Template talk:Temporarily undeleted

This template was considered for deletion on December 2004. The result of the discussion was "keep".

Use[edit]

If a deleted article has had its history page temporarily restored by an administrator to facilitate a discussion on Wikipedia:Deletion review, {{TempUndelete}} may be placed on that article page.

Articles which have obtained a "keep" (or "no consensus defaulting to keep") decision on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, but have had that decision appealed on Wikipedia:Deletion review, may be affixed with the template {{Delrev}}. —Encephalon 12:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feb 2009[edit]

I removed "If there seems likely to be a strong consensus to undelete and you wish to improve this article meanwhile, please be bold and do so." as the practice is that articles are protected while this template is in use. - brenneman 13:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion to improve the template[edit]

Navigating an article history is a fairly complex task, especially for somebody who's pretty new to Wikipedia (not uncommon in the case of deletion discussions).

I think this template would be more useful -- an present less of a bureaucratic hurdle -- if it contained a direct link to a revision prior to deletion.

Any objections to adding a parameter that would take a URL, and adding a sentence like the following to the end of the text: "You may wish to view a version of the article from prior to its deletion."

-Pete (talk)

Jargon[edit]

While most of the template is well written, the last line says "You may wish to contribute to the discussion at Deletion review following your inspection.". The term "Deletion review" has not been used before in the template, noting only that "an appeal has been made" without mentioning the location.

To improve this I would change the wording to be as below. Italics and strikethrough are used to denote changes only, I am not proposing to change the formatting from how it is presently:

This page was deleted from Wikipedia, because an administrator believed either that a consensus was reached among editors that it is unsuitable as an encyclopedia entry, or that it met one or more conditions for speedy deletion. However, an appeal has been made at deletion review to restore the page. To facilitate that discussion, the page has been temporarily restored with this message in place. If you would like to see the article that was deleted, please check its history. You may wish to contribute to the Deletion review discussion ~~at Deletion review~~ following your inspection.

I'm undecided whether the "at deletion review" text should be inside or outside either the link or the bolding.

I'll implement this change if there are no objections after a few days, although I'll mention this proposal at WT:DRV to hopefully attract input. Thryduulf (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After two weeks with no comments I have implemented this proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit...[edit]

Would anybody object to my adding something along the lines of, Please do not edit this page until the review is completed? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's objected in the two years since I proposed this, so I took that as consensus and added the statement -- RoySmith (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 55#Improving articles temporarily undeleted for WP:DRV and Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archives/2015/July#Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Improving articles temporarily undeleted for WP:DRV are relevant. (Contrary to what I wrote there, I currently protect pages I tempundelete as a matter of course.) —Cryptic 02:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of those discussions, thanks for the links. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Short page monitor?[edit]

Would it make sense to add {{subst:long comment}} to this? I notice people often come along and do that (i.e. @Dw122339: [1]), so why not just make it automatic? -- RoySmith (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. The point of longcomment is to lengthen the wikitext of the page it appears on. Adding it here wouldn't do a thing unless we started substing {{TempUndelete}} too. —Cryptic 22:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, is there a better way to handle this? What happens now is this (apparently) shows up in some list, which is monitored by various hard-working wikignomes, who then manually fix the problem by adding {{subst:long comment}}. That seems like a waste of effort which could be totally automated. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hmm, how about renaming this to be {{version of tempundelete with a very long name so we don't trigger the short pages trigger}}, and then redirecting {{TempUndelete}} there?~~ -- RoySmith (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, never mind, that doesn't actually fix the problem. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]