Proposal talk:Sandbox for each article

From Strategic Planning

Eventualism suggests that the article's history is its sandbox. Who knows what flagged revisions may spawn? 18:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

yeah,, but checking the article history page by page takes a lot more time than having one page that has all "junked/rejected/replaced" edits that can easily accessed to get them.. Koraiem 20:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You may be right but I think any page that has a collaborative sandbox will just discuss the location on the talk page. Maybe we should have a standard location of Talk:Article/sandbox but I think that works best as a customary practice rather than something implemented for all pages (since I think sandboxes would tend to go stale). One thing with the new skin that might be interesting is to have the dropdown menu have a link for every article from top to bottom being delete/move/protect/watch/sandbox (for admins). That probably doesn't solve the problem of discoverability since this is aimed at new users. Interesting idea. Grenavitar 06:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
well.. I get what you mean.. but the same drop down list can appear to new users with less specs.. you totally got my idea right, having a sandbox for each article (even if its creation is optional) will give users extra push to try and edit, and/or try to add stuff they're not sure about that can be checked later Koraiem 23:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the article sandbox is an excellent idea, as long as it does not supplant the talk page. It would be better for a collaborative effor to get blocks of text sorted out before posting to the article. This way, we might see fewer articles decorated with unsightly maintenance tags. The current practice is that one of the editors should create a special page in his/her own namespace for his purpose. 11:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly.. specially that not all current users like/know how to use their own namespace for these stuff... and instead of having 5 users each creating a sandbox for the same article in his own namespace, that should be a publicly accessible one that's easier to find & get contributed to by other users. Koraiem 18:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I simply don't like this proposal. Sandbox need regularly to be deleted and only a few of users read them, so isn't useful to have a lot of them. --Aushulz 02:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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 00:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]