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.

Request for undeletion

Hi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easa_Al-Gurg page was redirected to another page mistakingly as it was considered as the same person. But these are two different people. Please could you consider restoring the article (Jurrasicworld (talk) 04:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC))

@Jurrasicworld: This looks to be  Done. Note: You didn't need to put the full URL. You could have simply used the wikilink like this: Easa Al-Gurg. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Pinging AfD nominators for soft-deletion REFUNDs

Hi all, a thought (and apologies if this has already been discussed and I missed it) - when we undelete an article that was soft-deleted at AfD or contested as a prod, is it worth pinging (or posting a message to the talk page of, if pinging isn't considered sufficient - although I think it should be) the original AfD nominator or prod-er? That way it can be renominated if so desired, rather than slipping through the cracks after being undeleted? I manually let a couple of AfD nominators know of this, eg. at User_talk:Timtrent#The_Africa_Report. I also noted that Extraordinary Writ did it here, but should we make this the default process for all soft-deletion REFUNDs? Daniel (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Yep, as long as the nominator isn't blocked, inactive, etc., I think a courtesy ping is generally a good idea. I guess the counterargument would be that anyone who's interested should just watchlist the deleted page, but there's no real harm in making sure they're aware, in my opinion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

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)