Conservapedia talk:Deletedpage

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Renaissancefan98 (Talk | contribs) at 14:57, 24 May 2008. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

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.


  • 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)


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)
  • I want you to know that I cannot make heads or tails of the above. Seems nothing has changed, eh? You wipe the contents, save it, protect it, edit it to add the redirect: conservapedia:deletedpage. Right? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 01:44, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
Yes, that's about right, but I thought it needed explaining here, as this page itself keeps getting deleted. Philip J. Rayment 01:47, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Yes! Because oftentimes, if one isn't paying enough attention, one is re-directed without noticing, and instead of wiping the pages contents, one deletes the deleted page! :P --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 01:51, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Another thought! If you or Ed fixed the bloody thing so that couldn't happen, it would be much better! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 01:53, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
Now that you've reminded me about the accidental deletion, I recall you saying that. But I'm sure at least one time was not account that, but because the deleter didn't realise what the page was for. I don't know how the accidental deletion could be stopped from happening, though. But the other problem is remembering to reprotect it after restoring it. It was because of it not being reprotected after deletion that a vandal got to it recently. Philip J. Rayment 02:25, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Now I am even more confused, as Andy deleted a page, didn't use a redriect but only used text:

Why not the redirect? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 02:11, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

I think that the ones without the redirect are the ones that show up when one clicks random page. I prefer the redirect. Bohdan
The one that Bohdan queried above was the same, but Andy's now changed it to a redirect, so my guess is simply using the old way out of habit (assuming it's something done recently). You didn't say where this happened. Philip J. Rayment 02:25, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
  • So we really should be using the redirect? Its easier to type. Bohdan
  • Andy just used the text tonight! [[2]] My head is really beginning to ache! And Bohdan, that IM, supposedly mine, isn't. Turn on your AIM ;-) --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 02:28, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
I'll stick with my answer above. Here's a timeline (my timezone):
  • 14:40 Andy uses a text version of deleted page (as you mentioned)
  • 14:49 Bohdan posts (above) an example of one that doesn't redirect.
  • 14:50 Andy changes Bohdan's example text-only one to a redirect.
  • 14:54 Andy posts (above) that he's done that change to Bohdan's example page.
So Andy's last instance was of using a redirect. He used the text-only version before this discussion brought the issue to his attention.
Philip J. Rayment 03:03, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, okay, however what the last version is, is:

Current revision (20:40, 20 July 2007) (edit) (undo) Aschlafly (Talk | contribs | block) [rollback]

Line 1: Line 1:

- Reminder to sysops: If this page is deleted and restored, it needs to be reprotected. +

Just text, no redirect. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 03:30, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes, that one is. The timeline above refers to two different pages; the one that Andy altered at 14:40, and the other which Bhodan raised and which Andy altered at 14:50. See Bohdan's link above. You have quoted the last version of the page you linked to; I'm quoting a different one that Andy changed ten minutes later. Philip J. Rayment 09:22, 21 July 2007 (EDT)


Can someone please explain why this page was deleted in the first place? And please don't tell me the non-existence of vulvas is your right as an American. ;-p Underscoreb 18:38, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Which page?
There are quite a few pages that have been deleted for which we don't want those pages/topics recreated, so they are recreated as protected redirects to this page.
One reason is that we consider some topics inappropriate for a family-friendly encyclopaedia.
Philip J. Rayment 20:15, 12 November 2007 (EST)
Maybe we could use such a page to help parents teach their kids about sexuality? It needn't be family unfriendly, you know. ScorpionVote for Pedro 12:19, 26 December 2007 (EST)

Is it because you guys/gals saw the CSI episode and think that makes you people a expert on the Furry Fandom, because you people should know that they also portray all Asians as kungfu stars.