Template talk:Undelete

This template was created 22:10, 3 July 2009‎, by User:Wikademia, a highly active user, if all the accounts are considered. Ultimately, this is one of the very few users to be considered banned here, and the account was later globally locked. Wikademia was also User:Remi, User:Emesee, and others. However, the discussion on which the "ban" was based did not conclude ban, merely the continuance of indef block. There was what I'd call a "breakdown in communication." See the discussion of the block at Wikiversity:Community Review/User:Wikademia. Communication breakdowns generally involve more than one side. Resolving them can require the highest skill, combined with patience.

The template may have been designed to be placed on a deleted page, i.e., as a new page creation under that pagename. It did not create a category, requesting attention, so it was not useful as a request for speedy undeletion. Rather, it merely expressed an opinion. However, it might also have been placed on a talk page for the deleted page (which, in my opinion, would be legitimate, but not the most effective way to proceed, see below).

The template was deleted, ad hoc, perhaps without discussion or notice, 22:39, 3 July 2009, with summary (undeletion should be requested at WV:RFD, not by recreating the page). However, the user talk page was deleted so I can't tell. The practice of deleting user talk pages damages the transparency of Wikiversity governance. No RFD. Perhaps it would be too disruptive.... this must always be balanced with the high value of transparency. Blanking offensive content is normally enough, revision deletion can be used to blank what is offensive leaving what is not, including what is not problematic of edit history, etc.

The template deletion imprope, my opinion (now mostly moot, the custodian is no longer a custodian. It was done the first day the user was probationary. I see no sign that anyone noticed.)

So this was an experienced Wikiversity user's template creation, deleted by a probationary custodian, ad hoc, when the page was merely "wrong" in the opinion of the custodian. I'd consider this one small stick tossed on what was becoming a bonfire, not just with Wikiademia, but also with JWSchmidt, who opposed the custodianship, but who did not effectively challenge it. It's hard to concentrate when the flames reach your toes. I see no sign that any possible legitimate issue in JWS' barrage of questions was addressed in the permanent custodianship vote. JWSchmidt's concerns were swept under the carpet, because of how he presented them.

Who was seeking and facilitating a consensus that would include JWSchmidt? To him, the candidate represented a sea change, and that is a complex discussion, not for here. JWS, originally one of the most popular of Wikiversity's creators, had become marginalized, many users had abandoned ship when it got hot, etc.

So now, on to the future. I will deprecate the template first. This should not be used without some discussion, at least, and without instructions in the template as to how to use it. This could be highly useful, supplementing our speedy deletion process by creating "speedy undeletion."

Because speedy deletion templates normally allow any user to challenge the deletion by removing the template (and ultimately, if dispute persists, if the matter cannot be handled to find consensus without wider discussion, there is WV:RFD), speedy deletion is efficient because discussion is not necessary. If the dissent does not arise until after the deletion, it should not be necessary to discuss undeletion, in many or most cases. A request for undeletion is not a claim that the deletion was "wrong." There might have been a good reason. However, if the objection arose before the actual deletion, it would normally stop the deletion process, and it should be just as easy to request undeletion as deletion, and just as non-disruptive -- unless accompanied by incivility, etc.

So how would this be used? It should be used in such a way as to make action efficient. I would place the template on the page that was deleted. Yes, that "recreates the page," but not with the deleted revisions. The template would created a listing in Category:Undeletion requests, which would have a summary box on WV:RCA. Normally, the template would not need explanatory text, the tagging would be equivalent to removing a deletion template. (If an explanation is needed, this should be done as a request on WV:RFD.) Admin action, then, would be to undelete the underlying revisions, if accepting the request, perhaps to move the page to the requesting user's user space if denying the request (or if accepting it but userfying the undeleted page), or to simply redelete the page if the request is considered disruptive with no appropriate non-deletion action. In that case, the requestor should be notified! The requestor then has the option of going to WV:RFD.

Normally, unless the choice is to undelete, the custodian who deleted should not remove the undeletion request, unless it's disruptive in itself. That custodian, however, may contest the undeletion by adding a note to the page; however, I would urge all custodians to avoid dispute in speedy deletion/undeletion. If there is a dispute over deletion, it belongs on WV:RFD, unless there is an emergency.

Procedure to undelete pages deleted after a consensus for deletion on WV:RFD would be handled differently, through the Undeletion request section on WV:RFD. However, a user closing a discussion there may use the Undelete template to request that a custodian action the consensus (or lack of consensus for deletion, with substantial argument for restoring the page, as Keep is our default). Such a request would point to the discussion. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:We as transcluded in this template
Guy added the template, as remaining from a peculiar series of edits and moves. Guy, please use a sandbox to test stuff, and do edit a page "Showing folks what the "we" template looks like," we can see it at Template:We.

I reverted, removing the template,[] with summary: (Template:we is completely inappropriate here. This is not a resource, it's a very poorly designed template at this point. See Tak. -- ah, "Talk." I did not add a comment on talk, considering that the existing talk comments showed the purpose of the template (and we are not ready to use it).

Guy reverted, with edit summary (Don't delete badly worded template. Place invitation to replace.)

Guy then added an explanation to the template. When a user has objected to content, to repeatedly assert it is the beginning of revert warring. Rather, discuss on Talk, not on the page itself. If I again remove it, even though I still consider it wildly inappropriate, given contemplated template usage and our actual practice, how we work on templates, that would be revert warring.

A template is only some code to be transcluded to a page. The we template is not "badly worded," it is fine for its intended usage. If you want to use that message for this page, subst it and edit the message.

The we template places the page in Category:Resource stubs. This is not a resource, nor is it a resource stub. It is a partially developed template. The user who created the template was having severe difficulties here; the template was deleted less than an hour after being created, with no discussion, which is quite irregular. But those kinds of things happened often then. I have shown here, how to handle a template that should not be used without some preparation.

We have no Category:Templates to improve. Okay, lets create that. (✅ What will be needed, however, is a guideline for usage, which discussion will not take place here. For that discussion, we should make this template ready to use, so we can point to it.

Now, should the "we" template be transcluded here, to then be transcluded onto any page where the template is used? No. It's doubly inappropriate, because we don't want the page where this template would be used to be "improved," we want it undeleted if imporovement is possible. If we want the page left deleted, then we can create a new page as a stub, with the we template or other content.

The "we" template is not an "under construction" template. It may be used in addition to such a template. The normal usage, however, is for a stub with no current participation.

I will add the template improvement category, and intend to remove "we" after giving opportunity for Guy to respond here. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I substituted the we template, which then has the same effect, but it may be edited. I left it alone, except that I changed the Category to Category:Templates to improve. I also added note about the original template code. That will all be removed from the template when it's prepared for demonstrations. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Template used on talk page?
Unless the request is only for a talk page, my opinion is, no. This template is intended for undiscussed undeletion, just as Template:Delete is intended for discussed deletion. It can be used with no reason,, but obviously, an explanation is appropriate in the summary; the original template provided for a reason to be supplied with a template parameter. If the template is rejected, the deletion log will show the process, and then WV:RFD may be used, i.e., present practice. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)