Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Wikistory


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Keep Pages in the "Department of Fun" exist at the will and by the grace of the community; it is clear there is sufficient attachment to this page to permit its retention, and the page is not intrinsically odious to any of Wikipedia's policies. Xoloz 15:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox/Wikistory

 * This nomination includes all subpages of the nominated page, such as Sandbox/Wikistory (Sentence)

The purpose of the sandbox is for testing how to edit the wiki, not for social networking or games. This page would be inappropriate in the Wikipedia namespace and inappropriate in the user namespace, so it is inappropriate as a permanent sandbox subpage as well. See WP:NOT. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 05:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: I moved this page to User:Shalom/Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Wikistory. This is exactly the kind of page for which WP:BJAODN was created.  At the time I was unaware that other sandbox subpages were also up for discussion, so I have reopened the discussion here.  I apologize for any confusion this may cause.  Shalom Hello 12:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am moving it back (for the time being at least) - the move will make it even more obscure.  Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp !  (Whisper...) 13:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I say Keep. The Wikistory is neither a social network nor really a game.  It has been going on for quite a long time, and is a constructive bit of Wikipedia culture, one of the few remaining opportunities for editors to take a break on-wiki and do something less serious.  I don't see it causing any harm, and I would like to see it remain available for possible future growth.  It is appropriate in the Wikipedia namespace.  Getting rid of this is basically an argument to get rid of the entire gamut of pages linked from Department of Fun.  This is a relatively low-traffic page, so you might not get much response besides me on this one, but I strongly suggest not taking unilateral action (like Shalom's move) without a broader consensus that this page and other pages like it really are unwanted.--ragesoss 15:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is such a broader consensus: WP:NOT. There is indeed a lot of cruft in the Wikipedia space, but as always the existence of another page doesn't mean this page needs to be kept. Moreover, Sandbox says "Content will not stay permanently; this page is automatically cleaned every 12 hours." I see no reason this should not apply to subpages of the sandbox, although perhaps with a slightly longer window. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Then we can move it out of the Sandbox. Sandbox rules don't make much of an argument for getting rid of it altoghter.--ragesoss 16:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My impression is that the reason this is in the sandbox in the first place is because it is inappropriate to have this kind of interactive page in wikipedia or user space. The sandbox provides a convenient walled garden. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep--we have room for such exercises--exactly where we should put it is a question, but a subpage of the sandbox might be just about right. Looking at it, its used only occasionally, and there does not seem to be anyone playing with it extensively to the exclusion of useful contributions in article space. DGG (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is a sandbox the right place? A sandbox is for temporary test edits, not ongoing writing projects. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * so people can play around a little with WP before serious work. I recall the original Mackintosh coming with a maze game to teach the then unfamiliar art of using a mouse. DGG (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * New users would have no way to find out about those pages, so they would not test editing there before starting to edit the main encyclopedia. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - what a dull place the Wiki would be with no levity around the place - buried in the Sandbox it is hardly a liability!  Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp !  (Whisper...) 12:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That completely ignores the issues of WP:NOT. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Carl - go get some air - you're getting way too serious on this - it's a light page - lighten up.  Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp !  (Whisper...) 18:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Carl is entitled to care as much or as little as he pleases, and take the dicussion as seriously as he pleases. I don't think it's appropriate to tell him not to take it seriously.  Leebo  T / C  19:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm still allowed my views!  Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp !  (Whisper...) 14:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * strong keep per my arguments on all the previous deletion nominations for word games in the sandbox. These pages help the goal of writing an encyclopaedia by providing stress release and time-out from the seriousness of the article space. They can also provide links to articles that you didn't know about, and provide a way for people on opposite sides of heated debates elsewhere to cooperate on this which is not in anway related to any real-world or wiki hot potatoes, keeping the debates from getting personal. In short, as I have argued previously, deleting this will harm Wikipedia. Thryduulf 20:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete If this were just about WP:NOT, then I'd be saying we should ignore that rule and I'd be advocating keeping as the page itself is harmless fun that seems to make Wikipedia a nice place to be for the participants. However, the problem is the likely possibility of proliferation of this type of wiki-game if a precedent is set here. CIreland 07:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This was started in 2004. If it hasn't caused a problem so far, why would it in the future?--ragesoss 17:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see any reason to delete it, and as Ragesoss pointed out, there was no problem with it for about 3 years. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE  21:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "It hasn't been deleted yet" is not an argument about why it shouldn't be deleted. Given that this page is hidden as a subpage of a sandbox, it's not surprising that it stayed there a long time. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If you took the time to re-read my sentence, you would've noticed that I said "there was no problem with it for about 3 years," and not "It hasn't ben deleted yet." ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE  21:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Also, blanking the page before the discussion is even over isn't very productive. Please stop. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE  21:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * These are sandbox pages; any editor can modify them as desired. That's why it's inappropriate to have long-running pages inside the sandbox. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually this comment applies equally to all pages - this is an open edit encyclopedia!  Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp !  (Whisper...) 14:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've moved it out of the sandbox, so we don't have to worry about that technicality any more.--ragesoss 23:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good move Ragesoss - removes the excuse for childishness!  Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp !  (Whisper...) 06:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.