UDWiki:Administration/Undeletions/Archive2012

e Undeletions Archive

By Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2018 2019

2012 Undeletion Archive

File:Kirsty04.png

I'm not sure the deletion date, but I think it's after the April '11 cut off date. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 22:56, 12 September 2012 (BST)

Undeleted. —Aichon— 23:20, 12 September 2012 (BST)

Thanks. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 23:25, 12 September 2012 (BST)

OcUK

Recommending we undelete this page. The page was deleted back in 2006 under the infamous crit 12, citing that the group was defunct and no longer on the stats page. It is now once more on the stats page and I think it makes a lot of sense to just undelete the page (there's still a revision from before it was deleted, so we could bring it back). So, what does everybody think? If it sways you one way or the other, Conndraka was the one who deleted it. >:) --Shortround }.{ My Contributions 00:58, 11 September 2012 (BST)

If it was deleted six year ago, surely the prior version would have been lost in the history purges. 01:29, 11 September 2012 (BST)

You'd think so, but he's right. Its deletion history shows two revisions, one from 2006 and one from 2005. Go figure. —Aichon— 04:16, 11 September 2012 (BST)

Then turn it back on. 04:31, 11 September 2012 (BST)

I'd agree with your assessment Mis, good to just undelete on their behalf. By the way, on this wiki at least, deleted revisions that only Sysops can see don't get purged in history purges. In an extreme case, it could be a nice way to keep revisions is Kevan gives us a time and date for the purges. A ZOMBIE ANT 08:35, 11 September 2012 (BST)

We only undelete pages if there's clear need for the page to exist. If the Z man had requested it it'd be more likely to be done but, in this case it's an ancient group no on has notably missed having a page on the wiki. If the new group is the SAME group, which it may not be, then they can by all means come here to request the action or if they're not it's a free page. Also noteworthy is that the abbreviation wasn't the old groups' name.

For note; deleted revisions are in a different db from page versions iirc. They never see page wipes so deletion, in some of these cases, actually means better preservation of the article content for later re-use. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 10:02, 11 September 2012 (BST)

We only undelete pages if there's a convincing reason to do so, and I think there's one here. The page was deleted as part of routine maintenance to cull inactive groups, but the group has been back and active for around a year now, I think, and I seriously doubt a different group of (apparently) non-meta-gamers chose the same four letters with the same capitalization and spacing. If it had been deleted for a more compelling reason, I might support keeping it deleted until a request came in, but this was for a form of maintenance that's no longer practiced, and the group is clearly back. Additionally, it's large enough that people viewing the stats page want to know some stuff about them (including myself, prior to my being a sysop again), which is a good reason to undelete. —Aichon— 15:47, 11 September 2012 (BST)

I strongly agree with Aichon's stance to undelete. The policy of deleting old groups has been abolished for good reason and with strong consensus, while there is virtually no harm in undeleting the page. Additionally, according to my research the current OCUK group seems to be a continuitation of the old group, since it too is based on the OCUK forums. If you cross-reference a google-search for site:urbandead.com ocuk with the member list in the first post, you will definitively see that it is. -- Spiderzed█ 18:11, 11 September 2012 (BST)

If that is the case then there's no reason not to undelete it. Forum location however, isn't normally enough proof in these cases to determine it. It also address' Aichon's reasoning. The older page consists of OLD group information and the forum thread linked by Spiderzed lends itself to this being a new group on that forum not the previous one making a return. In this case undeleting this page would likely serve to misinform users, which is why these cases, particularly crit 12 revival, normally require a group member to make the request and verify all of this beyond our limited and unreliable suppositions. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 00:24, 12 September 2012 (BST)

Having reviewed the pre deletion edits, I see no reason to bring it back. The information would all be out of date anyway. Let them request, or create a new page if they so care. --I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 00:28, 12 September 2012 (BST)

Last I checked, this group openly cheats. Don't do them any favors. ~ _{02:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)}

^mod bias that I love to hear >:D A ZOMBIE ANT 11:14, 12 September 2012 (BST)

He's not a sysop at the moment. :P —Aichon— 15:45, 12 September 2012 (BST)

Yeah one of the benefits of dropping the buttons is that I can as biased as I wanna be on admin pages. None of thos pesky "standards" to get in the way of saying how I really feel. ~ _{17:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)}

Oh man I forgot (or maybe never saw that) you demoted... Wow, the idea that the sysop team actually didn't have aichon or vapor in it gives me shudders A ZOMBIE ANT 15:09, 13 September 2012 (BST)

Well it looks like we have Shortround, myself, and Spider on one side, with Karek and Ross on the other. I honestly don't care enough to argue it, and Ross and Karek make a good point about the information being outdated, even if it is related. At this point, I'm actually starting to lean somewhat towards a compromise of making a brief NPOV page, potentially using some of the info from the deleted copy. The wiki is supposed to reflect the game and serve as a resource to those playing it, and I know from firsthand experience that it's come up short in this case. Whether we restore what used to be there or put up something new, I don't care, but something should be there, even if it's just two sentences about them being a survivor-oriented group operating in multiple suburbs, with members having come over from a particular forum. Thoughts? —Aichon— 15:45, 12 September 2012 (BST)

Theres some precedent for this, over disputes with The Deads page, and any of us, as non members, creating their official page. But, honestly, I don't care if a new 2 sentence npov page is put there. --I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 15:50, 12 September 2012 (BST)

I have whipped up an ugly three paragraph write-up. Would someone now see an issue in restoring the undeleted page, so that it can be accessed by the public via page history? -- Spiderzed█ 18:28, 12 September 2012 (BST)

That seems reasonable as a compromise, so I've gone ahead and done so (on the basis that we already have at least 3 out of 5 of us okay with the NPOV idea and 3 of us okay with restoring it outright). —Aichon— 18:37, 12 September 2012 (BST)

{{NPOV}} on a group page? Oh, the humanity! -- boxy 11:38, 13 September 2012 (BST)

Actually pretty well-established. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 16:44, 13 September 2012 (BST)

[1] A ZOMBIE ANT 01:46, 14 September 2012 (BST)

User:Jerrel Yokotory/movement

I miss this gem of wiki history. I wanna read the page that caused me much lols. Can it PLEEAASSSEEE be undeleted either there or in my userspace! It was hilarious. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:36, 8 September 2012 (BST)

Undelete this. Pwease. 03:44, 8 September 2012 (BST)

Absolutely not. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 03:53, 8 September 2012 (BST)

Can a real sysop please answer this request. thanks D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:57, 8 September 2012 (BST)

Absolutely not. Karek ^{maps 2.0?!} 09:18, 8 September 2012 (BST)

It's funny, because its an open and shut case of impersonation. --I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 09:19, 8 September 2012 (BST)

Please elaborate D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:46, 8 September 2012 (BST)