Proposal talk:Graveyard (Attic repository for discarded paragraphs)

This is interesting. The phenomenon described does exist (I have seen it), and this might help.

However, this solution works both ways. It would not only work when the "truth-not-infomation" crowd wipes something, and puts in their POV, but also when an article has been cleaned up and all the popular myths have been eliminated (finally); the more-is-better crowd would put all the junk back in ("see how Wikipedia grows!"). It already is nearly impossible to remove anything (no matter how inappropriate or even plain wrong), and this might just about guarantee that all the junk will resurface in the article, always. - Brya 09:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does this proposal interact with Proposal:Filtering out vandalism in edit history? I believe the cost section neglects the non-trivial software development costs, unless this is already implemented as an extension and production ready. --Gmaxwell 22:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This might be helpful. When I was a new editor, one of the things I did was search out & repair damage done by a malfunctioning invisi-spambot. It had removed huge sections of text from a number of articles across several projects and the damage had gone uncorrected for months.. and in one case, the absence of a section of text had caused a content dispute which wouldn't have happened if the text had been there. There are certainly other articles where this damage happened, but the invisi-spam string itself (which I used as a search string to find these pages) had been removed. A Graveyard feature would have been helpful here. ( some of the diffs on these articles: [1][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] ) --Versa geek 19:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this proposal interacts with Proposal:Filtering out vandalism in edit history, and Proposal:Digital Archaeology, please take a look at them! Especially "Digitial Archaeology" covers much more than it says. I'm in search for more effective and better maintenance functionalities, so this proposal adds to that list. Maybe this is the foundation for the maintenance cabal? Rursus 07:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A separate extension would be too much. As I wrote, maybe a "simple" tagging would help. Nemo 22:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Impact?

Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users? -- Philippe 00:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AGREE! This is a good idea, and is suggested under many names and described in many ways. Graveyard ... excellent name! There is a clear need to store wholesale deletes. Simple Tag/Reverts fail because grammar/fine tune edits are lost.