Wikipedia talk:Trash namespace: Difference between revisions
Sarsaparilla (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Sarsaparilla (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{RFCpolicy| section=Thoughts !! reason=Interest has been expressed in bringing this proposal to fruition. !! time= 23:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC) }} |
||
== related concept == |
== related concept == |
||
Revision as of 23:16, 11 February 2008
related concept
See Wikipedia:Experimental Deletion, specifically XD3. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- That was long enough ago that it is worth reconsidering. And perhaps the details are a bit different. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- The XD project is mothballed, not halted. If you want to unmothball and try stuff, who's stopping you? --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thoughts
Make articles in Trash fully protected. They would be visible so that a user could retrieve an article (perhaps into a user subpage), and work on it to improve it to a satisfactory article. I'd probably allow the Talk page to be editable.
One benefit of a Trash space is that users who wanted to improve an article wouldn't have to request an admin for a copy - freeing up some admin time.
I assume that only articles (and their talk pages) could be moved to Trash because otherwise it could contain multiple pages (article, wikipedia, help, template, category, etc.) all with the same name.
I'd consider letting normal users move to Trash and undo a move. It would be no worse than the vandalism or bad moving that bad users can do today. This again might free up a lot of admin time for CSD, for closing an expired prod, or for closing an AFD.
I expect that an article in Trash after say a month would be deleted, possibly with admin oversight.
Sbowers3 (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Is there a discussion for this to reach consensus? Because I believe this proposal is worth considering, and also believe that pages in the trash namespace would need to be full protected or semi-protected plus move protection. Earthbendingmaster 16:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It might be necessary to have multiple articles in the Trash namespace in the event of multiple recreated articles getting deleted (aka moved to Trash), e.g. Trash:Blood electrification might be disambiguation for Trash:Blood Electrification 1, Trash:Blood Electrification 2, Trash:Blood Electrification 3, etc. Or perhaps each time an article were recreated and deleted, the second-to-most recent one would be archived and the most recent one would be moved into its place. Perhaps there is another way to do it, though, that would involve less admin work. Any ideas? Sarsaparilla (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)