Club Penguin Fanon Wiki talk:Archive Namespace

There are some pages that never should be restored. The bot should be programmed to avoid those. -- Quackerpingu   (Talk)   (Contributions)  08:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

? What would be the point of this? If an old user returns they can just ask an admin to restore the page they want. No need for a whole new namespace. -- Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 08:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Perhaps instead of a new namespace, we could allow regular users to view deleted pages/revisions? --WP logo new.png Wikipen guino45  (Talk ) (Contribs ) ( Articles ) 10:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Frankly I don't think that's a good solution, what would be the point of deletion in the first place? -- User:EDFan 1234  5  18:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

This would sound like an April Fools joke if it wouldn't have been written on April 2. -- Quackerpingu   (Talk)   (Contributions)  09:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

This is an interesting proposition, and a good compromise to the mass deletion of stuff that users might not see fit, especially when it comes to wiping them from continuity or something like that. I should mention at this point that a large number of articles were saved on archive.org in 2017 for some reason, so while this archive namespace is being worked on, that can be a route to view old articles for now. Current Status: college apps are over, yeet (T • C • Y) 10:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Is this because of my April Fools joke, because I really don't like this... The idea itself is good, but I don't think shoving everything from Delet This into a separate namespace is a good idea, especially when a lot of that content is garbage and not worth saving. I really doubt a user who made 72 edits back in February 2012 is going to come back and try to improve their 1:1 parody TV show, and if they do, they can request for those articles to be restored.

As for not being able to improve these articles, the point of the project is to gather all of these into a list and give users a chance to improve them, which has been done with several articles, otherwise they'd just be deleted outright. I do like the idea of the namespace itself however and think it could be useful for things like the retconned Senseis, but I don't like the idea of Archive basically becoming the garbage dump of the wiki filled with our worst content that we've been working to get rid of. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions  - My Articles )  15:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the point Sea is trying to make is that no matter how "garbage" an article might be, it's still part of our wiki's history, and a shared one at that. Outright deleting those articles for being "bad" would be losing a little bit of the quirk Fanon has/had. I tend to agree with him in that regard, and overall it has no impact on the continuity or the quality of content on the wiki, as those articles would be placed in a separate namespace. Even if the user doesn't come back to work on those articles, someone else might be interested in them. If not, then there they will stay. -  Wonderweez  ( Talk · Contribs ) 18:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I do not believe every crappy article from 2009 that contains 7 words and a badly drawn penguin is some rich treasure that is worth saving. The better articles stay, the worse articles are given a timeframe during which they can be improved and if they aren't, they go. -- Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 19:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I really don't think every page deserves to be saved, but things like characters and whatnot could be moved to it since those are more "user's legacy"-y. I also don't think there are a significant amount of pages that should be recreated either but that's up to Sea or CK or whoever. -- User:EDFan 1234  5  18:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd be fine with user characters being preserved perhaps, if a compromise is necessary for this? That way, we preserve the actual users themselves. -- Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 19:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * User characters are always something I've felt iffy about deleting, but short and bad articles are short and bad articles so I just went with it. I'd support at least archiving those. --Chill57181 (Talk - Contributions  - My Articles )  20:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * How about not restoring and moving bad parodies? --QP.png Quackerpingu   (Talk)   (Contributions)  06:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)