Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 April 9

198 (number) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was previously deleted in 2022, per the result of an AFD discussion. I would like the earlier history of 198 (number) as well as it’s talk page to be restored, as soon as this deletion review closes, because I would like to put a R from history tag on the redirect. Regards, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 23:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary was meant to say; Adding 198 (number) to deletion review. Regards, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 23:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse if this is an appeal of the close. However, it is not clear what this is. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Like Robert McClenon, I am not sure what this is about. It doesn't appear to be a claim that the deletion discussion was incorrectly closed. "I would like to..." do something isn't a reason to overturn the outcome of a correctly closed discussion, and no other reason has been given. Unless and until another reason is provided, therefore, we have to endorse the closure, and decline the request. (See WP:ILIKEIT.) JBW (talk) 09:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No, guys, it does make sense. During the AfD the content was merged -- see the very last entry in the AfD. There was a subsequent discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 29#198 (number) in which the community decided that a redirect was legitimate. The applicant now wants to restore the history beneath the redirect in order to preserve attribution. This isn't just legitimate, it's mandatory for terms of use compliance and in my view it ought to be completely uncontroversial. We could lecture the nominator about the different venues for requesting this kind of thing, but I think it would be more productive just to restore the history as asked and speedily close this DRV?—S Marshall T/C 09:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Copyright compliance is unlikely to be a factor, the text under 198 is essentially facts trivially stated and not likely to be afforded copyright protection - there are only a few ways you can state the number of ridges say. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, there's more to WP:CWW than copyright. Attribution is author credit: it's the only "reward" we offer volunteers, and mainspace contributions are a kind of social capital. The situations in which we don't need to provide attribution are listed at WP:NOATT and I don't think any of them obtain.—S Marshall T/C 12:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The focus of CWW is copyright it's opening sentence is all about licensing, and it mention nothing of editors "reward". One of the sentences heading WP:NOATT is "However, duplicating material by other contributors that is sufficiently creative to be copyrightable under US law (as the governing law for Wikipedia) requires attribution.", the 4 items listed are guidance and not definitive. Regardless my sole point was that there is not a copyright requirement, if it's desirable for other reasons, that's another matter. Either way for copyright reasons or some other feel good reasons, generally a redirect with history tends not to achieve much as someone reading the article I've no idea that other article exists and I can go look there to some how try and piece together who might be attributable for a given piece of work YMMV --81.100.164.154 (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  People usually use {{merged}} on the talk page.—S Marshall T/C 13:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "What links here" will show the redirected page, and history can readily be seen on the redirected page. Jclemens (talk) 05:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore history at redirect. The appellant does. not appear to be challenging the closure. I’m not sure if DRV or WP:REFUND is the right venue for such a request but we’re here now. There’s really no compelling reason not to restore the history, easpecially after the redirect was validated at RFD. Frank Anchor 10:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Nominator comment: I also recommend to restore the history at the redirect because the redirect was merged with 190 (number). Regards, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 11:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy restore history under redirect 1) it was merged, so CWW expects it, and 2) there is no assertion of G10-11-12 attack-spam-copyvio "poison" content that should not be restored. This should really be a standard function of REFUND, should it not? Jclemens (talk) 04:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Edge version history (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Web browsers have their version history page (for example, Firefox and Firefox version history; the latter has content copied from the Mozilla website). I created the Edge version history page as a split from the main Microsoft Edge article (first user draft, then an article). Weeks ago it got deleted due to CSD G12; I apparently copied the content from the Microsoft Learn website, with modifications. I (or we) should've written the changelog in my (or their) own, non-copyvio words as long as the "violating" content was removed. Purplneon486 (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Not clear what you are asking for here, there is nothing stopping you writing a version which isn't a copyright violation. Mozilla release the content under a compatible creative commons license, so not ideal to copy, but not a copyvio. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, user from IP address 81.100.164.154, for that explanation. I had, in fact, already explained to Purplneon486 the important difference in the licensing situation between Microsoft and Mozilla, so I'm not sure why they brought it up here. As the IP editor says, Purplneon486, there's nothing to prevent you from re-creating the article without copying, but Wikipedia policy doesn't allow restoring deleted material known to infringe copyright. Incidentally, you may be interested to learn that a single purpose account was created, which did no editing at all apart from repeatedly removing the copyright notice from the article, which it did 10 times until it was blocked. You may not have known about that, because it all happened in a gap between times when you edited. JBW (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Something which didn't occur to me when I wrote my comments above, Purplneon486, but which has occurred to me now, is that by a funny coincidence the username of that single purpose account has a certain amount of similarity to your user name. JBW (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What's the username of that SPA? Purplneon486 (talk) 10:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It was Pere prlpz0 (talk · contribs). Not really seeing it myself. Hut 8.5 17:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - What is being requested here? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Some of the content was definitely copied from Microsoft's published version history and it wouldn't be very surprising if the rest of it was as well, so deletion was reasonable. This was listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2023 March 25 so allow for improvements to be made before deletion, but all that happened was that somebody repeatedly removed the copyvio template and was eventually blocked for edit warring. More generally I don't think it's a good idea for an encyclopedia to have a list of every change made to a major piece of software, even if it's not a copyright violation (e.g. "Users can set Microsoft Edge as their default browser directly from the settings, instead of having to search through the operating system settings"), Hut 8.5 07:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps for clarity when I posted above I should have said that I deleted the article. JBW (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. We cannot restore copyright violations. There is no bar to recreating the article in a non-violating way, assuming sufficient notability may be shown. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, keep deleted. —Alalch E. 08:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Salem Spartans (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hope all are doing good. The teams in TNPL is notable as per notability guidelines of Wikipedia, that TNPL is played by Domestic cricketers along with State players who represents thier state in national level tournaments and National players who represents India in international tournaments. Hope you will reconsider the redirection of those articles. Lightweightbody (talk) 07:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Deletion review is not AFD round 2. Only one weak keep vote which acknowledged limited coverage and acknowledged redirect as an option. There were no errors in process, and the close judged consensus properly. -- Whpq (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Lightweightbody, you seem to have misunderstood the purpose of a deletion review following a deletion discussion. It is not a place to reopen the discussion and provide arguments as to why you disagree with the opinions expressed in the original deletion discussion. It is for use in either of two situations: the person who closed the discussion did so in a way which did not accurately reflect consensus in the discussion, or circumstances have changed since the discussion. You have not suggested that either of those has happened. JBW (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Not only did the one editor who said "weak keep", as Whpq has said, admit that coverage "might be limited" and also acknowledge redirection as an alternative, but they also offered no reason at all for keeping apart from "Obviously the teams exist" and "I don't see an issue with them being represented on Wikipedia with an article", neither of which is a reason for keeping. (For the first of those see WP:ITEXISTS and for the second see WP:ILIKEIT and WP:HARMLESS.) Other than that there was total agreement to redirect, and the discussion was rightly closed as consensus to redirect. JBW (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse if this is an appeal of the close, but I am not sure what this is. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (voted redirect in the AFD). There was almost unanimous consensus for delete/ATD in the AFD discussion. The only keep support was a single “weak keep” vote which recognized redirect as a viable alternative. Frank Anchor 12:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy endorse. Deletion review is a place to address failure to follow deletion process properly. It is not a place to repeat the same points made at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]