| Revision as of 18:10, 28 November 2024 edit88.235.232.9 (talk) →Pawn (scripting language)Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 06:35, 9 January 2025 edit undoExtraordinary Writ (talk | contribs)Administrators75,417 edits →Instructions subpages: comment | ||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| == Language improvement, here & Refund == | |||
| from @]'s comment , @]'s thread above and note at ] and my fairly regular "We're not doing 7 days of bureaucracy", it appears there's a start to consensus on how to improve and streamline DRV to allow it to focus on the discussions where it's needed vs. where there's another solution. Thoughts, suggestions on where else this should be? ] ] 13:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I made a proposal about just this a while back at ] ] 13:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::There’s no good reason to split DRV. | |||
| ::Uncontroversial REFUNDS should be advised to go to REFUND to ask. | |||
| ::REFUNDS to draftspace are almost always uncontroversial. | |||
| ::REFUND should plainly distinguish between whether the REFUND is to draftspace or to mainspace, and give simple advice on both. REFUNDS to mainspace are rarely uncontroversial, except for late disputed PRODs. ] (]) 22:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Natural history - partially deleted category tree == | |||
| Not sure where to ask about these two: | |||
| * ] - result was delete | |||
| * ] - result was no consensus | |||
| As a result the category tree is partially deleted and partially extant. Would it be possible to revert the first deletion (as mentioned would be appropriate by a couple people in the second discussion)? I will note that the second nomination got more attention, I think because it included lower-level subcategories that get more "circulation". | |||
| ] (]) 23:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Neha Harsora == | == Neha Harsora == | ||
| Line 79: | Line 57: | ||
| :::Twice, actually - once at 14:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC) and declined at 15:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC), i.e. before posting here; the second was at 16:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC) and declined at 16:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC), i.e. afterward. --] 🌹 (]) 07:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC) | :::Twice, actually - once at 14:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC) and declined at 15:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC), i.e. before posting here; the second was at 16:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC) and declined at 16:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC), i.e. afterward. --] 🌹 (]) 07:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC) | ||
| =Status update of DRV still ongoing beyond 7 days = | == Status update of DRV still ongoing beyond 7 days == | ||
| Page The Peel Club was submitted for DRV on 26 Aug, now on the 9th the article message says review is still underway. Can someone tell me the status of it and what stages it awaits? User:Hellenistic accountant|Hellenistic accountant (User talk:Hellenistic accountant|talk) 00:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC) | Page ] was submitted for DRV on 26 Aug, now on the 9th the article message says review is still underway. Can someone tell me the status of it and what stages it awaits? ] (]) 00:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :The reason this debate is still open is a large number of our DRV regular closers got involved in the debate itself, in my case due to sub-optimal behaviour that was leading to disruption of the discussion. Having been involved in the process like that, I am reticent to close it per a broad interpretation of , and I imagine a number of my peers are the same. It will be closed in due course. User:Daniel|Daniel (User talk:Daniel|talk) 22:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC) | :The reason this debate is still open is a large number of our DRV regular closers got involved in the debate itself, in my case due to sub-optimal behaviour that was leading to disruption of the discussion. Having been involved in the process like that, I am reticent to close it per a broad interpretation of ], and I imagine a number of my peers are the same. It will be closed in due course. ] (]) 22:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC) | ||
| =Pawn (scripting language) = | == Pawn (scripting language) == | ||
| : I plan to improve and expand the Pawn (scripting language) article to meet the required criteria. | : I plan to improve and expand the ] article to meet the required criteria. | ||
| : I intend to move ] to the mainspace and will strive to improve its quality. I would also like to highlight that on the page Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pawn (scripting language)|Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pawn (scripting language), there was a fairly supportive discussion about the topic's eligibility for a main article. | : I intend to move ] to the mainspace and will strive to improve its quality. I would also like to highlight that on the page ]), there was a fairly supportive discussion about the topic's eligibility for a main article. | ||
| : I hope to gain support from the Misplaced Pages community to develop this article into a comprehensive source of information on the Pawn programming language. | : I hope to gain support from the Misplaced Pages community to develop this article into a comprehensive source of information on the Pawn programming language. | ||
| [[User:Putu Suhartawan|Putu Suhartawan (User talk:Putu Suhartawan|talk 01:53, 30 September 2024 UTC) | ] (]) 01:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | ||
| == Instructions subpages == | |||
| The DRV instructions/rules are transcluded from ] (11 watchlisters) and ] (21 watchlisters), meaning any changes aren't visible to the main DRV page's 1316 watchlisters. Is there ]? If not, I think it'd make more sense to just copy them over. ] (]) 22:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I don’t know the history of the splitting and transclusion of the instructions, but I think the semi-hidden content is very long overdue for editing. It’s convoluted, read differently by different people, and we reached an impasse years ago trying to fix it. ] (]) 22:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Since there have been no objections, I've gone ahead and copied everything over; I ''think'' I've managed to do this without making a hash of things, but if anyone sees anything that looks off, let me know. (In principle I'd certainly be on board with simplifying the instructions, although in practice it would be a challenge.) ] (]) 06:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 06:35, 9 January 2025
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Deletion review page. |
|
 | This is not the place to contest a deletion or to request a history undeletion. Follow the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. This page is for discussing maintenance issues, proper usage of deletion review, etc. |
Neha Harsora
Hi, I would like to contest the deletion of the article of this actress, but since it was deleted under G5 there was no consensus, hence where can I do it? 202.41.10.107 (talk) 04:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is the wrong place to contest a deletion. If you go to Neha Harsora, you will see a box telling you to "please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below", that is to say, Explicit (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I want my article back
The article I wrote was deleted around 2 years ago because 6 months passed without activity and now they wont undelete it because they think there's a conflict of interest. I am writing an article for Dr. Zouhair Amarin because I was his student. There is no conflict of interest as we are not colleagues, friends or family. I have maintained a neutral tone throughout the article. Zamarin (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Zamarin: This is not the place to make such a request. The notice at User talk:Zamarin#Concern regarding Draft:Zouhair Amarin directs you as follows:
- If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
- You need to follow that last link and do what it says. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Redrose64 The user already requested undeletion, which was declined, multiple times Mach61 22:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Twice, actually - once at 14:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC) and declined at 15:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC), i.e. before posting here; the second was at 16:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC) and declined at 16:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC), i.e. afterward. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Redrose64 The user already requested undeletion, which was declined, multiple times Mach61 22:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Status update of DRV still ongoing beyond 7 days
Page The Peel Club was submitted for DRV on 26 Aug, now on the 9th the article message says review is still underway. Can someone tell me the status of it and what stages it awaits? Hellenistic accountant (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- The reason this debate is still open is a large number of our DRV regular closers got involved in the debate itself, in my case due to sub-optimal behaviour that was leading to disruption of the discussion. Having been involved in the process like that, I am reticent to close it per a broad interpretation of WP:INVOLVED, and I imagine a number of my peers are the same. It will be closed in due course. Daniel (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Pawn (scripting language)
- I plan to improve and expand the Pawn (scripting language) article to meet the required criteria.
- I intend to move the Pawn (programming language) draft to the mainspace and will strive to improve its quality. I would also like to highlight that on the page Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pawn (scripting language), there was a fairly supportive discussion about the topic's eligibility for a main article.
- I hope to gain support from the Misplaced Pages community to develop this article into a comprehensive source of information on the Pawn programming language.
Putu Suhartawan (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Instructions subpages
The DRV instructions/rules are transcluded from Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Purpose (11 watchlisters) and Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Discussions (21 watchlisters), meaning any changes aren't visible to the main DRV page's 1316 watchlisters. Is there some non-obvious good reason for this? If not, I think it'd make more sense to just copy them over. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t know the history of the splitting and transclusion of the instructions, but I think the semi-hidden content is very long overdue for editing. It’s convoluted, read differently by different people, and we reached an impasse years ago trying to fix it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since there have been no objections, I've gone ahead and copied everything over; I think I've managed to do this without making a hash of things, but if anyone sees anything that looks off, let me know. (In principle I'd certainly be on board with simplifying the instructions, although in practice it would be a challenge.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)