear what the template is for, and is consistent with other templates such as Article for deletion. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 21:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

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.
 * Support -new name is more clear and concise. Kpddg  (talk  •  contribs)  05:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Before I or someone else closes this request, can you please make sure that the rename wouldn't affect some kind of bot or user script. Just don't want to break things down, if the rename goes through. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • C • L) 16:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Same question applies to Template talk:Olddelrev, as they two seem related. Thanks! &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • C • L) 16:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on this search there's probably no scripts that would affected. Possibly some one user scripts which I didn't bother looking closer at. Bots are possible, but unlikely since there's no bot use warning and not really possible check.
 * Also noting that I support this proposal. --Trialpears (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)