This template was deleted on the grounds that it was redundant with {{section link}}. This is incorrect, and the closer admitted not knowing much about these templates. On a page such as Talk:John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (person), one could type {{sectionlink|Early life}} in a discussion to link to the non-talkpage section John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (person)#Early life. The only other way to make this link is [[{{ARTICLEPAGENAME}}#Early life]] (which I think this template used, also making it move-proof). To the best of my knowledge, {{section link}} or any other template does not have this functionality. 174.141.182.82 (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As the closer, let me ask you: why do you believe that my close incorrectly reflected consensus? My job when closing is solely to interpret the discussion at hand, unless there's some overarching policy that would overrule the discussion. How could the discussion be interpreted otherwise than "delete", or if there's some overarching policy that would overrule it, what's the policy? My non-knowledge of the template's workings would be relevant if I'd participated in the discussion (I shouldn't offer an opinion if I don't know how it works), but knowledge of the subject isn't needed when closing a routine discussion like this one. Nyttend (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because the consensus was incorrect, as I described. It was “redundant” with a template that didn’t have the same functionality? I didn’t mean to imply that your close was improper, and I apologize if I did. The arguments for deletion were simply wrong. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken. If I closed it properly, there's no reason for a DRV, which is intended to dispute a misinterpretation of XFD consensus, to dispute a misuse of speedy deletion, to overturn an old XFD that's no longer applicable, to fix a mangled deletion (i.e. it's not clear what got deleted), or to overturn something with a major procedural error. You say that I interpreted XFD consensus correctly, it's obviously not a speedy deletion, it's not old (you're objecting to the original decision, not saying that there's new information), what I did appears to be clear to you (if I'm wrong, tell me what needs to be explained better), and procedural errors are situations where people didn't get informed, where there's been votestacking, or where the thing got closed extremely early, e.g. with partisan timing to exclude one side. I think you're much better off helping to make a decision at WP:VPT in the discussion where you're already participating. Nyttend (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
“Deletion Review may be used … if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page.” I’m providing new information that was not offered in the XfD discussion. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict with your modification of your comment] I'm referring to the parts of WP:DRVPURPOSE, of which the relevant point says "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". This is for pages where the original discussion was correct but wouldn't be if repeated, e.g. an average junior footballer who makes it to the Premier League after AFD and now passes WP:ATHLETE, or a two-link navbox is deleted per WP:NENAN but then someone finds a bunch of additional articles that would fit in the template. Nyttend (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Do you write your comments in Microsoft Word and copy/paste them here? I don't remember ever seeing someone write with curly quotes in a discussion before.[reply]
No, I just like using curly quotes, ellipses (as opposed to periods), em dashes, etc. And… that’s not what that says. What’s the appropriate course of action when a deletion discussion didn’t include all arguments and was closed based on misinformation? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, that's how we normally interpret if significant new information..., and to me, this request looked more like the Deletion Review should not be used point one, because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment. If a discussion results in people agreeing that the old template's functionality needs to be available, I'd probably be willing to undelete, since the fact that people want the template would be significant new information. Part of the issue in this situation is that others look like they're disagreeing with your opinion at WP:VPT; I don't see it as particularly likely that people will start wanting the template again. And I'm impressed — an mdash is easy to type because I remember the alt code for it and I don't use it much, but I don't know the codes for the other things, and copy/pasting them everywhere (or even typing the alt codes everywhere) would take way too much time for my liking. Nyttend (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have a disagreement with some fallacious arguments leading to the outcome, and I do fault the closer’s judgement in accepting them as fact. Fair? If the consensus to delete holds without those arguments, then fine, but that needs to be clear. (And I don’t use alt codes; I use Mac key combinations. Option-hyphen for an en dash, for instance. Sorry to disappoint ) —174.141.182.82 (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The claim "This template was deleted on the grounds that it was redundant with {{section link}}" is false, the deletion rationale was "Redundant to simple Wiki markup". However, there is redundancy to the named template, since the same effect can be achieved with {{section link||Early life}} (note double pipe). Furthermore, {{sectionlink}} has already been made a redirect to {{section link}}, so {{sectionlink||Early life}} will also work. The OP has already been told, elsewhere, earlier today, that [[{{ARTICLEPAGENAME}}#Early life]] is not necessary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read my original post here? {{section link||Section}} on a Talk page links to #Section on the Talk page. Try it yourself; I have. What “simple wiki markup” achieves the effect of [[{{ARTICLEPAGENAME}}#Section|Section}} as concisely as {{sectionlink|Section}}? That’s not exactly simple wiki markup. And there were a few claims of redundancy with {{section link}} (as you just made) with no one correcting them. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Simple Wikimarkup for the same effect would be [[Example#Foo|Foo]]. Alternatively, use one of:
All of which are a good deal longer than {{sectionlink|Foo}}, especially with long names, and not moveproof unless you use the magic word. And I’d argue that magic words don’t count as “simple” markup. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I also realized 174.141.182.82's point when I was helping Nyttend, doing the transclusions. The absolute equivalent of § {{sectionlink|Early life}} is {{section link|{{ARTICLEPAGENAME}}|Early life|nopage=y}}. Still, reviving {{section link}} and with its problematic name is unwise. We can quickly fashion a {{article section}} with the code I specified above to reproduce what 174.141.182.82 wants. That is... if no one disagrees. How about it?
I proposed something along those lines on VPT. I see no problem with that. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your concerns make sense and your solution sounds right; that name honestly makes a lot more sense for this purpose than sectionlink. Thanks! —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can post a "withdraw" note or just let it run its course. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the close because the closer was doing his duty and create a new template along the lines Lisa suggests. A lot of this DRV discussion has been more than my brain can cope with these days but I hope there is a good way forward. Remarking that a template is redundant to simple wiki markup is not a good way to start a TFD nomination and the discussion was confused by different people addressing different aspects of the nomination. I also suspect that some people had misunderstood the template and the consequences of deleting it. Thincat (talk) 11:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The close looks like a valid interpretation of the consensus in the discussion to me. There's also nothing to stop anyone from creating a new template, as has been suggested elsewhere in this thread. I think we should be moving away from relying on simple formatting templates like this, however, as it makes it unnecessarily difficult for people using Visual Editor. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 12:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. With the template that I suggested now created by Edokter, there is no practical points (WP:IAR) stopping me from endorsing the closure. The closing admin was doing his duty and doing it well. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. I started the review because there was no alternative to this template. Now there is. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
