Forum:About handling of stale forum topics

Forums: Index > Ministry of Love > About handling of stale forum topics

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6409 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

I have noticed that once a forum topic becomes stale enough, the "edit" button is automatically changed to "no editing," but the warning message still says (in part), "Do not add to unless it really needs a response," which is redundant in light of the fact that the "no editing" button does nothing when clicked. I would like to ask whether this ought to be changed in any way, such as:

1. Protect the page (either by human or by bot) instead of changing the "edit" button to "no editing." This allows people to view the source code more easily, which could be useful in some circumstances.
2. Just remove the redundant wording from the warning message.

Thanks for your consideration, however much you actually give.

Pentium5dot1 04:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You can always append "&action=edit" to the URL in order to edit/view source code. But I wasn't around when this bit of enforced archiving magic was implemented, so probably there are wunderbar reasons it is as it is. --KATIE!! 04:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, try adding enableOldForumEdit to your uncyclopedia.js. --Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • FFS • WP) 04:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Or use my RemoveOnloadHook function to stop it from loading... -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 05:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the act of protecting bumps the topic, but it's still possible to edit it by appending the action=edit to the url like Keitei said or by using the edit link from the history page, so both parts are actually correct, as it is still possible to edit them. You just have to go out of your way to do so, to ensure that you know what you're doing and really want to bump the topic. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 05:04, 04 Jun 2007

Also, the javascript only works for registered users. --Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • FFS • WP) 05:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This was done mainly just to slow down the tide of unintentional bumps made by n00bs, rather than to prevent editing completely. Some such topics are good for an occasional bumping - I remember one about what everyone's username means that probably should come back very occasionally for the n00bs to have a look at. This solution seems to have been working fairly well, too - we've had far less stupid bumps since it was brought in. Kudos to whoever suggested it. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 09:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll take those! • Spang • ☃ • talk • 02:49, 05 Jun 2007

Eww! Spang's got kudos! -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 09:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You gave them to me! • Spang • ☃ • talk • 09:55, 05 Jun 2007

Filthy lies! I don't have kudos! -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 10:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This is kinda like the Great Wall of China, in that it's to slow down the Mongols instead of stop them entirely, Mongols being Vandals in this particular instance. Or maybe Visigoths. I always get them confused. Stupid history. I think I'll just stick to the classics. /me settles down and reads "My Pet Goat."--<<>> 01:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

/me lends Brad Where did I come from?. It's awesome. It says that sex is fun like sneezing but too hard to do all the time, like skipping rope. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

/me goes out to buy rope. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 09:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)