Talk:Sandbox

hello LK

lol. We do that sort of thing a lot, actually, make articles on everything but normal life. --tjstrf talk 19:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I stumbled upon this page and I noticed it was missing the most important thing, an article about the sandbox itself, the commonly known one for kids. KnightLago 01:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, strange... I just came across this now.. I was astonished that the main def was missing. Maybe it got deleted at some point. I didn't check the history. Anyway, no one had yet put anything in as of today, so I stuck something in there quickly in my own words. Feel free to change/improve it. I just mentioned that it's a kid thing, and a metaphor, and put in a red-link so hopefully someone will make a proper page for it. If one of you does, I suggest also putting in a { template } to request a photo of a typical kids sandbox. Incidentally, does anyone know whether these are common around the world, or a suburban american thing. I would guess they're all over. DKEdwards 04:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just figured it out (wish someone would have explained it in the week I've been waiting for responses to this post). This article that we've been looking for is at sandpit; if only someone had placed a link to it on this page (and retitled this page a disambig page) this might have been clearer before I messed this up with my attempted moves. I'm trying to fix it now. Unschool 02:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Railways

We need there to be a separate article on sandboxes that concern topics about locomotives. It could be called Sandbox (railways). Petri Krohn 20:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, so I have created it. --Falcorian ^(talk) 03:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:SELF problem

Doesn't the link/comment to the Wikipedia Sandbox violate WP:SELF? --69.204.179.124 20:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, but it is needed to direct people correctly. --Falcorian ^(talk) 22:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It's linked using a "selfref" template, hence will be automatically removed from any print version, hence is just fine. :) -Quiddity 21:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

double link to wp:sandbox

are the repeated links to wp:sandbox (at the top of the article AND in the middle) there for a reason, or should one of them be removed? just clarifying b4 i make the change... 202.156.6.54 13:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This page gets used as a test-sandbox a lot, so the redundancy pointing users to the correct location for experimenting doesnt hurt, and is probably useful. --Quiddity 20:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

play

"The sandbox" is a one act play by Edward Albee

is that the correct name?

Arabic Sandbox

The link for the Arabic sandbox on the Sandbox page links here. Why does it do that? Can someone fix that? -Yancyfry

It should be protected

People keep coming to this page and vandalizing it. -Stimpy9337 02:49, 12 March 2007

i agree. protection is definetly in order. pretty much every other wiki i see that has an article named sandbox has it protected. the current version is a prime example of why it should be protected and i can't seem to find the revert button. 208.114.180.220 10:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Several points on that: The protection policy states that protection is not to be used as a pre-emptive measure against predictable vandalism (not sure whether I agree, but those are the rules). That said, you can still feel free to nominate this page at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, but understand that it's unlikely to pass their standards. Additionally, the main reason other wikis have it that way is often because they are less well managed (having a low number of administrators who lack the time to focus on reverting vandalism), so they leave such pages in a protected form. $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 21:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox as in testing computer programs

Sandbox (disambiguation) - Never mind I found what I was looking for.

--Joewski 00:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Malplaced disambiguation page

{{editprotected}}
This current redirect results in a Malplaced disambiguation page. Please move Sandbox (disambiguation) here (and protect it as needed) or update the redirect back to Sandpit. -- JHunterJ 11:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

 Declined - At Talk:Sandbox (disambiguation), opposition has been presented to the idea of such a move. Please discuss the idea of a move there. Nihiltres^(t.l) 13:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}
This current redirect results in a Malplaced disambiguation page. Please move Sandbox (disambiguation) here (and protect it as needed) or update the redirect back to Sandpit. No objections raised (or any other responses given) when I asked on Talk:Sandbox (disambiguation)#Malplaced disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ 12:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I moved it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

how do you get to the sandbox?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?! i relaly need to know!?!?!?!

Gigglelaugh225 21:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

click here for the Wikipedia sandbox 199.125.109.57 (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

On the line:

Sandpit, a wide, shallow playground construction to hold sand often made of wood or plastic

Please add sandbox for those who speak American English:

Sandpit (British English), a wide, shallow playground construction (sandbox in American English) to hold sand often made of wood or plastic

199.125.109.57 (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternate term added. --- RockMFR 18:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sections

Please headline the sections:

For play:

should be turned to

==Play==

for example.68.148.164.166 (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? It's perfectly readable as it is. -- Zsero (talk) 04:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia MoS states it.68.148.164.166 (talk) 10:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a disambiguation page. No point in cluttering it up. -- Zsero (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite the opposite: The sections make disamguation pages organized.68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

See MOS:DAB#Longer lists. -- Zsero (talk) 14:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

In any case, I disagree. It will make the page more organized and more readable if they are headlined, as with all other disambig pages. Actually, the current format is required only in some pages, but in this case it isn't. The current format is only required when bluelinks are required in section headings, because headlines can not have bluelinks.Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to disagree. But I think the current layout is fine, and there's no need to clutter it up, so you have neither MOS nor consensus for a change. Not unless a bunch of lurkers suddenly take an interest in the subject and weigh in to support sectioning. -- Zsero (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Just adding agreement with Zsero -- section headers instead of group headers are unneeded and detrimental to this page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)