Wikipedia talk:Historical archive/Template:Deletedpage

Date sorted list of pages with this template. (at the toolserver)

This template is for the article namespace; for other namespaces, use deletedmiscpage. --cesarb 15:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Older discussions
This template was nominated for deletion on WP:TFD, but was kept. Please note that there was unanimous consensus among all voters who voted to keep this template that this template was poorly written, and should be rewritten. See Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted for more information. -Frazzydee|&#9997; 00:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions
Anyone have any suggestions? I kinda think this page should see more use. What should it say? Where does the discussion go? I'm not quite sure a link to the debate is appropriate, though -- might just reignite firestorms. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk 01:41, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

New template
Here is a possible new template. Feel free to muck around with it below before it is put in. It was adapted from MediaWiki:Noarticletext. It'd be nice if this also included reasons for why it was deleted, but maybe this would be better suited for the talk page. -Frazzydee|&#9997; 18:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Talk pages
This template does not make much sense on talk pages (since it tells people to discuss changes on the talk page). I think another template (Template:deletedtalkpage?) should be created for these situations. --cesarb 00:43, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm, you're right- it doesn't. That would probably be a good idea. -Frazzydee|&#9997; 00:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, but no process exists to delete a Talk page. It either goes down with its ship (which I think wrong) or is immortal. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 03:13, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

Background Color
I suggest making the background color white as opposed to grey to fit with the monobook theme. &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;)  23:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It was originally white, but was changed to gray. I think the gray is better, since it makes more obvious you are in a &#123;&#123;deletedpage&#125;&#125; and not in a &#123;&#123;mediawiki:noarticletext&#125;&#125;. --cesarb 00:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Strongly worded
Um...this template, with its current wording, is actually against policy. Articles may be recreated after deletion, if the cause of the deletion was related to something like provides little or no context, the article was vanity, etc., but is subsequently rewritten from scratch to address the causes of its deletion. We often say on VfD things like, "...it's no good in its current form, lets delete it until a proper article can be written." This template suggests that an encyclopedic rewrite cannot occur. func(talk) 30 June 2005 15:25 (UTC)


 * I have added "without a good reason" at the end of the first sentence. This template is likely to be used where there have been problems with bad pages being recreated: if a good version of the page can be created then it can replace the template, but until the the template should stay. -- ALoan (Talk) 30 June 2005 21:49 (UTC)

Search link
The first &#123;{PAGENAME}} in the new search link with fulltext=Search needs to be changed to &#123;{PAGENAMEE}}, or the link fails on articles with spaces in the title (e.g. Smith N. Jones High School). Also, both the search link and the protection log links should probably be put inside  s so that they don't get the annoying little external link icon in Monobook. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Votes for Deletion -> Articles for Deletion
Considering the name change, this template should be fixed accordingly. Will someone with the permission change this? KramarDanIkabu 00:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. But a reminder: to get a faster response from an admin, please post your request on the Administrators' noticeboard. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Please use this template cautiously
I've just been poking through Category:Protected deleted pages, which lists the pages this template is used on. I've found a few pages that had this template, and were protected, where this really just isn't appropriate; examples, which I've now deleted, are Butt (archery), Bacchus (painting) and Culture of Panama. Both have some prominent inbound redlinks to them, so the deletion log for both shows many creations with vandalism. But it really isn't appropriate to stick this template on such an obviously valid topics, simply because a half-dozen or so people, over the past year, have independently thought it funny to stick some nonsense in there. Look at it this way: if I was a Panamanian knowledgeable about the culture of my country, and saw a message saying "this page should not be created" on Culture of Panama, I'd quickly lose interest in helping Wikipedia out, regardless of what the template goes on to say about using the Talk page or whatever.

So please, use this template for a short time when one user keeps recreating a page inappropriately, but let's keep this category cleaned up so we don't drive off others. CDC  (talk)  23:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree for articles that are valid topics, that this should be used only temporarily if at all. But for articles that should never exist, this template is appropriate to use indefinitely. - Taxman Talk 16:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Protection
Are we supposed to protect a page after putting this template on it? Enochlau 13:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. The whole point of the template's existence is that you can't protect a page unless there's something on it. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 09:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Linking
Can anyone think of a simple way this template could link to any pages it's used on, to avoid the articles using it being orphan articles? In theory, nothing else should be linking to pages with the template on it. I just can't think of a good way to modify the template. --W.marsh 00:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit history
As edit histories have been disabled for regular editors (see WP:VPT, might be in the archives by now), can the blurb about edit histories be removed from this template? Thanks. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Mind, the template isn't protected; you could have done so yourself. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Weird... if you look at the protection log, it shows the page was protected, but there's no entry for when it was unprotected: . —Locke Cole • t • c 12:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Protection goes away when a page is deleted, and this one's been deleted twice. &#8212;Cryptic (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added a link to the deletion log instead. Melchoir 08:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

optional parameter?
Could this template benefit from an optional parameter? I just had to subst: and correct the link on Talk:Virago so that it would go to Articles_for_deletion/Virago_2 where the article was actually deleted, not Articles_for_deletion/Virago where there was no consensus. Unfortunately the article page is protected, so I couldn't fix it there. This may be why it ended up on Deletion review.. -- nae'blis (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the report. Copied optional parameter from oldafdfull and added it to Virago. Have a nice day. --cesarb 23:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated! -- nae'blis (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Subst'ing
Any reason why the instructions say to subst this? I saw BorgHunter go through and subst all the uses of this template and rapped his knuckles, but now I see that the instructions on the template actually say to do so. I'd like to suggest that this is completely unneeded. The template transclusion method exists for a reason, and super low traffic pages (like the kind that'll get added to them) just do not need substing. I'd like to change the instructions to be to just use the non-subst method, but I wanted to bring it up here first for comment. Regards, C HAIRBOY (☎) 15:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't see a reason to subst it either. Johnleemk | Talk 15:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just removed the subst instruction, let's see if it sticks. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 02:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the removal. It works better without the subst (for instance, it automatically fills the delete summary if used without subst). In fact, I always used it without subst. --cesarb 02:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I very much oppose this! Not substing breaks Special:Shortpages because vast majority of articles it shows are deleted pages, and you don't want to look at them when you are searching for short articles to improve. There are at least few editors, me included, who like to salvage poor substubs and would like to have a usable tool for finding them. Plus, there is no harm in substing it, the space saving of translucion is very marginal given that this template should be used very sparingly in my opinion. It was originally intended for serious long-term vandalism cases, not for every nn. bio. article were the original author is stupid enough to not realize this is an encyclopedia about serious topics after 5 minutes of being told to take his vanity crap elsewhere. I will continue substing this, at least for pages I delete and protect, and will also delete the deleted pages where I can't see a reason to use this template in the first place. jni 07:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The harm in subst'ing it is that if the instructions or links are updated then pages which subst'd are not updated in kind. Please do not continue to subst it. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Like links to WP:AFD or to deletion log would ever change? And instructions, why change or even have 'em on super low traffic pages that are almost never visited (User:Chairboy's argument). Originally was used for this purpose and I think this new template with its "user friendly" instructions is only a very marginal improvement over that. Anyone who needs there instructions should not be touching these pages to begin with. jni 07:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's funny that you used AFD as an example, that was actually WP:VFD until a few months ago. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 16:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, and that has been VfDs only relocation in four years or so. And the redirect from old location will be in place for next four years or so at least. Alleged neuroscientist and Wikipedia vandal Shawn Mikula will probably get a clue and stop posting his self-promotional piece here before our "instructions" need to be updated. I think most uses of this template should be deleted on rolling basis after a year or two. jni 12:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This should not be substed. Yes, it breaks shortpages, but it means that the updates to this template will actually be seen around the encyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd go with the least complicated solution. Don't subst from now on, re-asses all the ones where it is already subst-ed. Many of them can probably be made redlinks. Then we talk again about the ones left over. - brenneman  {L} 04:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone could go around with a bot and add to all pages with this template so it doesn't break shortpages :-) --W.marsh 12:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind that, because Shortpages is completely useless after about 4 bytes because of all the s and s and whatnot. --Rory096 07:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * One thing we could do is create an extra template with the padding in HTML comments. Admins will subst that onto the deleted page and then add this unsubst'ed template below. Johnleemk | Talk 07:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Or just make 's content something like " &#123;{subst:extracharacterstemplate}}," so people could just &#123;{subst:deletedpage}} and get the current deleted page and a template to use up space. --Rory096 07:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Also note that Shortpages omits a number of "irrelevant" short pages, including redirects, copyvios, disambigs, and deletedpage (but not deleted page for some reason). So, this is only an issue for Special:Shortpages. --cesarb 16:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Although, for now, the obvious solution is to use deletedpage and not deleted page. --Aquillion 19:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Old discussion, but this should never be substed. Otherwise, it is counted as an article in Special:Statistics, which is something much more visible and relevant than Special:Shortpages. Tito xd (?!?) 20:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Request to add category for protection templates

 * Please add Category:Protection templates before the interlanguage links

--&#160;Omniplex 01:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. // [ admin ] Pathoschild (talk/map) 02:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --&#160;Omniplex 06:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Please unprotect this template for a while
I just want to reformat it better! Damnit --Col. Hauler 09:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you want changed? --CBDunkerson 23:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit Please
When it says 1) "this page has been deleted" 2) "view the talk page of this article" 3) "within a reasonable time on this article's talk page" 4) "who protected the page" 5)"if you created an article" 6) "articles for deletion" 7) "this page's entry on articles for deletion (or votes for deletion for older entries)"

Well, not all pages with deletedpage are articles, so I propose we use the following every time it says article or page:

and for the "XfD" things we should use:


 * The first bit seems superfluous to me, but I did the second for you. Ashibaka tock 21:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that you're actually meant to use outside the article namespace (among other things, it links to MfD rather than AfD – Gurch 21:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I always see misc pages using this template. Maybe we should get a bot to convert all the non-articles to the other template? -- GeorgeMoney T&middot;C 22:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And deletedtalkpage for talk pages (among other things, it doesn't link to the talk page). --cesarb 21:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Another proposed edit
On articles, this reads:
 * this article's entry on articles for deletion (or votes for deletion for older entries)..

The two periods is a travesty and one of them should be deleted. I think the first one should be deleted, although the second one is also just as acceptable. Hbdragon88 05:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have fixed it, the change may not be visible on all pages immediately, the system will get around to it soonish (by the way thanks for the chuckle, I removed the first one :-)) --Commander Keane 17:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Correcting typo
dicussed &rarr; discussed -- ADNghiem501 08:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Done, thank you! Haukur 08:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Repeating the {pagename} so much seems to be inadvertantly google bombing
Our shart and sharting deleted pages are still top-4s hit on google. Seems like we should remove at least two of the three visible occurences of {pagename}. 24.18.215.132 00:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary
Why's there a link to a non-existant and entirely irrelevent wiktionary entry on this template? - Estel (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, not really sure about that myself. Just from experience, this template is rarely, if ever, added to dictionary definition articles (we have Template:wi for that)... usually this template is added to vanity, spam, attack pages or whatever that keep getting recreated. --W.marsh 19:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, I've never seen a case where that wiktionary link is useful. Considering this it is given far too much prominence in the template. Let's try to fix it. Haukur 19:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I made an attempt, maybe I went to far - please comment. Haukur 19:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Because Stifle decreed in his edit summary that it was better that way. -Splash - tk 22:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops. Not intended. I should slap myself around a bit for violating the protected page policy, as well. Stifle (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

How temporary is this?
Does this protection/deletedpage expire or is there automated removal from it? I notice several that are many months old, when the page creations only occurred a couple times on a single day. That is, it was a random person long gone who, if even in the depths of his memory he recalls the name of the page, is not likely to return to recreate it; the protection on many of these could have been removed after a couple of days, let alone 6 months (e.g. Portalforums, Dogbomb.co.uk). Others, contrary to the statement at the top of List of pages protected against re-creation, were created and deleted only once (e.g. Bryson Voirin, Pearse Taggart); that is, there was no repeated vandalism of the page so that, even if protection was warranted, there is no reason to believe that it need remain for several months. These examples are just the oldest ones I found, 6-8 months; there are dozens like this from March and April.

One of the practical consequences of this is that real article subjects get blocked. Paris Flood, for example, had two vandalism creations 14 minutes apart in January, but this was a real and major event, which warrants an article, or perhaps at that particular title a redirect or disambiguation page. Note also that while an obvious vanity page may be deleted peremptorily, this does not mean that there do not exist persons of the same name who may be notable, for persons are many with the same name, or that a person of this name will not attain notability over the course of 6 months.

Deleted, protected pages must be kept to a minimum and be protected for only as much time as necessary. A user who requests unprotection on the talk page—as the template recommends—is discouraged from creating an article on a topic by waiting perhaps a couple of days, perhaps a couple of forgotten months; they would be discouraged even if there were an automated system by which administrators are notified of unprotection requests on such talk pages. The other recommended route, deletion review, is likely daunting for a naive user, and also takes a deterrent length of time. —Centrx→talk &bull; 06:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it's possible to use editprotected, and it's possible to delete deletedpages when you think they aren't going to come back, but it doesn't always seem to be happening. Perhaps there should be a time limit, that we can enforce by using monthly categories? Stifle (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I find this argument persuasive. I might add that some of the deleted titles are legitimate search terms and it's frustrating for our readers to get a deleted page template when they search for something. Can we get an ad hoc consensus to delete pages that fulfill the following conservative criteria?
 * They exist in the main namespace.
 * They contain only the "deletedpage" template or a substed version of that.
 * They were deleted more than 6 months ago.
 * There are no OFFICE issues involved.
 * In the judgment of the deleting admin there is no particular reason to think that a recreation will occur.
 * Does this make sense? Can I go and clean up some of this clutter? :) Haukur 14:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This may be too conservative. There are more than a thousand of these pages, some of which are undoubtedly recent, but it would still be quite a task to contact every deleting admin, who will most likely agree or will have totally forgotten if it is that long ago. If an admin forgets, they would have the same tools available to check what the situation is, namely the deletion log, on which anyone else can see if an article was created once or twice in one day 6 months ago. Also, sometimes people leave for a while and so cannot be contacted. The time period could be shorter as well, there are many pages only 3 or 4 months old with only one deletion or two or three deletions in one day. I only hope this does not represent an increasing trend. —Centrx→talk &bull; 04:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, I was unclear. When I said "deleting admin" I meant the admin deleting the deletedpage, not the admin who did the original deletion. It seems that people agree that some cleanup would be desirable so I'll go and delete a bunch under CSD G6 and then try to get some more feedback. Haukur 08:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I went through most of A but only found three pages which had been there since February and none that had been there longer. Presumably someone is or has been cleaning these out. It would be nice to have documentation somewhere... Haukur 09:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In addition to some protected pages being legitimate search terms, a few of them are legitimate topics (or sometimes legitimate future topics if their notability increases), but the creator, or creators, just went about it the wrong way, recreating it after it was deleted instead of making a better version or going to deletion review, and ended up getting the page permanently protected against recreation.
 * I think that it might be good to have most protections be temporary, but to have a different template, system or whatever, for permanent protection. This would be used when there is no possible chance for the page to have an article or serve as a redirect and it is likely to be (or has been) continually recreated when it is unprotected.
 * Whether any of this is implemented or not, perhaps deleted pages should not show up in internal search results and maybe deleted pages should even contain instructions for search engines not to index them. -- Kjkolb 05:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Kotepho/reports/deleted page by page id (page_id's increase over time, so roughly sorted by time of creation)
 * User:Kotepho/reports/deleted page by time (by page_touched, which is time of last edit or change in protection and whatnot. Might not be useful due to the automated substing and/or comment additions done by some people.)
 * User:Kotepho/reports/deleted page by cl_timestamp (by cl_timestamp of Category:Protected deleted pages, which is the time that the page was last added to the category, if anyone messes around with the template it can reset all of them though)
 * Kotepho 11:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Something must have happened on May 1 and some other dates, because there are many listed there which are from March, etc. —Centrx→talk &bull; 06:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Very useful logs! I think I'll go and clean up some of the oldest ones now. Haukur 20:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've done a bunch, I think this is useful work. For example I just deleted Chris Harrison; I'd be willing to bet that someone reasonably notable has that name and it's silly to have a Wikipedia 'deletedpage' show up on the first page of Google for a common name. I also deleted a few deletedpages where someone had deleted a cross-namespace redirect (to clean up clutter) and left a deletedpage template (even worse clutter). Feel free to undo any of my deletions, of course, if you think I made a mistake. Haukur 09:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki
Hello,

Could a sysop please add the interwiki link to frwiki template : fr:Modèle:Page supprimée Thanks :)

Guillom 08:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've done this. Jude (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The colon should be deleted: fr:Modèle:Page supprimée -> fr:Modèle:Page supprimée. Thanks!
 * [[Image:Green check.png|20px|Any concerns have been fixed]] Nacon kantari  16:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please also one to de:Vorlage:Gesperrtes Lemma. TZMT (de:T) 12:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And ja:Wikipedia:白紙化保護 too. 22:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And sq:Stampa:Faqe të grisur, thx. --Sintonak.X 23:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Both done. Please add future links to a new section at the bottom, or they are unlikely to be noticed. —Centrx→talk &bull; 23:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussing recreation on talk page
We currently have this recommendation: "Recreation can be discussed on the talk page or at Deletion Review." I'm wondering if maybe this isn't so helpful after all. I just participated in the following sequence of events.


 * 1) A newbie keeps recreating an article which meets WP:CSD A7 and it gets deleted five times (I did two of the deletions). No-one can be bothered to tell the creator why the article is deleted. ((Rory Demetrioff, if you're interested.)
 * 2) Finally an admin gets bored and slaps a "deletedpage" template on the page.
 * 3) The newbie follows the recommendation of the template and makes an inquiry on the talk page.
 * 4) Whoosh! The talk page is deleted under CSD A8.

I wonder if this happens all the time :) Haukur 21:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The talk page should not be deleted under CSD:A8, because it is not an article and unlikely to be a copyvio. If, however, you were referring to CSD:G8, it shouldn't be deleted either, because G8 only applies to talk pages of nonexistent pages. If deletedpage is on the page, it exists, and I don't think G8 applies then. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, yes, G8 is what I meant. But we again come to the issue that some users see pages with this template on as deleted pages. Haukur 09:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been wondering about this. Talk:LUElinks was randomly deleted for no reason whatsoever one time, even though its a protected article page. Hbdragon88 04:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The comments deleted were not reasonable requests for undeletion, they were tangent conversations, angry obscenity, etc. If a page is not going to be undeleted except through deletion review, it doesn't matter how many exasperated fans make comments about it on the talk page. —Centrx→talk &bull; 04:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

subst
I see someone adding a long comment to existing pages with this template so that they do not appear in the short articles list. Would it not be better to add a warning to this template to ensure that it is always "subst"'ed. See prod for how to do it. -- RHaworth 18:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No good. See above. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Addition to page
Please add: " The page on which this template is placed is automatically categorised into Category:Protected deleted pages. " in line with the many other templates with this same, helpful verbiage. —Centrx→talk &bull; 05:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please also add " See Template:Deletedmiscpage and Template:Deletedstubpage for templates that specifically refer to miscellany for deletion and stub types for deletion, respectively. " —Centrx→talk &bull; 06:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Kimchi.sg 20:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Re-creation NOT recreation
Recreation, from the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition:


 * 1) Activity engaged in for relaxation and amusement: disport, diversion, fun, play, sport. See work/play.
 * 2) The condition of being amused: amusement, entertainment. See excite/bore/interest.
 * 3) Something, especially a performance or show, designed to entertain: amusement, distraction, diversion, entertainment. See excite/bore/interest.

Re-creation, from Webster 1913 Dictionary:


 * 1) A forming anew; a new creation or formation.

Would some admin please change the template to reflect the correct spelling of the word? Thanks! --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 18:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Done. Haukur 20:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of this tag after AfD
I've seen a bunch of articles tagged with this template after being deleted at AfD. Often the AfD discussion reached consensus that the article should be deleted in its present form, but that in a different form it would have been acceptable. In cases like this, this template does not accurately convey that a perfectly acceptable article could be written, and discourages anyone from trying. So perhaps a second template should be created for these cases (perhaps it already exists?) It should say something like "this article was deleted after discussion {link here}.  If you would like to re-write this article, please read the discussion so you understand the reasons why the previous article was deleted.  If your new version is a re-creation of the previous article without improvements, it will likely be deleted again." In these cases, I don't think the articles need to be protected. -- Samuel Wantman 20:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, deleted articles should in general yield a redlink. I don't see any need for a template saying you can create this page when the redlink page says the same thing. Admins who are using this template on random articles deleted by AfD need a talk page poke about it, unless those articles are highly prone to recreation. -Splash - tk 12:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I added a bold sentence at the beginning of the instructions. Hopefully that will discourage excess use; more likely no one will notice. —Centrx→talk &bull; 02:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

recent vandalism of this template
To revert vandalism from this page by and  to remove valid changes. I'm out of 3RR. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 17:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should consider that you may be wrong rather than accusing two administrators of vandalism for what are clearly good-faith edits. —Centrx→talk &bull; 17:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Centrx's reversions were not vandalism, and I find it very troubling that you would make such a ridiculous accusation. Nufy8 19:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * How is removing valid edits not vandalism? &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 20:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Very simple. Read Vandalism. He used a valid edit summary to explain his actions. You did not. Without commenting on the merit of your changes, which can be discussed without reverting them in, your actions were clearly out of line Duncharris. Instead of reverting your changes back in with admin rollback, you should have discussed on the talkpage. I thought this was WP 101. How did you get to be an admin and not know this type of stuff? Efforts should be made to de-escalate edit wars, not just keep reverting. - Taxman Talk 20:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You're "out of 3RR"? I think you should read WP:3RR a bit more carefully, specifically "It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours". --W.marsh 20:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this wasn't vandalism. Admin tools, especially rollback, are to be used only for removing clear vandalism. I have repeatedly requested Dunc not to use it on edit wars, or on good faith edits from other editors. Removing valid comments from talk pages with edit summaries like "rm trolling" is also not desirable. Please be sparing in using rollbacks. --Ragib 20:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am discussing the vandalism right here. In this case, instead of discussing the details of the vandalism, other users wikilawyer as to whether such blatant vandalism was technically vandalism, or was it "good faith vandalism" or something. So what's right with the vandalism? &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 20:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Be reasonable. I'd like to assume that every admin has at least the most basic knowledge of Wikipedia policy, including what does and does not constitute vandalism, and right now you're making me doubt my initial assumption. No one's discouraging you from discussing your proposed changes to the template. You essentially terminated the discussion yourself on your talk page and called it "trolling," as well as removing it on this talk page and calling it "spam." So please resume a civil discussion if you're so inclined, and refrain from the unfounded accusations of vandalism. Thank you. Nufy8 21:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

And do you really think this is "WP:SPAM"? —Centrx→talk &bull; 21:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And then you also deleted it from your talk page! —Centrx→talk &bull; 21:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to note here that on one hand, Dunc rollbacks Centrx's move of comments from his (Centrx's) talk page to a more visible talk page, and on the other hand, removes comments from his own talk page claiming "Trolling". This is not the first time abuse of rollback has been pointed out to Dunc, and not the first time he has behaved in a very uncivil manner to other editors. Please do not misuse Admin tools or claim trolling when comments at your user page are not favorable to you. Thanks. --Ragib 21:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Wording generalisation
redirects here, but the wording used on categories looks a bit strange. Could someone please change 'If you created an article under this title previously' to 'If you created a page under this title previously' to avoid confusion? (Category:Wikipedian authors of deleted articles is one example at the moment.) --ais523 08:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * seems to have been changed to not redirect here anymore, but the change may as well be made anyway (it will help on non-category non-articles, and there's always a chance that will be reinserted). --ais523 13:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Nufy8 16:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This template is used on Wikipedia pages, etc. as well. —Centrx→talk &bull; 05:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's why I referenced 'non-category non-articles' above. --ais523 15:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Administrators may view the page history item
I think this is just to provide an easy link. Administrators already know they can view the page history. What is the use of it to the editor reading the template? Also, separately, I think fixing the inbound links would be more important than this. —Centrx→talk &bull; 02:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless there are skins that don't have the undelete link for existing articles, I don't think it needs to be here at all. Being &lt;small&gt;d seems perfectly reasonable if it stays. &mdash;Cryptic 05:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see the point either, and I doubt any admin would use a skin that lacks a history tab. ( Radiant ) 11:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

New interwiki link requested
I request for an interwiki link from the template page to de:Vorlage:Gesperrtes Lemma. --72.205.241.187 01:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Nufy8 01:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed edit
See User:Poccil/deletedpage. I added the "reason" and "admin" parameters to the template, thereby rendering Template:Deletedpage-r obsolete. See examples at User:Poccil/Sandbox. Peter O. (Talk) 16:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am ambivalent. Some people use Template:Deletedpage-r so it must be somewhat useful but at the same time it seems like unnecessary excess. —Centrx→talk &bull; 19:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ultimately, I don't think this is that important. While not a bad idea in the least, the current template (in action) already links directly to the activity log for the article (which can be accessed by anyone), which (usually/ideally) shows why it was deleted and by whom. If someone has an actual interest in desalting an article, they can use the existing system (which would end up being better anyway, because then they might see that it's a very heavily contested article). EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 05:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

warning against recreating deleted pages
I added a warning against recreating "salted" pages under different titles without consensus, but another administrator reverted it, citing WP:BEANS. However, I feel that the warning is fairly important. Also, note that WP:BEANS is only an essay, not a guideline or a policy. Any thoughts? --Ixfd64 21:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyone who is re-creating pages repeatedly is not going to follow the warning. It is only going to be novel idea for them to re-create the page elsewhere, which is a weakness of the system that it can be done at all. Upon seeing Deletedpage, most people do not realize that they could create the page elsewhere. Why do you think they are re-creating it at all? They don't care if the page has a slightly different name or capitalization, they just want to re-create it. Someone warned against something is not prevented from doing it. —Centrx→talk &bull; 21:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Usually the template is only seen on salted pages, meaning that it has been protected, meaning that most people can't recreate the page, meaning that there's no reason to tell them not to (since it isn't even a possibility). EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 21:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue is re-creating the page under another title, e.g. "MYG0T" instead of "Myg0t" or "High School Musical 3: The sequel" instead of "High School Musical 3". There is no way to prevent people from doing this, and most of the people repeatedly re-creating articles don't think of doing it. —Centrx→talk &bull; 21:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I wasn't considering changing the name, and that is a valid concern. I'd say let's give them as few ideas as possible (just because BEANS isn't policy or a guideline doesn't mean it isn't a good idea). EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 22:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that makes sense. I guess that we have recreated for a reason. :) --Ixfd64 00:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Something wrong
The first bullet point is coming out as "For possible reasons, consult the criteria for speedy deletion, or ." -- any ideas why? enochlau (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Some recent changes to the switch statement broke it. I reversed those changes. —Centrx→talk &bull; 18:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Changing this into a redirect
It was suggested at the Administrator's noticeboard that, in order to prevent these pages from being results in Special:Random and being counted as articles in Special:Statistics, this template should be converted into a redirect to a Wikipedia-space page that has the same message. The only objection to this I can see is about cross-namespace redirects, but unlike other sorts of cross-namespace redirects, these pages already do clutter the main namespace. With deletedpages we are choosing not between a cross-namespace redirect and a red-link (or what is made into a deletedpage and allowed to fade) but between a non-article page and a cross-namespace redirect. —Centrx→talk &bull; 21:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This would remove the functionality provided by the (previously undocumented) votepage parameter, which I found useful in fixing the misleading message at The Game (game) which led a confused user to ask me for clarification at User talk:Jitse Niesen. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Categorization by date
What is the reason for having categorization by date when there are already two pages that list the deletedpages by date? Doesn't this just leave us with a bot making pointless edits on all of these pages, flooding watchlists, and making unnecessary categories? —Centrx→talk &bull; 22:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And you are tagging all the current deletedpages as being from January, making it completely useless for the 1500 pages currently there. —Centrx→talk &bull; 22:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, this would probably conflict with the proposal above to redirect. —Centrx→talk &bull; 22:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See a discussion of this at WP:AN. As far as I'm concerned, this shouldn't conflict with the redirect proposal--I think this is an improvement to the current system, which we can and should continue to improve in future if there's consensus to do so. Chick Bowen 22:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you initiate a discussion elsewhere, you should specifically mention that discussion on the affected page, and anyway it is best to have a discussion before making the change when the change involves making mass edits and bot categories. —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How is this an improvement to the current system? The current system has a list of protected-deleted pages by date. Is that not the same thing, without mass bot edits and categories, and without creating categories that imply backlogs as with every other categorization-by-date system? —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, the list is actually more useful. The link to the deletion log is always the first stop when evaluating whether a deleted page should be eliminated. —Centrx→talk &bull; 02:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to replace this template
I've put together a proposal to replace this template with protection of the pages in a deleted state (made possible by the new cascading protection feature). Please see Village pump (proposals). &mdash;David Levy 17:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Template deprecation
Can this template finally be deprecated and its use stopped? Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is much easier to protect pages this way, and is not a problem when the protection is supposed to be temporary. Without the template, some people may just use a blank page or create their own message. Also, doing protection this way is useful for forcing mirrors to blank their articles. —Centrx→talk &bull; 03:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was referring to switching from transclusion of this template to listing the pages at Protected titles. A variant of this message is displayed on pages listed there to non-sysops, and I can't imagine that this template is used for temporary uses (at least I don't think it should be). Couldn't there be a little consistency deprecating this template and having all protected titles in the same place? Thoughts? Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The better solution would be to have a bot move pages from the category they are placed in by this template to Protected titles. This template is that it is much easier to use and is much more well-known; deleting it has the potential to lead to unaccounted-for protected-deleted pages that are simply blanked and protected because this template is deleted in order to force a certain usage; and using protected titles does not cause some mirrors to blank their own copy of a page, which is useful in situations of libel, copyright, etc. —Centrx→talk &bull; 04:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a note that this template is now up for deletion at WP:TFD. I do not have a strong opinion one way or the other on it's deletion, but anyone who does have an opinion either way is encouraged to come express that opinion. - TexasAndroid 15:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Slight wording tweak
Since this page is used on deleted stub templates and categories, the wording could do with a slight tweak, since they are dealt with at WP:SFD, not WP:TFD or WP:CFD. At the moment, there's an automatic namespace switch in place on the "possible reasons" line at the top of the template, but that doesn't allow for linking to the sfd archives. Can someone who's a little more savvy in write-up than me fix it, please? Grutness... wha?   23:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I added a parameter to allow for this. I have no idea how to make the switch automatic. You can see it in action on Template:TRNC-geo-stub. Is this close to what you had in mind? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's great - that's exactly the sort of thing I wanted. Many thanks! Grutness... wha?   01:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This might be over-engineerings thing, especially if use of this template is being phases out in favour of protected titles (I'm a bit hazy on their relative status), but the canonical place to refer people for the (re-)creation of stub types would be WP:WSS/P. That might be a useful link to add to (this case of) this template, on the basis that someone requesting recreation on the talk page might well not be noticed, and immediately going to DRV might often be overkill.  Anyone object to this further (parameter-switched) addition?  Alai 10:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It says restoration can be discussed on the talk page
Even though in these cases the talk page is CSD db-talk? That's self-contradictory...--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 12:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Deletion (or restoration) discussions are not deleted under the CSD, at least temporarily. "Talk pages whose corresponding article does not exist, except for deletion discussion that is not logged elsewhere". —Centrx→talk &bull; 17:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Steps to implement the TFD result
The TFD result for this was a protected redirect to WP:PT. To make this happen, several steps are needed:
 * 1) ) One more wave of Old Salt conversion to Protected Titles of most of the pages currently using the template. Completed
 * 2) ) Create a new template for the few uses that are protected for Arbcom purposes.
 * 3) ) Add a note at the top of WP:PT explaining the situation, possible coded for inclusion only so that it gets seen by admins who continue to use the redirected template. Completed
 * 4) ) Edit Protected deleted pages to reflect that the old salting method is no longer used. Completed
 * 5) ) Redirect the template.

I'll work on the first item later today, as I've done a couple of mass conversions previously. The actual redirection should, IMHO, happen last, after the other stuff is done to prepare for it. - TexasAndroid 13:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Step one completed. - TexasAndroid 17:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Step three completed. - TexasAndroid 17:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Step four completed. - TexasAndroid 17:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Step two is done, technically, but someone more creative than me really needs to adapt the new template, to be much more appropriate to it's Arbcom-specific purpose.  It's currently pretty much just a copy of what was here at the main deletedpages template, jsut to get a functioning template up there, but it needs a visual overhaul.  Step five is also done.  The conversion is now complete in the broad scale. - TexasAndroid 18:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)