Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archives/2013/December

"Commenting in a deletion review"
This seems to be missing the common Allow recreation and Keep deleted, but I'm not quite sure how these should be included in this section so I'd like to hear others' opinions on this. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC) I've gone ahead and added allow recreation to the list. Let me know what you think of the wording. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 06:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't see this as significant as the content of the vote is more important then the part that gets bolded and many participants don't bold anything as a point of principle. Keep deleted is undoubtedly the same as endorse and doesn't need to be added but I can't see any harm adding Allow recreation if you think this is necessary. Spartaz Humbug! 22:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Spartaz, I disagree regarding "Keep deleted" versus "Endorse" - the former refers to the deletion review, while the latter refers to the original deletion discussion. In other words, the former is an opinion that the new arguments presented are insufficient to permit recreation of the page, while the latter is an opinion that the original discussion was in fact closed correctly given the arguments presented at the time (the result of which may or may not in fact have been a delete close, by the way). As for the significance of this section, this process could really benefit from some newcomers given how few comments some deletion reviews have, so I think that its exact wording is quite important. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * DRV has a very clear way of working and its really not rocket science. We are more then capable of working out nuance in a way that doesn't need to revolve around one or two bolded words. Endorse - keep deleted - pfft the outcome is the same and there are multiple instances of endorsed and kept deleted as well as not endorsed and kept deleted as well as endorsed and recreated at the same time. I'm not seeing any major benefit for this change but I can see inexperienced users might find allow recreation useful. Lets see what the other regulars think. Spartaz Humbug! 22:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @User:Spartaz: Well, I suppose that's one way of looking at it, but I would like to note that your examples of dual opinions are actually further evidence for them being separate - after all, if there are in fact multiple cases of two such opinions being stated simultaneously, surely that means that they do not actually mean the same thing? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comparing to WP:Guide to deletion, I see allow recreation as distinct enough for the equivalent of Recommendations and outcomes, but keep deleted is a variant more suited to Shorthands. Since the only guidance is WP:Deletion review/Discussions, I agree with Spartaz that keep deleted doesn't make the cut. Flatscan (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * looks fine. Flatscan (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Grooverville Methodist Church
I attempted to post a deletion review of this subject and it's showing up on the December 12 page here but not on the main page. Can someone please assist me in making sure it is posted correctly. Thank you kindly. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is showing up on the main page for me. Try purging your cache. Hut 8.5 21:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced entry
A request has been added to the wrong day, WP:Deletion review/Log/2013 December 17; it should have been added to WP:Deletion review/Log/2013 December 18. As both were empty it's not out of order but the bot removed the 17th as it's empty so it's not listed in the main list of discussions. Can someone please look at this and move it/add the 17th to the list of transcludes? I'm not sure what to do and am not sure I wouldn't make a mess of it anyway. Thanks.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 02:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)