I'm proposing that we create an tag for use only in the sandbox.

This will allow people who have ceased work on a challenge idea to indicate such. The idea here is that other interested individuals would be able to step in and continue development of the challenge and post it in its final form.

I've had this idea for awhile, but was prompted to actually ask while reading the comments for The Secret Handshake which was posted originally in 2014: (please note that I do not know PhiNotPi's intentions, but it seems like it might fit the proposed orphaned scenario)

@PhiNotPi are you still interested in this challenge? Would you be willing to allow me to implement this? – Rohan Jhunjhunwala yesterday

@RohanJhunjhunwala Sure, you can implement this. I don't think I ever started on a controller for it, mainly because I don't think this challenge will be as fun in practice as in theory. – PhiNotPi 9 hours ago

I think scenarios similar to the above are not too uncommon.

I'm curious to know if the community thinks that this tag might be worthwhile.

  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ It's already perfectly fine to take over someone else's abandoned sandbox posts. The policy for that is in the section "What should we do with abandoned proposals?" in the Sandbox FAQ. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 30, 2016 at 22:32
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ Also note that we can't actually create a tag if it doesn't have any challenges in it (since it will be roomba'd automatically if it's unused), but anyone is free to put [tag:orphaned] in their markdown and it will show up as a tag (we just can't put a persistent tag wiki info behind it). \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 30, 2016 at 22:33
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Martin Ender perhaps we could add a question in that tag like an faq question on meta. Thus allowing the tag to have a persistent wiki. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 30, 2016 at 22:35
  • \$\begingroup\$ Perhaps it would be best to simply update the faq asking people to mark their orphaned challenges as such \$\endgroup\$
    – Liam
    Commented Jul 30, 2016 at 22:48
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ You do realize that answers don't have tags, right? \$\endgroup\$
    – DJMcMayhem
    Commented Jul 30, 2016 at 22:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ Lmfao didn't even think about that... \$\endgroup\$
    – Liam
    Commented Jul 30, 2016 at 22:49
  • \$\begingroup\$ Why do we need a tag? Can't the answer just say "orphaned"? \$\endgroup\$
    – xnor
    Commented Jul 30, 2016 at 23:38
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ It would be useful to have a quick way of searching for all the abandoned sandbox posts, but most of these will be forgotten posts, rather than posts deliberately donated to the community, so actively marking them would need to be done by others than the original author. Since we already have a policy for taking on abandoned sandbox posts, it might be easier to simply sort the sandbox by "active" and scroll down to see all the posts that haven't been edited in a long time. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 30, 2016 at 23:41

2 Answers 2



Even if every single member in this community wanted this, it would be impossible. Answers don't have tags, so it's pointless to discuss a new tag for answers.

Now, indicating that you have no interest in posting a previously sandboxed challenge is a great idea! Logistically, I don't think this should be enforced at all, just encouraged. Especially since every post that could use this is by definition abandoned. Why would we expect users to come back and mark it that way? It's best to stick to our current system of

If you find an abandoned post you like, comment on it to ask the OP for permission to take over. If you get no response for two weeks, it is safe to take it.

However like I said, indicating you're done with a post is a great idea. I plan on doing this to all my future abandoned sandbox posts, and I'd encourage you to do the same for yours. It might even be a good idea to encourage users to do this in the body of the sandbox post itself. That is, assuming the community in general thinks it would be a good idea.

  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Another good indicator of abandoned sandboxed posts is if they're make CW. I have done this to allow anyone to edit the posts without needing the rep requirement (along with posting on the meta post that we had last winter about "gifting" challenge ideas). \$\endgroup\$
    – user45941
    Commented Aug 1, 2016 at 0:40
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I agree with this. We can always edit the post (or comment, but not all the time) to say we are no longer contributing to a sandbox post. Plus, people can just check the last time it was updated. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Aug 1, 2016 at 0:54


Orphaned should be a tag reserved for use in the sandbox as a clear-cut indicator of an idea which people are free to take. Although there is a current policy of being able to take sandbox questions, it may be more efficient to allow post owners to offer their questions for use.

  • \$\begingroup\$ +1 from me can't vote \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 30, 2016 at 22:34
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Please don't post several opposing views for the purpose of polling. Post your own opinion but let someone post the other options who can actually make a case for them. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 30, 2016 at 22:37
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Martin Ender my apologies. I was basing this on what I saw for other similar voting questions. I will delete the "No" post. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 30, 2016 at 22:38
  • \$\begingroup\$ @MartinEnder deleted the second post \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 30, 2016 at 22:39
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Yes, unfortunately this used to be common practice (and I've done it myself in the past), but in general it preempts constructive discussion and I would undo these mistakes now if I could. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 30, 2016 at 22:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ @MartinEnder ok makes sense. My apologies. It is stuck as community wiki though. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 30, 2016 at 22:55
  • \$\begingroup\$ Wiki status removed. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 31, 2016 at 11:12
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Martin Ender thanks! \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 31, 2016 at 13:22

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .