But:
* There's a good, extensive article in the 'pedia
* Some troll deletes it (leaving the history intact)
* To everyone, it seems that there is no article
* Someone writes a two-line stub, not realizing that there's a
much better
article in the history
This would not be good, right?
The only difference between this and the current situation is what,
*exactly*?
Currently, you see that an article exists, and if it is blank, you will
probably have a look at the history. If the article is deleted, you might
miss the history even though it is still stored.
I was thinking about the "page titles to be
deleted" list, and
some of the
empty or silly orphans. No need to accumulate
that stuff in the
database.
So, yes--retain the ability to permanently delete pages.
Sure we do. But currently, you and Jimbo are the only ones who *can*
permanently delete pages. Jimbo is too busy to do that, and AFAIK, you are
currently as well (job, wife,...;)
That's the reason I suggested the "trusted" status, to get some work off
your shoulders (and actually done, look at the "page titles to be deleted"!)
without compromising security.
I don't think we'll get the "cabal" discussion again about this one, as
we
are not reducing user rights, merely expanding them for some. And, we could
still give The Cunctator trusted status - noone could complain about the
cabal THEN! :)
Magnus