Forum:Sandbox Talk page

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Sandbox Talk page (talk)

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5051 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

So, there was a vote on whether or not to delete the Sandbox Talk Page, the result of which was Keep... however, this does essentially mean that the Sandbox Talk page is to be treated as any other page on Uncyclopedia and therefore you are allowed to add a section to it, but not treat it as you would the Sandbox itself.

Personally I think this is silly because given that it is of course linked with the Sandbox, it'll invariably end up getting shat all over fairly regularly (as has just happened with a well-meaning IP "resetting" the page.) Should IP's and or users get banned for it? What do you do if someone adds a section of bullshit?

so, please cast your vote under the relevant heading. NO AGAINST VOTES -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 11:11, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Treat as a standard talk page (the status-quo)

Score: 1

• It's a talkpage. Talkpages are for talking. Sometimes things merit talking. This is talking. Shouldn't it be on the talkpage? Or something. What?

1234 ~ 11:20, 18 February 2011

I'd agree with you, except for the fact that it's a talk page for a page you can do anything the fuck you want to, and that this is made clear on the page itself. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 11:22, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

• For. per the fact that someone might need to talk about the sandbox page --Mn-z 01:57, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

Which is a bad idea in my opinion, if you have a question about it, go directly to an admin, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Otherwise, they'll leave it on the Sandbox talk page, nobody will notice it and it will go unanswered -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 00:27, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

Do as Wikipedia and treat as a sandbox page

Score: 2

1. For. - In the grand scheme of things, it's just a bloody talk page and treating it as a regular talk-page is misleading and silly. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 11:11, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
2. For. It's a sandbox, so why not keep it but user it as a sandbox. Here, I'll do a sandbox thing, and someone can erase it if they want to. Aleister 3:29 19-1-'11

Disable it, make it redirect to Sandbox and lock it

Score: 5

1. For This makes the most sense. Nothing of value is on that talk page, or on any of the site for that matter, so I don't see why we should bother wasting time pretending there is. Also, has anybody seen my three wolf moon shirt? MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 11:26, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
2. For. --Roman Dog Bird 03:20, February 19, 2011 (UTC)
3. For Even though I don't use the sandbox. Is there any advantage to using it over a user page? (talk) 03:28, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

   For most users, no. For IPs or noobs trying to figure out how to do something, yes. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 03:32, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

4. Seems like this makes the most sense. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 06:55, Feb 21
5. For. - I'm voting for this as well, because in the grand scheme of things, whether it gets treated as an additional sandbox or a locked redirect, it makes sense -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 14:58, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

Lock it as-is, preserved as a relic

Score: 4

• In years to come future Uncyclopedians will stand and wonder at our mighty nation. And despair. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)
• For -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 04:57, February 19, 2011 (UTC)
• Yeah. Real Improvement to things on here comes with contributers getting jobs.--Sycamore (Talk) 09:10, February 19, 2011 (UTC)
• I'd rather this, really. We ain't no wikipedia.

1234 ~ 15:17, 21 February 2011

Obligatory Joke Headings

Violently protect it from vandals

Score: 1

1. We've regularly had blankers and other vandals vandalizing the talkpage, while they were well aware of the vandalizing aspect of their edits. If we do anything else than violently protect it from the vandals, the vandals win! *shrugs* —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 11:17, 18 February 2011

Get rid of all talkpages

Score: 2

1. None of the others are serving much of a purpose, either. Pretty much all of them are just ignored.

1234 ~ 11:42, 18 February 2011

1. For. And get rid of the not-talkpages pages their attached to. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 01:53, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

Get rid of all pages

• For. —rc (t) 02:03, February 19, 2011 (UTC)
• For. - Not particularly sincere, Sir ColinAYBCUNVFHWhoringMore Whoring at00:02, Tuesday 22 February 2011 -

All AGAINST VOTES here

• Against. —rc (t) 02:03, February 19, 2011 (UTC)
• Against. What are we againsting?

1234 ~ 10:03, 19 February 2011

Society and the status quo. Down with conformity! ◄► Tephra ◄► 12:49, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Wait, what? -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 14:56, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

Let Codeine's Mum decide

• Nom&Against (talk) 03:30, February 19, 2011 (UTC)
• SuperFandabbiedozieFor -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 00:26, February 20, 2011 (UTC)
• Mother knows best -- Norman Bates 14:53, February 21, 2011 (UTC)
• For. Anyone qualified to make the decision on whether or not to give birth to Codeine is qualified to make this decision. - Not particularly sincere, Sir ColinAYBCUNVFHWhoringMore Whoring at00:04, Tuesday 22 February 2011 -

Decide before Poles will take your jobs

Score: 1

• Weak for Sir Ptok-Bentoniczny^{Pisz tutaj} • KUN 22:09, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

Make the main page a redirect to the sandbox talk page

Score: Hyperbole

• For.. The main page has been pretty gay lately. pillow talk 21:01, February 22, 2011 (UTC)