Forum:ICU change
I've made a change to the ICU template (not added in yet) so that instead of showing the date the template was added, it shows the date the article will be rechecked, 7 days from the last edit. That date will update with each edit, and will be far more accurate time than just the existing timestamp. You can see this in action here. One advantage is that you don't need to timestamp the template, it's just {{ICU}}, though you should still use the fix and sub fields.
I thought I should get people's opinions before going ahead and changing the actual template. The wording and format might need tweaking too. Oh and the same method could be applied to other templates that use a timestamp, if it seems a good idea. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 04:14, 14 Apr 2007
- Well, if people figure out that all they have to do to save their article is edit it once a week, we may have a problem.
t o m p k i n s blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 04:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC) - Nice idea, but I'm with Tompkins - I know it looks a bit silly when an ICU says a page should have been deleted weeks ago, but most n00bs don't seem to twig what that means, and I'm always rather wary of telling them. If people want to make agonisingly slow improvements to an article, let them use {{construction}}. -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 09:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm with spang, cause he's made of win and stuff. Oh and also for those reasons he said. (I didn't read it) —Braydie 13:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Whew! /me wipes forehead. By the forum title, I thought Spang was watching me change. He's done it before; I'm changing, I glance over at the window and there he is, with his pervy face pressed up against the window. Well, I called the police, I did! Or, it may have been the police...they deliver pizza, right? --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 16:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Well people can already save an article once a week to stop it being deleted already. And if changing it to this it encourages people to edit their articles more often, I'm sure that's a good thing. If they keep coming back, they'll have new ideas and the article might actualy be improved.
I wouldn't mind showing the added date as well, but who ever actually looks at it? The timestamped tagged articles are all sorted by the last revision time anyway, and the actual timestamp is all but useless to anyone but the author, and a re-checking date is far more useful to them. And if you need to see when it was tagged, you can always use the history, if it was tagged properly there should be a "+icu" edit summary. Oh and MO I use remote cameras hooked up to a tivo so I can watch you change whenever I like. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 19:29, 14 Apr 2007
- 1nd: I like the template. Whatever helps us keep an eye on cruft/notcruft and limits the appeal of FFW is good, IMO. 2st: as long as your $14.95 comes in every month, you can watch for as long as you want. Tonight; I sit in front of the TV and eat a canned ham. --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 20:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not going to read all the backandforth, instead I'm going to use bold to tell you what I think. We should keep ~~~~~ing the ICUs, and then add Spang's fancy-pants-whatever after the time stamp. That way the people will be able to see how long it has been since the ICU was added without that history thing. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 21:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, how about now? • Spang • ☃ • talk • 06:32, 15 Apr 2007
- Looks good to me, just as long as we can remove the 1 + 2 = fish part. :P
Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 06:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- As long as I don't have to monkey-about with my uncyclopedia.js, it's all good. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 13:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a bit more nice and ambiguous now! We should try it out, and as long as there's no huge upsurge in useless edits on ICUed pages, keep it. -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 17:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- As long as I don't have to monkey-about with my uncyclopedia.js, it's all good. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 13:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Looks good to me, just as long as we can remove the 1 + 2 = fish part. :P
- Ok, how about now? • Spang • ☃ • talk • 06:32, 15 Apr 2007