Wikipedia talk:Requests for undeletion/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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.
- 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)
- 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)
- Graeme Bartlett, I don't plan on changing the current page, just the archives. Is that okay? — Qwerfjkltalk 20:30, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)