Wikipedia talk:Trash namespace

message: See Wikipedia:Experimental Deletion, specifically XD3. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  related concept 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  That's not how it works. Fortunately. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What I said is what I meant, but what I meant is not what I said, do you understand what I said? Earthbendingmaster 17:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I would say that it is a discussion to refine the proposal, to try to consider every detail, then to take the proposal to WP:VPR. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're making that up. :-P In reality, try to get the system working on a small scale, and invite more people to join in as you get the kinks out. You will know that it's working properly at each phase. This project might take some coding work. If so, you will need a coder, and they need to get the code past Brion. For the code part, consider using Betawiki (http://translatewiki.net/wiki/Betawiki:Translator) as a testing ground, as IIRC they accept and test plugins too. --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I have an idea about how deletion would work with this, if anyones interested. When an article is deleted with the trash process, my suggestion is:(1) An administrator moves the article to the trash namespace,(2) full protect or semi-protect plus move protect the trash article,(3) delete the redirect created as a result of the move, and (4) protect the title of the deleted article to prevent repeated creation. What does everyone think about this idea? Earthbendingmaster 23:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you generally don't want to salt it against re-creation. Suppose someone creates a non-notable game called GunLord and writes a promotional article on it which is deleted. A year later, Eidos Interactive comes out with a hugely successful game called GunLord that sells five million copies. If that name was protected, then someone wanting to create a new article would have to seek admin assistance. It's better to just provide a mechanism to let people know that an article by that title was deleted (which is already in place) and also let them see what exactly the deleted content was. Sarsaparilla (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can not believe I did not think about that! What do you suppose then? Also, what about the other steps in my proposal? Earthbendingmaster 23:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Thoughts

message: See http://wikibin.org/articles/index.php . MER-C 06:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Though that's not integrated --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This functionality already exists offwiki 

message: Keep the user interface for deleting exactly as it is now. Any scripts or programs that do deletion would still work. Right now, deleted articles remain in the database. They are unindexed, removed from categories, and made inaccessible by search engines. Keep all that as it happens now.
The proposal is that deleted items be visible in a pseudo namespace (Trash). The only difference from now is that users would be able to read the deleted article.
This would be useful in deletion review, for users who want to rewrite a deleted article, and for non-admin helpers at (e.g.) the Help desk when asked, "Why was my article deleted?"
A small additional proposal: keep deleted articles in users' contribution histories as redlinks. I'd like to see easily that an article I nom'd for speedy, or prod, or AFD was actually deleted. When I help remove bad material, that is a contribution to the project. Why remove the record of my contribution?
Sbowers3 (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's very confusing for newbies to look through their contribs and scratch their head thinking, "I thought I created an article on _______..." 14:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, a pseudo name space would be fine except for one thing: Users would not be able to look at past revisions of a page. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? It's all in the database. Let users look through the history. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Try this 

message: I really don't understand the reason for this proposal. Pages are typically deleted because the community has reached consensus that they should not be part of Wikipedia; deletion should mean exactly that, not moving them to another namespace accessible to everyone. I understand the arguments that it's sometimes useful to be able to view a deleted version of a page, e.g. to help someone decide whether to recreate it; but any editor who feels they have a good enough reason to do so can always ask an administrator to provide a copy of the deleted page for them (and in fact this happens all the time at Deletion Review). Are administrators currently not providing copies of deleted pages quickly enough? As far as I'm aware, there have been no complaints of that nature; so what's the need for this? I see a major downside to this idea (it undermines the very concept of deletion) and no obvious upside at all. Terraxos (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's kinda like how at Taco Bell, you will notice people getting a lot more refills of soda than at Wendy's. The reason is that at Wendy's, you have to ask someone behind the counter to do it. This concept is noted at http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38898 . Currently, in order to see something that's been deleted, we have to contact a sysop on that list; the average person is not going to want to bother them very frequently. Eliminating the extra step of human interaction required to view deleted articles makes people more inclined to do it, which could be helpful to producing more participation and more informed results at WP:DRV. Ron Duvall (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this needed? 

message: (I mentioned this above but I would like to separate it for comment on its own.)
I would like deleted articles to be kept in users' contribution histories as redlinks. I'd like to see easily that an article I nom'd for speedy, or prod, or AFD was actually deleted. When I help remove bad material, that is a contribution to the project. Why remove the record of my contribution?
Secondly, it would eliminate a confusion, especially for newbies, who create an article, then don't see it in their contributions. A redlink would make it easy to see that it was deleted, and make it easy to see the deletion log.
Is there any reason to remove all of the edit summaries when an article is deleted? All of them are still in the database. Why go to the trouble of removing them from every contributors' record? Sbowers3 (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for it... it's a step in the right direction... Ron Duvall (talk) 04:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this idea too, as long as the individual revisions are not viewable. (That is, the history of who edited, when, and why would be preserved, but the actual content of the article would not be viewable.) Black Falcon (Talk) 04:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also like this idea. As long as the article and revisions are not viewable, I see no reason to delete contributions. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: And/or to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) to find out if it's technically feasible... Also, this proposal would be separate from the proposal to set up a Trash namespace, right? Black Falcon (Talk) 23:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, probably. Anyone else know? Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did take this to VPT and learned that displaying deleted pages in the contribution history looks very easy technically, but displaying deleted pages in the watchlist might not be easy. After getting the technical answer about contributions, I took the proposal to WP:VPR for more feedback but so far there have been no comments. And yes, this proposal is completely independent of a trash namespace. Sbowers3 (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

text: This is a great idea, so much so I'm surprised it isn't already the case. Think outside the box 15:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep deleted articles in contribution histories as redlinks 

message: That's not such a bad idea. Basketball110 :) 03:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No nonsense or vandalism, of course. Basketball110 :) 03:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a bad idea 

message: I like the idea, especially for prodded articles, and for templates in general. I am sure that I am not the only person who has come back to find an out-of-the-way/work-in-progress article prodded in to deletion. Would it makes sense to restrict this to registered users (i.e. those who can edit semi-protected articles) as it would remove the articles from casual readers and from 'resurrection vandals' that I'm sure would appear (who copy & paste the article back or spam the content).
The proposal would allow articles in deletion review to be viewed and a 'resurrect' button that would take the article to review would be a useful addition.--Nate1481(t/c) 10:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP's, new users and necromancy 

message: One reason a lot of material gets deleted and needs to be deleted is that we are not in the business of making a free webhost. I worry that people could take advantage of this namespace simply by making their personal pages in mainspace and then having them moved over to trashspace where'd they'd keep them. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, actually a better solution would be to move deleted content to another wiki. See m:User:The Unknown Rebel/SpiritWorldWiki. Larry E. Jordan (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This proposal just seems like a way to get around WP:N, WP:V, and the deletion process. Deleted articles can be retrieved by an Administrator if one needs a copy (provided there weren't BLP issues or copyvios).  While I would support making that method more obvious,  moving deleted articles to a new namespace makes a mockery of WP's policies on inclusion. Karanacs (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If worries are about being used as a web host, making it required to login to view would effectively eliminate this. That way it would be a resource for editors, you could also add a purge 'vote' in AfD's for advertising type content, that would be fully deleted. --Nate1481(t/c) 17:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The requirements for login are so minimal that this will not make a substantial difference. The fact that we have nearly 7 million user accounts, only about 40-50 thousand of which are active (defined as making 5+ edits per month), is telling in this respect. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I dissagree, a web host where you have to log in & (as Is specified above) wait a day or two is not much use, especially as it would not index on any searches. --Nate1481(t/c) 17:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? MySpace requires registration and it's popular as a webhost... Moreover, even though some of the negative consequences of this proposal can be controlled through various tweaks and changes, the benefit is not apparent. I just don't see how improving one process (Wikipedia:Deletion review) warrants such a major and problem-ridden change, especially when there are other, less complicated solutions -- for instance, :Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Wikipedia as a free webhost 

message: Seems we both had the same idea. See the discussion on D-SPACE concept and lets discuss if any of my "restrictions" and other ideas would be acceptable for what you call the "Trash" namespace. Low Sea (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Internet_slang#G GMTA!]