Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:Deletedpage"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Perhaps)
(Perhaps: Replies to Bohdan and U2)
Line 27: Line 27:
  
 
:Fixed by inserting #REDIRECT <<double-brackets here>>Conservapedia:Deletedpage<<double-brackets here>> .  Thanks--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:54, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
 
:Fixed by inserting #REDIRECT <<double-brackets here>>Conservapedia:Deletedpage<<double-brackets here>> .  Thanks--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:54, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
:::It does now I see! [I wrote that prior to Andy's message above.]  Yes, that one was done the old way (even though only done recently), where the page was protected and had a notice, but not redirected to this page.  I don't think any redirect page shows up with the Random Page link (and that makes sense).  And I think that only mainspace pages show up with the Random Page link, so this page, being in Conservapedia namespace, wouldn't show up that way either.  But I could be corrected on that.
 +
:::In reply to U2, I think this solution that we have works well enough that it's not worth the bother of doing what you suggest.  Of course, that's just my opinion.
 +
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:59, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

Revision as of 23:59, 20 July 2007

This page

Andy just restored this page with the comment "31 revisions restored: many pages link to this, so I don't think it should be deleted. Am I missing something?".

No, you are correct. This page is the destination of many redirects.

If a page is deleted that we don't want recreated (offensive title, etc.), then the page is turned into a protected redirect to this article. This is because:

  • If the offending page is simply deleted, there is nothing stopping someone else recreating it.
  • If the offending page is simply emptied and protected, it will show up on the Random Page link, lists of uncategorised pages, etc. Making the page a redirect prevents these problems.
  • If the offending page is made a redirect and not protected, there is again nothing stopping someone else recreating it.

NOTES:

  • Instead of simply deleting the offending page's content and making it a redirect, if the content was particularly offensive, it is best to delete the page itself, then create a new one of the same name as a redirect to this page.
  • If the title of the page is acceptable but the content is not, then deleting the page and not recreating/redirecting is better, as that then allows someone to recreate the page with legitimate content.
  • If this page (not this talk page, but Conservapedia:Deletedpage) (or any page) is deleted and restored, as has happened at least twice now, the protection is lost and has to be reapplied.

Philip J. Rayment 00:28, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps

Conservapedia:Deletedpage could be created in it's own namespace that doesn't show up in random page searches?

  1. Create a namespace (DELETES or whatever)
  2. Move Conservapedia:Deletedpage there
  3. Protect same.
  4. Tickle Mediawiki so DELETES doesn't show up in the database.

U2 00:35, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

I don't pages that link to Conservapedia:Deletedpage does show up in random page searches. Do you think they do?--Aschlafly 00:37, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
I have seen them, but some pages don't link, they have a different template so maybe they are the ones. This one [1] is deleted but doesn't redirect. Bohdan 00:46, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
Fixed by inserting #REDIRECT <<double-brackets here>>Conservapedia:Deletedpage<<double-brackets here>> . Thanks--Aschlafly 00:54, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
It does now I see! [I wrote that prior to Andy's message above.] Yes, that one was done the old way (even though only done recently), where the page was protected and had a notice, but not redirected to this page. I don't think any redirect page shows up with the Random Page link (and that makes sense). And I think that only mainspace pages show up with the Random Page link, so this page, being in Conservapedia namespace, wouldn't show up that way either. But I could be corrected on that.
In reply to U2, I think this solution that we have works well enough that it's not worth the bother of doing what you suggest. Of course, that's just my opinion.
Philip J. Rayment 00:59, 21 July 2007 (EDT)