Wikivoyage talk:Votes for undeletion

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Calling attention to this process[edit]

In contrast to VFDs, this process is invoked so rarely that I think it would be a good idea to call people's attention to it when we do use it; otherwise VFU'd articles aren't going to get discussed. A simple approach would be to put something on the VFD page link to this page, with date of the last update here. I've pre-emptively done so; discuss if needed. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:38, 11 December 2007 (EST)


I suggest we archive these pages - as it's probably not good to see a debate from 4 years ago on here now is it?? Anyway, I've planned a slight reform for VfD... --(WT-en) Sunstar 15:30, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Given that this process has been used, on average, once a year since Wikivoyage was created, I don't see a pressing need for archiving yet... (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:09, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
Should we archive now? --Saqib (talk) 06:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe so. I might suggest simply Wikivoyage:Votes for undeletion/Archives for now. I don't see a need to make dated files at present, since it's only been used 14 times is 10 years. Texugo (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done --Saqib (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's really out-of-date again now. I might be able to archive a few things. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's really no clear action to be taken on these. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lost revisions[edit]

An FYI, deleted revisions of articles were not imported to Wikivoyage from Wikitravel, so we cannot retrieve them in cases of undeletion. --Peter Talk 19:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty until proven innocent?[edit]

Is that still the standard here, in spite of the change at Vfd? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, our policy changes only affected vfd, not WV:Votes for undeletion, so yes, the old policy remains in place here. I think it's right that it should remain, since undeletions shouldn't be easy (IMHO). --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree, but it seems worth at least some thought. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Guilty until proven innocent has to be the default - it is the default - with a file or article which has already been deleted and therefore already judged guilty. The community will have made its decision already, and it is the job of the user(s) who want(s) that decision to be reversed, to persuade the rest that they should change their opinion and overturn the previous decision. That has to be approached with a healthy amount of scepticism.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, thanks for explaining it so well. That's exactly right. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That philosophy degree wasn't wasted then =) ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]