text:
Talk:Night terror

Write
"Write sufferer, not victim" was posted in the article by an anon. Matt 00:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Changed to subject, a neutral term. Jclerman 07:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Night Horror: Can you, please, indicate the origin of this paragraph? I.e., either give a reference or delete it. Also, explain or correct cariac: "In very rare cases an episodic series of Night Terrors may progress to a Night Horror, a distinctly different experience for the sufferer, during which they may be at a higher level of wakefulness, but rather than unidentifiable fear and anxiety, the Horror will often involve intense and extremely disturbing hallucinations. While occuring very rarely, medical attention is often required, due to high cariac stress brought on by overwhelming chemical response from the body during the episode. They are generally thought to be the by-product of high sleep deprivation, and pre-existing psychological conditions." Jclerman 07:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

For any technical death metal fans reading this article

Who feels like writing up an article for the tech-death band by the same name? Today, I am exhausted.

Contradiction
The following statements, "There is no situation or event, scary or otherwise, that is dreamt but rather the emotion of fear itself is felt, often coupled with tension, apprehension and so on, without any distinct sounds or visual imagery" and "One seemingly universal quality of night terrors is a strong sense of danger — there is always a being, tangible or otherwise, who wishes to hurt the sleeping person. Many sufferers of night terrors are reluctant to speak of them because of their violent, graphic, and often disturbing nature." Seem to conflict with eachother. I don't see how the nighterrors could have no visual imagery, but also have violent be violent and graphic.
 * I think the wording needs to be changed. "There is no situation or event... that is dreamt" is far too definite because sometimes people have been able to recall images or sometimes entire scenes, and not in the same way as a nightmare.  The subject may have seen some horrifying images but it is usually the case that he or she is unable to recall any of them.  That's not the same thing as not having dreamt them at all.  I suffered regular night terrors when I was very young, almost always burning with fever during most of them, such that my mother though I was going to die.  I don't remember most of what was terrifying me but they tell me I'd stare at the walls, eyes wide, screaming about monsters coming at me.  However, I do remember one or two that I had, again during very high fever.  I suggest that the first sentance is changed to "Usually, what the subject experienced cannot be recalled, while the emotions of fear and panic, often coupled with tension and/or apprehension, remain." The second sentance can be altered a little so that it states "When able to remember their visions, many subjects are reluctant to speak of them... " etc. --Recurring 14:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

 * -- It definately needs to be fixed, as it's very contradictory. The article doesn't really cite its sources so I don't know where each of these assertions came from, or I'd try to fix it myself. --68.202.66.211 01:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

In the same sort of vein, I have removed the following sentence from the "In Children" section: "Quite often the dream is manifest with a temporary paralysis with vivid recall of events leading up to, as well as the climax of the night terror." The author could be getting night terrors mixed up with sleep paralysis, or that could be an accurate description of what a night-terror-related dream is like. Either way, to go in the article it needs surrounding text describing whether, when, and how dreams happen during night terrors. - Urocyon 04:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture?
Should there be a segment on night terrors in popular culture? For instance, Patrick from Spongebob appears to experience night terrors about spiders. Alx xlA 00:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Other ways to treat it?
My little brother suffers from night terrors, and it's really pitiful to watch. After having to help "wake him up" from most of these, I've found that reminding him of his surroundings and the people around him, then asking him about them, really helps. He "wakes up" (or calms down, rather) within a couple of minutes. Physical contact seems to also help. For example, when he experiences a night terror this is how I usually remedy it:

I place my hands on his shoulders gently and say his name. I then ask him if he knows who I am. He has yet to answer correctly (the closest he's gotten is "you're myself"), so I tell him my name and remind him that I'm his brother. I then identify others around him, and I ask him if he knows where he is. He always shakes his head no, so I tell him which room of the house he's in. If he's not awake by then I ask him again if he remembers who I am, where he is, etc. I've never had to go through that more than twice.

I hope this is helpful.

 * With symptoms like these, I find the incidence figure of 15% preposterously high. All children have nightmares. Who is diagnosing 15% of them as night terrors? --Tysto 01:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

night terrors_defense mechanism?
[[Media:Example.o

evolution is predicated on survival of the fittest.a person is never more vulnerable than when they are asleep.It can take 6-12 minutes for a person to come out of deep-sleep and become fully conscious.it makes sense that our primitive/proto-human ancestors would have developed a defense mechanism which allowed them to ward off attack in pitch blackness without becoming fully awake.like the diving reflex,an ability in some mammals to slow heartbeat and respiration in order to remain under water for longer periods of time,which is often blamed for certain sleep related disorders whereby a person awakes to feel a crushing sensation on their chest and difficulty breathing.night terrors may just be a genetic remnant.

Contradiction: REM or Non-REM?
In the introduction, the article states that night terrors generally occur during REM sleep -- this is in error. In the Nightmares vs. Night Terrors section, the article states that:

"...night terrors usually occur during the deepest phases (stage 4) of non-REM sleep."

This is correct.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders code for Night Terrors is DSM-IV AXIS I: 307.46.

DSM is not available to non-subscribers, but there is a sleep chart here: http://www.nightterrors.org/stages.htm.

Doonhamer 05:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC) Trillian1 12:33, 22 January 2007 (EST)

Thank you Trillian1. I'll change the bit in the introduction from REM to non-REM and remove the self-contradiction tag. Doonhamer 19:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

mental illness mystery
There is a mental problem with a person, but no one knows esentialy what it is. It isn't classified under schizopherenia, delosion, or hilusination. In fact it isn't any of those. It is characterized with some sort of obsessive compulsive disorder, but it isn't a for sure thing. It is a super exsesive version of one talking to themselves. It is an actual ingadging conversation with ones sefl. The conversations range around anything from telling themselves something they had just witnessed to arguing with ones self. Another thing I noticed was the acting out of a situation (fantacy) as if it was really happeneing. One with this seems to prefer baing alone, but in some cases that is not the case. It isn't multi-personality disorder because the person can recall what happens just fine. Also the person knows it is thme and not "someone else". Aroused by this I can't help but wonder what it is and why it's happening and why it is unnoticed. It may be unnoticed because the people with this do what they do alone when no one else is around and never speak of it.

167.135.15.65 18:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Pyro

What does this have to do with night terrors??? --69.142.178.54 07:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Why does night hag redirect here?
As far as I understand it, a night hag is a mythological or legendary being. See for example Lilith. Is there some other meaning that would make it appropriate to point here? If so, we need to diambiguate. Aleta 23:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Night Hag can be a reference to hypnogogic/hypnopompic paralysis in some cultures. I imagine that's why it directs here, because the sleep paralysis article also redirects here as a related condition. I'm not sure what the connection is apart from the fact that both involve sleep. sleep paralysis is clearly an REM phenomenon, whereas night terrors are not.

 * 213.219.18.82 05:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)-RRRitalin 05:31, 22 January 2007 (GMT)

"Misfire"
You're forgetting one thing. It has been identified that the brain "misfires" during these episodes.Here is the citation —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.243.1.10 (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Request and anecdote
As someone that has these, and a very bad one in particular last week, I wish there was some more on treatment. I'm 28, and they happen irregularly for me. Usually, I wake up trying to speak or moan but can't because most of my muscles are paralyzed. Quite frustrating since normally, I am pretty conscious when I dream and been a lucid dreamer from a young age. But, the description of a nearby presence is dead on. That is the only physical thing I could tell you that is scary. This past week I actually sat up (or it felt like I did, it's hard to remember) and screamed loud, louder than I probably ever had. The screaming was uncontrollable, and actually made my throat sore. I saw a figure, but everything was blurry, as if I couldn't quite come to this time. Normally, I don't see anything. My wife manged to wake me. It's probably by far the scariest thing I've ever experienced - mfd (UTC) 00:00 Aug 15, 2007

It sounds like what you're experiencing is sleep paralysis and its related phenomena, rather than night terrors. I get that, too. -Sarah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.107.74.132 (talk) 06:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I get them!
Sometimes I get night terrors and whe I wake up because my family woke me, I can't remember a thing and get very confused and frustrated. Could this condition be similar to sleep walking where the sleep walker gets confused and frustrated when disturbed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Yes, apparently the two are similar afflictions. See Parasomnia. I've suffered from night terrors myself. In three separate incidents I saw a giant spider.. a giant snake.. and a ghost. In each case I was shocked awake and experienced an overwhelming sense of panic. Having heard of night terrors I realized shortly after they occurred that this is what I had experienced. Thankfully, after reviewing my air conditioning settings, they stopped and have yet to reoccur. --QuantumG 11:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I sometimes get them, and they suck badly. I usually wake up, and everything is blurry, movement is extremely difficult, and of course, the classic feeling of absolute terror. Once I saw a blurry figure next to me, it freaked me out badly. Another time I heard a voice, and it had the same effect. I've noticed they are more common when I have deprived myself of sleep for a time.--Metalhead94 (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've gotten one before! I think...everything was black with dim lights flashing around me and I could sense that I was part of a choatic scene, as if there had just been a huge car crash or something, then realizing that I was unable to move and thinking I was paralyzed I began to panic madly before my sister and my mother (in the dream still) were suddenly standing over me saying: 'everything's going to be okay you're going to be fine' etc...thats when everything went black. slowly I regained consciousness and found I could move again but was very confused about what happened..that was my night terror experience. Interestingly I also had been derprived of sleep at the time Metalhead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.148.77 (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Dubious statement
I find the statement “One of the most common qualities of night terrors is a strong sense of danger. For these people there is always a being (similar to a doppelgänger), tangible or otherwise, who wishes to hurt the sleeping person, or the sleeping person's loved ones” very unlikely. For one thing, I get night terrors and, although there is a very strong sense of danger, the terrors is always for a very abstract idea. I suggest this sentence needs to be modified and sourced. --S.dedalus 05:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Dedalus, I get night terrors and occassionaly do recall a concrete danger. However, even though most of the time they are "beings", sometimes they are other things such as fires.
 * To clarify: most of the time, no recall of what the danger was. Sometimes I do recall it. When recalled, sometimes it is not an animated being. -- PabloBM 14:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree here. I have had frequent night terrors, and the common element in all of them has been an intense sense of danger. In fact, I feel as though I am dying and/or will die, if I do not wake immediately. It manifests as a sense that "Death (an intangible presence, not seen, but felt) is after me," as I've sometimes told my girlfriend when I wake screaming. In some cases I even physically get up and run while still asleep, trying to flee from Death chasing me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.198.224 (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I have night terrors, too. I agree with what S.dedalus said. However, some people might somehow impersonalize or objectify such fears into more tangible, concrete ones. Personally, when I try to focus on what remains as an inexplicably immense catastrophic and imminent feeling of fear, It's totally abstract, and possibly can't be put into words. Besides, sometimes I can sense it before it happens, and when I am about to sleep, laying too long in a motionless state. It's like I lose my sense of distance (maybe dimensions), silence feels so loud and a hasty, with a rushing sense of confusion and fear. Neurosys (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

'In adults' section needs updating
The 'In Adults' section is contains dated and refuted information. I don't consider myself qualified to alter the section myself, but it is widely considered untrue that adult night terrors are usually "trauma-based rather than genetic ... [requiring] treatment in the form of psychotherapy and antidepressant medication"

In cases in which sleep terrors are successfully treated with psychotherapy and antidepressant medication, it may be fair to say that the disorder is due to underlying psychological problems, however a vast number of sufferers do not respond to these treatments. Incidentally, I must stress that antidepressants are not necessarily prescribed because depression is suspected as the cause of sleep terrors, and the article should not imply that those who opt for this treatment are depressed.

The article goes on to suggest that "some adult night terror sufferers have many of the characteristics of abused and depressed individuals including inhibition of aggression,[2] self-directed anger,[2] passivity,[3] anxiety, impaired memory,[4], and the ability to ignore pain.[5]" This is probably true of most groups of people, i.e. that "some" people in a group of people have many of these characteristics. This analysis is dismally Freudian and hopelessly outdated - can the article take into account the research into adult sleep terrors in the past 10 years, and at least balance archaic explanations with more recent findings?

I guess what I'm saying is that the article is archaic, one-sided and misleading. It can be damaging for an individual looking for further information regarding sleep terrors to feel that their sleep terrors are a symptom of a trauma or an underlying psychiatric condition, without taking into account the vast body of research into sleep disorders in adults, the possibility of minor neurological and other physiological causes. It also incorrectly categorises adults with sleep disorders as an insignificant minority.

 * Agreed. This information is outdated. I have sleep terrors, and I don't have an underlying psychological or psychiatric condition. I don't suffer from anxiety or depression, I have no phobias and I'm not aggressive. I tried SSRI's to no avail. When I first started having sleep terrors 18 years ago, the prevailing view was that it's rare in adults and usually a symptom of PTSD or something else. Even then I think that approach was outmoded, and psycotherapy would be pretty useless in most cases. I hope someone more knowledgeable than me can rewrite this.Sadiemonster (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

[edit] See also —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.220.20 (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree - the article appears to 'hype up' the seriousness of night terrors, linking them in a potentially misleading manner to major psychiatric disorders. Although this is true in some cases, from my reading of the literature, for most people they are simply an unusual and very briefly distressing phenomenon, linked to short-term environmental, mental or biological triggers. Unfortunately identifying trustworthy info on this topic is difficult, so I'm not prepared to make major changes to the article myself just yet. Willardo (talk) 04:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree - I am a regular poster on a night terrors board and people posting there report the Wikipedia article as a little alarming. A review by Derry et al. (2006), in the section titled 'Psychiatric disturbance and the arousal disorders' (p. 1778), suggests that psychological disturbance is just one of several potential causes of night terrors.

Derry, CP. Duncan JS. and Berkovic (2006) Paroxysmal Motor Disorders of Sleep: The Clinical Spectrum and Differentiation from Epilepsy, Epilepsia, 47 (11): 1775-1791.

The statement "In addition to night terrors, some adult night terror sufferers have many of the characteristics of abused and depressed individuals including inhibition of aggression,[2] self-directed anger,[2] passivity,[3] anxiety, impaired memory,[4], and the ability to ignore pain[5]." is supported only by references from 1982 and prior, and by two more recent documents addressing post-traumatic stress and dissociative disorders. I suggest the opinion expressed in this statement is generalized and outdated, based on archaic research, and on information regarding psychiatric disorders which have may sleep terrors as a symptom, implying, misleadingly, that sleep terrors are generally accepted to be an indicator of trauma or mental illness. This statement should be updated or altogether removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Els437 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Statement has been removed, as it had problems such as being repeated twice totally, and used difference different sources both times which seemed a occurance of WP:SYN.Curb Chain (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Symptom or disorder
I have no idea how to phrase the title of my question, but are night terrors actually a problem other than that they indicate a deeper problem? If the patient doesn't remember them, are they actually bad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaiacarra (talk • contribs) 18:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Symptoms
I was thinking you can add that. Nightmares generally occur in the last half of the night, while sleep terrors occur in the first half of the night. here's the link http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/night-terrors/basics/symptoms/con-20032552 Tlharris1000 (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)Thomas Harrison

Causes
Various factors can contribute to sleep terrors, such as:

Sleep deprivation and extreme tiredness Stress Fever (in children) Sleeping in unfamiliar surroundings Lights or noise An overfull bladder Sleep terrors sometimes are associated with underlying conditions that affect sleep, such as:

Sleep-disordered breathing — a group of disorders characterized by abnormal breathing patterns during sleep, the most common of which is obstructive sleep apnea Restless legs syndrome Migraines Head injuries Some medications Tlharris1000 (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)Thomas Harrison

Diagnosis
Under Diagnosis maybe you can have a subtitle "Sleep study" A sleep study (polysomnography) is a test used to diagnose sleep disorders, such as sleep apnea, that may trigger sleep terrors. During the test, sensors are placed on your head and body to record your brain waves, blood oxygen level, heart rate and breathing, as well as eye and leg movements. A video camera records your sleep. Your doctor will review the information to determine whether you or your child has a sleep disorder. Tlharris1000 (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)Thomas Harrison

MultiVitamins may be causing your sleep propblems.
I don't see a lot of information on the subject of vitamins related to sleep problems but luckily my wife did a lot of research on this (in her own best interest -- she was afraid I might hurt her thrashing around in bed) and she mentioned it to me. I had been taking a multivitamin every day before we were married because I didn't feel that my bachelor diet was very complete. Thankfully my wife is an excellent cook using plenty of veggies so I stopped the vitamins and my night terrors stopped immediately. Just out of curiosity I even tried taking just a half vitamin in the morning instead of night and the problems returned same day.

I used to always have a mild to extreme terror about 1.5 hours after going to sleep. I don't know exactly what vitamin/mineral was responsible for this but from what I've seen it could be Magnesium or maybe Vitamin B.

At any rate, if you suffer from Nightmares/Night Terrors do yourself a favor and stop all supplements for a few days and see if it helps.

Good Luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.42.80.64 (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh my word. I occasionally suffer from night terrors. And it never occurred to me that it may be because of vitamins. I have started drinking vitamins again about a month ago and shortly after my night terrors started again. I will stop the vitamins now and see if the night terrors disappear with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.240.145.232 (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Same here.--Metalhead94 (talk) 00:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal
These articles seem to be presenting on the same subject and should probably be consolidated.--Spacez320 (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * They're completely different parasomnnias, symptomatically and physiologically.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 17:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed these are different, as per Wisdom89. rkmlai (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Likewise - it'd be like merging apples with oranges. K2709 (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

After the episode the subject normally settles back to sleep without waking.
I get these 'night terrors' and this does seem to be the case, but sometimes I have a number of them in one night. Last night for example, I had 5, which is probably a record for me. Bathory (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

outside observation
for the last period of time i've been observing a lady who has asked me to help her with her problems she will remain anonymous but i wish to post my observations with hope of feedback.

she has "dreams" she recalls vividly they frighten her to the point she awakes in tears screaming sweating once she is asleep she is quite impossible to wake unless one of these "dreams" are occuring her dreams involve demons hurting her she sees these demons in her everyday life though they don't hurt her while concious if the dreams vary then its always a loved one creating gashes in her arms with a knife ,she sees these as well as feels them, she feels love for them as they do this she has stong pulsings she claims stop if she makes a small cut on her person she is admittedly depressed she undergoes extreme stress some of which is self inflicted by taking blame for things no one can change other just life is not kind to her shje admittedly doesn't eat as she should once daily if at all when she does eat she feels guilty this guilt builds til she feels sick so much so she throws it back up within an hour to six hours she speaks of a strong self loathing though she is an extremely successful individual she has had conversations she does not recall with me that have lasted in excess of two hours she complains of feeling tired do to her dreams keeping her up she beleives they take place in the first stage of sleep she speaks to these demons in my presence only but she reacts to them in the presence of others jumping closing her eyes she has "mental breakdowns" during which she repeats things to calm herself though they are very unhealthy to say to ones self such as:its my fault i'm perfectly fine i'm sorry these are from discussions with her i'm no psychologist but reading through he night terrors night horrors and hypoglycemia i find relations to her ailments in the effects listed for those problems if you agree or have other information you believe may help me to help this lady please post something adressing me on this site thank you. Insider1121 (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Insider1121
 * I formatted your paragraph so it is easier to read.Curb Chain (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

night terror are they acompanied by ceizers sometimes???
My daughter shes almost 11 years old and she had ceizers from the time she was bout 2 years old til she was 7 years old.Shes gotten up some times in the middle of the night and not known it.She's gotten up to go to the bathroom and to get something to drink.I try talking to her and shes just out of it sometimes she knows what shes saying but other times shes just to out of it to really talk.Shes done this for a long while now, but its not something that acures every night.She was dignosed having epilepsy but the ceizers have went away and we hurd that night terrors could be what shes having because its most comon when the child has had ceizers. If anyone knows anything were tring to figure out if i need to take her to the doctor or if this is something that cant be helped. If anyone knows anything about this please feel free to Email me at kylie2010.2011@yahoo.com thank you...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.67.108 (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

More References and Information
This article needs more references, especially in the "Children" section. Information could also be added about what stage of sleep night terrors usually occur. JSchaef (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This article appears to be missing a lot of possible science information. --MTHarden (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

What are more ways of causing this in children and adults
I think there should be more research done on what causes night terrors. They did have a few but were not very specific on what or why this happens.--Mkhunt (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

= Psy 101 evaluation= I think you should be able to find alot of info on this topic but so far the article does not explain very well what it is in detail. I thnk you can improve this by telling more about how and why these happon. Do they mean anything other then just being overly tired? Jessierock4 (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)jessierock4

I agree. How do night terrors affect a person's day-to-day life? Do they influence their physical and psychological health? Otherwise, great job on expanding! Kristinafreund (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC).

Goya Picture
Maybe I'm being nit-picky, but I think Goya's "The Sleep of Reason Engender's Monsters" dosn't belong with this article. People undergoing night terrors "appear to be awake", as the article states, but the man in the picture seems to be experiencing a nightmare rather then a night terror.Diesel Weasel 91 (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It's also a metaphorical piece of art with really almost nothing to do with sleep at all. I don't think it should be here. 91.125.62.124 (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

link between things?
you say..... "Special consideration must be used when the subject suffers from narcolepsy, as there may be a link." You could dwell on those types of links because im curious once you say that but there is nothing further than saying theres a link.

--Falconhockey26 (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Nightmares
There's extensive information on nightmares in the article (2 or 3 distinct sections). This seems irrelevant, so I deleted them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.65.253 (talk) 03:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Just Some Suggestions
The first paragraph is very bulky and could use some more references. It almost seems like some of it could be taken out and put in a Symptoms section. Also, there seems to be a contradiction in the information; the first paragraph says night terrors will affect "about fifteen percent of all children," however in the Children section it says "An estimated one to six percent of children experience night terrors." The article also seems to be lacking in information about what allows this to happen (are there certain brain processes that are (or are not) triggered that cause this?). Some information about studies that have been done with people with night terrors also might add to the article. Aside from that, all the information seems very useful, just needs a little bit more, some more references, and to be organized a little bit. --MGualdoni (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Peer review
I agree that the first paragraph was quite bulky in comaparison to the rest of the article. I feel like that another tab could have been added focusing mainly on the symptoms of night terrors. Overall I feel like the article is well written and informative but could be expanded in a few areas, mainly the topic on treating night terrors.

Cheers, B englert10 (talk) 02:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Recognize others
In your third paragraph you claim that children don't recognize others. From experience, i disagree with this. I have a 4 year old cousin that I babysit. He has sleep terrors. On a night I was babysitting we were laying in his bed, when I noticed he was restless and sweating. Then suddenly he woke up screaming. Within seconds after screaming, he was able to say my name and give me a hug. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lt176714 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you are describing a Nightmare which is different. --MTHarden (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Please explain contradiction
Two sentences from this article: 1) An estimated 1-6% of children have at least one night terror in their life but have no memory of the occurrence. 2) They affect about fifteen percent of all children. I simply don't get it... How many children do they affect? 1 to 6%, or 15%? It's a big difference. Is it that 1-6% have them but don't remember them, while a further 9-14% have them and do remember, making 15% in total? Or is 1-6% a misprint for 16%? 86.164.58.15 (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

From Web MD-

Web MD night terrors

they say 1-6% of children experience night terrors, but there is no attributed source for that fact.I suspect someone mistook 1-6 for 1 in 6 and rounded 1/6 to 15%.

This might be a place to start for getting more info (esp refs 1 and 2)

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/111/1/e17.full.pdf

Jtsstl (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Psy 101 review
The phrase "typically occur in the first few hours of sleep during stage 3 or 4 NREM sleep" that was added is exactly the wording used in Hockenbury and Hockenbury. The statement should be reworded. As Hockenbury and Hockenbury is a psychology textbook, it is an acceptable reference.

Perhaps,

A night terror, also known as a sleep terror, incubus attack, or pavor nocturnus, is a parasomnia disorder that predominantly affects children, causing feelings of terror or dread. Night terrors should not be confused with nightmares, which are bad dreams that cause the feeling of horror or fear. Nightmares usually occur during REM sleep, while night terrors occur during slow wave NREM sleep (stage 3 or 4).

Also- night terrors is covered on page 157, so the page number could be added. Dreams and NREM sleep are discussed on page 147 of Hockenbury and nightmares on page 150. I am pretty sure the reference is in the wrong place, so I moved it up to where the content was added.

Jtsstl (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

A little confusing
The first couple paragraphs are a bit confusing. At the end of the first paragraph it says 1-8% of children get them, then, at the beginning of the next paragraph it says it is estimated that fifteen percent of children get them. Is one of these incorrect or am I interpreting it incorrectly? Perhaps this could be reworded.

Jstndnlsn (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

= Personal Descriptions =
 * Synesthetic hallucinations (mostly physical sensations such as fever projected as unintelligible visuals), spatiotemporal confusion, derealization as though everything appears utterly alien and thus extremely scary. Neurosys (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Sentence does not make sense
"An estimated 1%-6% of children and less than 1% of adults will experience a night terror episode within their lifetime."

When "in their lifetime" there obviously can not be any difference between childen and adults... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.201.20.83 (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite right! The sentence is now rephrased, but it is a bit silly...   Lova Falk     talk   13:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

While you’re at it, consider disambiguating the follow-up sentence: "Half of all children develop a disrupted sleep pattern serious enough to warrant assistance of a physician.” Presumably this means half of all affected children, i.e., the 1 to 6%. Orthotox (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Mental illness contradiction
This article says both "there is no scientific evidence of a link between night terrors and mental illness" and "a study done about night terrors in adults showed that psychiatric symptoms were prevalent in most patients experiencing night terrors hinting at the comorbidity of the two." Both comments cannot be true. (I favour the former).

--

There is also this sentence: "There is a close association with psychopathology or mental disorders in adults that suffer from sleep terror disorder" which is a direct contradiction of "there is no scientific evidence of a link between night terrors and mental illness". Which is correct? 69.125.134.86 (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for noticing this inconsistency. I checked a source and fixed this.  Lova Falk     talk   13:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

 * It is not fixed. I noticed that and another contradiction this week in this article on the mobile version.24.0.133.234 (talk) 08:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

 * (sub-heading associated)"However, in adults who suffer from sleep terror disorder there is a close association with psychopathology or mental disorders." and (sub-heading:Adults)""There is no scientific evidence of a link between night terrors and mental illness.A study done about night terrors in adults showed that psychiatric symptoms were prevalent in most patients experiencing night terrors hinting at the comorbidity of the two"-so which is it?24.0.133.234 (talk) 08:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to mark this fixed because I changed it but I am still open to a reference being provided that can explain the "no scientific evidence"-statement. I took that out after searching for it, and replaced it with the fact, and citation that Sleep Terrors are considered a Mental and behavioural disorder in the ICD-10. Maybe they were trying to say that although Sleep Terror is a diagnoses in itself, that there are not any known studies of other psychiatric illnesses occurring? But the following sentence seems to contradict that anyhow, so I think that waiting for a reliable source would be the best idea. I will not add my own original research to the article, but the patient that I was doing research for, was suffering from other diagnosed mental illnesses and conditions including combat-induced PTSD, so that sentence stuck-out for me as well. It is my opinion that in adults, night terrors is a pretty serious condition.-So it makes sense to me that a patient who suffers from the condition would have other (while they are awake)-diagnosable mental illnesses.24.0.133.234 (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments
Overall, this article is great. I just happened to notice a few things that need clarification. With regards to children and night terrors, it is stated in the article that male children are affected more by night terrors than female children. But in another section, it is stated that boys and girls of all backgrounds are affected equally. So in this instance, it might be best to add to the second statement that, again, male children are affected more than female children. Also, in the last sentence under the heading of Adult, instead of "night terrors... can further investigate..." I believe it should be "night terrors... can be further investigated..." Evlange (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

General impressions
References:

- Other links checked are working and lead to reliable Pubmed/peer reviewed journal articles

- Good number of internal links, but some are missing:

- “Sleepwalking and night terrors are different manifestations of the same parasomnia.[4]” <- Link to parasomnia. This is the first time the word is used and could be confusing for a layperson

- "Most people who experience this are amnesic, or partially amnesic from the incident the next day.[2]" <- Reference here is not immediately; would be helpful to add link to amnesia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesia)

Sentences/topics that are likely confusing for non-experts; distracting:

- "Night terrors tend to happen during periods of arousal from delta sleep, also known as slow-wave sleep.[2][3][4]"

- "The prevalence of sleep terror episodes has been estimated at 1%-6% among children and at less than 1% of adults.[7] Night terrors can often be mistaken for confusional arousal.[2]"

- “Brain activities during a typical episode show theta and alpha activity when using an EEG. It is also common to see abrupt arousal from NREM sleep that does not progress into a full episode of a night terror.”

- Overall, the page wouldn’t have been that helpful for parents who are concerned their child is having night terrors, nor people experiencing night terrors themselves because of how technical it was.

Neutrality:

- Article presents as neutral as do the sources it draws from

- I wish this article focused more on common presenting symptoms and less on the technical biological underpinnings. The people looking at this page are likely worried that they or a loved one is experiencing night terrors--the biological detail could be hard for people to understand and is heavily weighted over other material.

Up-to-date info?

-”The DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria for sleep terror disorder requires:[7]” <-- Should change to DSM-5 criteria

- The rest of the studies this article references and information seem up-to-date, but new information could be added (see suggestions below)

Other comments/concerns:

- Structure of paragraphs often confusing, see suggestions for improvement below.

Intro:

- This sentence is confusing where it is and I don’t think much would be lost if it were removed/moved to Causes: “During the first half of a sleep cycle, delta sleep occurs most often, which indicates that people with more delta sleep activity are more prone to night terrors.[3]However, they can also occur during daytime naps.[5]”

- This sentence is really confusing as well--what other nocturnal attacks are they? How are they different than night terrors? Etc. “Night terrors are largely unknown to most people, creating the notion that any type of nocturnal attack or nightmare can be confused with and reported as a night terror.[4]”

Children:

- It would be great to have a short paragraph explaining in more detail that night terrors are a subset of sleep disorders in children and how they differ from others (https://stanfordhealthcare.org/medical-conditions/sleep/pediatric-sleep-disorders.html)

- Include new information about gender differences: (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20817509) (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/106/1/67.short)

Causes:

- Add information about possible triggers in adolescence (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/111/1/e17.short)

A new “Side-effects/Complications” section:

- More details on how sleep terrors affect day to day life and issues that commonly arise because of them (http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/night-terrors/basics/complications/con-20032552) (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/107/4/e60.full.pdf+html)

- Info on anxiety and parasomnias: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/106/1/67.short

Treatments:

- Add information about lifestyle changes (http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/night-terrors/basics/lifestyle-home-remedies/con-20032552)

Etschroe (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Confusing article, confusing sentence
This article is still (forgive the pun) an absolute nightmare. It bombards the reader with a lot of information, much of it contradictory, too general, or too speculative. The sentence "There have been some symptoms of depression and anxiety that have increased in individuals that have suffered from frequent night terrors" is poorly-worded and totally meaningless. How do you quantify an "increase" in "some symptoms?" Why would it be statistically significant that unnamed, unnumbered "individuals" with night terrors have experienced "some symptoms of depression and anxiety?" Were they depressed and anxious before onset of sleep terrors, or was it the other way around? As it stands, it would be just as true to say "there have been some symptoms of depression and anxiety that have increased in individuals that have frequently eaten cheesecake" or "there have been some symptoms of vertigo and unquenchable thirst that have increased in individuals who buy hamsters on Thursdays." Sadiemonster (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems that large parts of this article were written by someone with some knowledge, or experience of the subject, but little skill in translating that into informative prose. Needs a good rewrite. Skipsey (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Youngstown State University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Night terror


text: User talk:68.55.183.158

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:68.55.183.158


text: User talk:71.99.181.14

title: User talk:71.99.181.14


text:
Talk:National Library Week

General
Hey where did you find the dates for future NLWs? That's neat :) --Talia 00:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I removed them as not encyclopedic. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Themes for past NLW not encyclopedic
"Dates/Themes for National Library Week" -- it's just not encyclopedic. It's merely a list of trademarked phrases, like "@ your library." I'm not sure such a list is encyclopedic, particularly where it has minimal impact on society. I'm going to remove the section and add a sentence with the current theme. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikisource
Wikisource now has some relevant texts that could be useful, see s:Category:National Library Week. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:National Library Week


text:
Mahiro Maeda

Mahiro Maeda (前田 真宏 Maeda Mahiro; born March 14, 1963) is a Japanese anime director, character designer, and animator.

Helen McCarthy in 500 Essential Anime Movies called him "one of the most imaginative visualists in anime". He also worked on Concept Art and Design for Mad Max: Fury Road (2015), which won six Academy Awards. He has been one of the top contributors at the anime studio GONZO for many years, having directed Blue Submarine No. 6, Final Fantasy: Unlimited and Gankutsuou: The Count of Monte Cristo.

His design work ranges from 2 of the "Angels" in Neon Genesis Evangelion to production and mechanical design for such series as Magic User's Club (魔法使いTai!), The Vision of Escaflowne and Last Exile. He was also one of the designers for Gate Keepers 21.

His earlier years were spent mostly at the famed Studio Ghibli, where he helped animate classics such as Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind, Castle in the Sky, and Porco Rosso. Maeda is one of the select Japanese directors to actively collaborate with the international film media on various projects. He provided key animation for the animation sequence in Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill Vol. 1. His directorial work has also been featured in such exclusive package films as The Animatrix (segment: "The Second Renaissance Parts I and II"), Genius Party Beyond (segment: "Gala"), and Ani*Kuri15 (segment: "Princess Onmitsu"). He has also visited the American Anime Expo convention in 2000 and 2003.

title: Mahiro Maeda


text:
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|✍ 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. — Xiong 熊 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|✍ 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|✍ 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. — Xiong 熊 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. — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  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 {{deletedpage}} and not in a {{mediawiki:noarticletext}}. --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 {{PAGENAME}} in the new search link with fulltext=Search needs to be changed to {{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. —Cryptic (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. —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. —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. —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. —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 " {{subst:extracharacterstemplate}}," so people could just {{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

-- Omniplex 01:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Done. // [ admin ] Pathoschild (talk/map) 02:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- 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·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 → 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 • 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 • 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 • 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 • 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 • 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 • 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 • 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 • 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. — Dunc|☺ 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 • 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? — Dunc|☺ 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? — Dunc|☺ 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 • 21:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And then you also deleted it from your talk page! —Centrx→talk • 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 • 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 • 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 <small>d seems perfectly reasonable if it stays. —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 • 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 // ☯  // 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 • 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 // ☯  // 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 • 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 // ☯  // 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 • 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 • 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 • 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 • 22:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, this would probably conflict with the proposal above to redirect. —Centrx→talk • 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 • 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 • 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 • 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). —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 • 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 • 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 • 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)