Template:blank ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

It is obvious to me why this template, separate from {{ uw-delete1}}, has continued to exist until now. This reason doesn't appear to have been understood. I have used this template frequently, because the wording of {{ uw-delete1}} is not suitable for the scenario whereby a user has blanked a page completely (or otherwise made it such that it would be deleted as {{ db-nocontent}} if there were no meaningful page history). In this scenario, the problem is not that the user deleted content without explaining why, but that they left behind a page with no content whatsoever. And indeed, the user may have explained why. The user who blanked the page is likely to be a newbie who mistakenly believes blanking a page is the way to go about getting it deleted. As such, we need a message like this in order to educate such users of the correct approach. — Smjg ( talk) 21:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

This isn't to say that this message template should remain under the old (lack of) naming convention. Indeed, I would be in favour of reinstating this or a similar message as {{ uw-blank1}} (replacing the existing redirect to {{ uw-delete1}}), and writing a new message for {{ uw-blank2}} along the same lines. — Smjg ( talk) 21:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

• I tend to agree with Smjg about the merits of the issue. However, since this was implemented with a redirect rather than a deletion, wouldn't a simple template talk page discussion be sufficient? If the consensus agrees with Smjg, the redir can be undone with normal editing, including a move to a better name if wanted. I don't see any procedural errors in the TfD discussion which would justify DRV overturning that discussion. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 21:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
• Had I been asked on my talk page, I would have basically said what DESiegel said above. If you want to change these back from redirects to warning templates, then you should feel free to do so. Just make sure any new version substitutes cleanly. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for making them redirects in the first place, Plastikspork. That makes understanding the issue much plainer, and makes backing out the change that much easier, once an actual rationale for maintaining them as separate templates was brought up. Jclemens ( talk) 04:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply

It was my understanding that, once action has been taken as a result of an AfD, TfD or whatever, one can't just go in and reverse this action. Are you saying that this isn't the case, or is this basically an authorisation to go ahead and restore it?

Anyhow, I'll start a discussion on WT:UTM on the best plan for this template. — Smjg ( talk) 22:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Smjg, When the action is "Delete" this is somewhat true, although a recreation that cures the problem does not always need formal permission. (For example a bio deleted because of insufficient sources to establish notability, later recreated with several additional good sources is not a violation.) But where the result was "redirect", that is technically an ordinary editing action that anyone can undo, although it is better if there is some new consensus -- that is why I suggested talk page discussionfirst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DESiegel ( talk • contribs) 23:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply

• Change the redirects back to templates without prejudice against a TfD renomination because Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 May 28#Template:Blank had very little discussion and the closing admin wrote above, "If you want to change these back from redirects to warning templates, then you should feel free to do so." Cunard ( talk) 05:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC) reply