Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Sandbox

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Sandbox

Does this page mean anything?? I'm quite sure its use has been almost exclusively as another sandbox. Georgia guy (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy keep It is harmless mainly. Also, it shows a good example of a talk page, whereas a red link may confuse newbies. Several editors appear to have taken it upon themselves to restore the page if used as a sandbox. IMO, deleting causes more harm to newbies than the effort it takes to keep restoring it. --12 Noon ^2¢ 21:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I don't know why this page cannot be used a normal talk page to discuss the sandbox. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Answer. Nobody really uses it as such; everybody uses it as just another sandbox. Georgia guy (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep - We should put up a banner at the top of the sandbox, explaining to users that they are not supposed to test themselves on the talkpage. But there will possibly come times when someone has a suggestion for how to improve the sandbox a little further, and then they will want to post these suggestions somewhere. The talkpage for the sandbox is a likely choice. So definately keep. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment A bot removed the Mfd template while restoring the page. Georgia guy (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment After watchlisting the nominated page, I can see that trying to use it as a legitimate talk page is impossible - it is constantly used as a sandbox itself. There has to be some solution to this, semi-protecting? I dunno.... Maybe float this over at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) and see if anyone has any better remedies. --12 Noon ^2¢ 03:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Semi-protection might help if we intend to use it as a page to discuss the sandbox. On the other hand, it is useful as a second sandbox since it gets a lot less traffic meaning fewer edit conflicts and messing up of stuff unfinished. Jɪmp 05:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I think I read in WP:ANI somewhere that the Wiki crashed when an admin deleted the Sandbox. Would that happen too if its talk page gets deleted?--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It would certainly be a blow to the tester's ears. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 06:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't know how useful it is, but there's no reason it shouldn't exist. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• (after edit conflict) Keep, no point in deleting this as talk pages have a "post a comment" feature which users might want to test - and I notice that somebody already has according to the revision at the time of writing. In fact, one of the first revisions demonstrates this quite nicely. I am aware that it is now posssible to add a new section edit link to the main sandbox with the magic word __NEWSECTIONLINK__ but that would be pointless. There is no harm in having a second sandbox, and there are plenty of other ones in the Wikipedia tutorial. Any problems with the sandbox can be and often are discussed at the village pump and the administrators' noticeboards. It wouldn't cause much harm to the servers to delete Wikipedia talk:Sandbox because it doesn't have many revisions and isn't linked to from many places. Graham87 07:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep its current function. People like to experiment with talk pages, and this is the ideal page to do that. It's also less hectic than the main sandbox. A possible solution for people who actually want to talk about the sandbox would be to adjust the header (it has its own header) to be something like that used at Wikipedia talk:Introduction, with a link to the Village Pump. But it should remain the principal talk page sandbox. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - It doesn't do any harm, so there's no reason to delete it. --jonny-mt 15:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep no reason given why it is harming anything. Hut 8.5 18:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as there's no real reason to delete it (I mean, someone else will just create it again. Those pesky, yet adorable, newbies...). I'd kind of like to see it semi-protected to become an actual sandbox talk page, or an explanation on the function of the sandbox, but that's just me. --UsaSatsui (talk) 10:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per above. No reason to delete, it's not harming anything. Midorihana^~iidesune? 05:58, 25 February 2008 (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.