Wikipedia talk:Requests for undeletion

Welcome. Please note that this page is NOT for requesting undeletion of a page. It is for discussion of the Requests for Undeletion page. Please request undeletion of a page on the main UND page.

Category:Pages with too many expensive parser function calls

I noticed a bunch of archives exceed the expensive parser function. This is due to the use of {{revisions}}, which uses {{#ifexist}}. Would there be any problems if I substituted the {{revisions}} to avoid this? See this diff for an example. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

This would stop it automatically updating, meaning that:

• If the page is created/deleted, the history link won't be shown/hidden
• If there are new AfDs, they won't be linked to
• If there's an MfD, it won't be linked to.

It won't change anything that is currently linked to. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Well I frequently make use of the afd link. I don't care what happens in archives, but is useful on Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. For TheImaCow's mass request, you could archive it early, or subst as it is completed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett, I don't plan on changing the current page, just the archives. Is that okay? — Qwerfjkltalk 20:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind about the archives, as they reflect the state at the end of the REFUND request. So substing in archive is OK by me. It would get a better result than exceeding the parser limit. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'll run my script. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Requesting multiple pages to be sent to email?

Would it be considered an appropriate request if one were to ask for the contents of a fairly large number of pages (say, several dozen) to be sent via email? (Because one has a logged list but doesn't remember which of them had content worth rescuing, and would like to check before actually requesting undeletion). All the pages would be REFUND-eligible, of course. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Well I would not email them, but may paste comments or the content in response. Others may email content. It is easier to just refund rather than email the last content. You can always ask, but the request may be ignored. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

What's the latest on G5?

As the G5-deleted Nirudyoga Natulu was restored as Draft:Nirudyoga Natulu (pinging UtherSRG), we go back to the discussions on how is G5 to be treated at this forum. I have not been tracking if G5 restoration has become regular here, in which case we can modify the instructions at the top. The last discussion, which was short-lived, petered out to the Village Pump discussion which also didn't close but saw opposition to G5 restoration. Jay 💬 14:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, my sense is that the community doesn't want to outright prohibit us from restoring G5s. The requestor is well known and would have created much the same article had we denied. Should we delete the draft and restore only the non-sock edits? That might be a better, though less simple path. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

If you delete only the sock edits, how would you explain attribution? DareshMohan would be seen as having copied content from somewhere (a sock version), and not providing credit. And if you provide credit to the sock, the intent of G5 is lost, and deletion of the sock versions won't make sense. Jay 💬 05:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we have any good paths forwards on G5 no matter what we do. If we don't restore, the requesting user can go to some archive and get the lastest version and recreate it. If we do restore it in some manner we get attribution issues. Oh wait, what about revdel'ing the sock edits. Then we know the edits came from someone else, but we don't give credit to a sock. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

We need to see how comparable are the cases where an editor creates a page by copying copyright-free content off the web, versus an admin offering G5-deleted content to the editor on request. REVDEL criteria at WP:CRD does not indicate if it may be used for sock edits. Jay 💬 16:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:CRD is not written in stone, but an argument could be made that RD5 fits this purpose. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Why are there suddenly so many "Page name goes here" requests?

Frankly, it should not be possible to submit a request without a valid link in the request. BD2412 T 00:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

It appears to be more than a 10 year old problem. Jay 💬 17:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah it's not so sudden, I've seen lots of them. I agree that it should be made impossible to submit such a request. (It's not a unique problem to this page [1].) – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

My perception is, of course, colored by an internalized recentism. Still, I saw a run of this, and it irked me. What's the next step towards improving the situation? BD2412 T 19:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:VPT? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Speed up archiving?

What's the archive rate on this page? Can we speed it up? Right now there are 120 undeletion requests on the page, most of them have been addressed, and the oldest one I see (without a new response) was last responded to eight days ago. Can we get these moved off the page sooner once completed? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

"process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially"

One of the standard administrator response at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Administrator instructions states:

• Not done – this Requests for Undeletion process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially, and does not apply to articles deleted after a deletion discussion. Since the article you are here about was deleted after a discussion took place, it cannot be undeleted through this process. However, if you believe that the outcome of the discussion did not reflect the consensus of the participants, or that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted, you may...

However, it's not true that "Requests for Undeletion process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially".

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion states that it is "a process intended to assist users in two cases":

1. The first case is restoring pages or files that were uncontroversially deleted
2. In the second use case, this page is also intended to serve as a central location to request that deleted content be "userfied"

I read the second case to be an intended and available route to draftify or userfy an article that was deleted through AFD. Is it not?

So it's rather annoying to be told to take a non-BLP, non-"sensitive", non-copyright-violation draftification request to WP:DRV instead, and hit with a stock response telling me that "this process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially", when I'm following the page's directions to get a draft or userspace "REFUND".

Template:UND does contain success templates for the Draftified and Userfied actions:

• Draftified – the page has been restored to the draft space at draft:pagename.

Can we please have Not Done stock responses for Draft and Userfication requests?

And remove the incorrect statement that "this Requests for Undeletion process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially, and does not apply to articles deleted after a deletion discussion."?

PK-WIKI (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

There is some flexibility. If the delete was a long time ago, and the requestor says why things have changed, then a draftify makes sense. If the requestor is trusted and knows how to improve to acceptability, then it might be accepted. If the AFD just closed, and the requestor already placed their argument at AFD, then the request should be knocked back, as nothing changes that fast. Some deleting admins say they don't restore and leave it to refund, so then admins can make a decision for them. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you supporting or opposing userfication/draftification here? The statement Can we please have Not Done stock responses for Draft and Userfication requests? suggests you are opposing. Jay 💬 05:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I suppose I generally support userfication/draftification of content, however I recognize that there are cases where it should not occur. Deleted BLP articles or other sensitive or troublesome articles, etc. In those cases the admin message should indicate that this is the correct venue to request a draftification, however the request was not granted for X reason.

I definitely think that WP:UND should be the venue to (attempt to) have AFD-deleted content userfied/draftified, rather than pointing users toward WP:DRV for that. The admin messages should reflect this, even in the Not Done cases.

PK-WIKI (talk) 06:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I see. You want Not Done templated responses for userfication/draftification. Such requests we get are very few, and they should definitely not be replied with templated responses meant for restoration. If you are seeing such responses, the concerned admin should be first asked to stop using such templates for userfication/draftification. Jay 💬 07:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)