|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
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. — Qwerfjkl talk 16:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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":
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)
Can we please have Not Done stock responses for Draft and Userfication requests?suggests you are opposing. Jay 💬 05:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
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. — Qwerfjkl talk 16:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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":
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)
Can we please have Not Done stock responses for Draft and Userfication requests?suggests you are opposing. Jay 💬 05:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)