Forum:On special:shortpages

Forums: Index > Village Dump > On special:shortpages

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4003 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

What do you guys think the function of Special:Shortpages is? I ask this because I think it's entirely possible that a page like this could have several different uses, and peoples' opinions will impact what I choose to do with articles found in the list.

Let me give you some context. Shortpages, for me, is a tool for finding cheap vandalism and short articles that should be on VFD or QVFD. However, Special:Shortpages is largely composed of pages that are always on the list because they're legitimately short- for example, An article that contains nothing but a full stop is usually at the top because it has just one character, but it's obviously an acceptable page. I also see lots of subpages for pages (such as Unfomercials:Inspirigun/t3, 72 bytes) and alternate-namespace pages (like ‎UnPoetia:Hydrogen and Oxygen, 193 bytes). However, I also see lots of pages that I feel don't belong on Special:Shortpages; most of these are disambiguation pages, which tend to be small (Russia (disambiguation) is 271 bytes). I think these are more meta-articles than actual articles and should be purged from the list to make room for more genuinely short pages that deserve deletion. It makes them easier to spot.

To that end, I just created this, which is a template meant to be subst'd in to small pages that you want to remove from the lower part of Special:Shortpages. It essentially adds over nine thousand characters (a coincidence, I swear) to the page under <!--these marks-->, so the page's appearance doesn't change, but the size is dramatically increased. I want to apply this to any disambiguation pages I spot on Special:Shortpages, and since I tend to use shortpages to detect vandalism and crap articles, I would also love to apply this template to as many of those subpages and alternate namespace pages as I can. However, before going off on a page engorgement rampage, I feel I ought to consult the community.

Do we have legitimate reasons for keeping subpages and alternate namespace pages on Special:Shortpages? Is it mostly just a vandalism/crap detection tool, as I see it? How do you guys feel about inflating disambiguation pages and others I've mentioned in order to make it easier to spot crap? Am I worrying too much about this and should I just do whatever I want, and to hell with the consequences?

Also, I said "pages" 23 times in this post. --Andorin Kato 07:36, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Ljlego or someone brought this up a while ago and this was the solution we used then. You've got the go-ahead to apply treatment to all articles except, of course, An article that contains nothing but a full stop. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 07:39, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

By "all articles" would you also include legit, short mainspace pages like Michael Clarke Duncan, International Page Blanking Day and A wizard did it? --Andorin Kato 07:44, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Uhhhh, not International Page Blanking Day, but yes to the rest. No one'll notice anyway as long as you put it at the very end of the article. Leave a list on my talkpage of anything that's fully protected and I'll get around to it eventually. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 08:26, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Seeing how I don't consider Special:Shortpages as a maintenance tool but rather a way to find short, funny articles, I do not feel as though this is a good idea. For disambiguation pages, yes, but for other articles, I'm going to say no. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 08:30, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Also, I don't see how this could be used to fight vandals in the least. Mass removal or blanking of pages rarely goes unnoticed. What does go unnoticed is the small insertions of vanity and stupidity in articles. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 08:39, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Dexter has a point. It's all coming back to me now: the thing you suggested was only applied to disambiguations. Very rarely do QVFD things and blankings slip through, and if they do, they should be evident on the first and second pages anyway. So, uh, yeah. Sorry. Taking back full-frontal permission. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 09:11, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Subpages still require a decision. I would be perfectly happy with only expanding disambiguation pages and subpages. --Andorin Kato 18:21, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Go-ahead for subpages. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 22:33, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

I went through the 100 shortest pages and added the template to disambiguations and subpages. Productive! --Andorin Kato 03:07, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

I am 99% sure that this exact issue was discussed and resolved in this exact same way sometime prior to my joining Uncyclopedia. pillow talk 22:34, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

Great work Andorin. I agree it's good to keep the main ones short, for user interest (I've enjoyed looking through those and other categories like it), but what you were getting at took lots of work. Yay. Aleister 23:05 27 7

I don't think this was applied to subpages in the past. So that's different. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 23:06, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

On the off chance of sounding like some kind of jerk

Pages that are expanded in this way should? have some kind of way to group them together???
Add a [[Category:NoShortPages]] to the template maybe?  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  28 Jul 2010 ~ 08:55 (UTC)

Sure. --Andorin Kato 18:20, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Done! Although I'm not sure how I feel about going back and retroactively adding the category to every page I've dropped the template on. Perhaps l8r. --Andorin Kato 18:30, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Like the category name.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  29 Jul 2010 ~ 06:20 (UTC)

Oh, gods, we have contention

So there was this one time, when Socky came to my talk page and said that adding the category to {{NoShortPages}} is a bad idea, mostly because the category is visible whereas the text of the template is hidden. If anyone has any reason why these two should not be wed, let him speak now or forever hold his peace. Alternately, if you have an opinion on the matter of keeping Category:Deliberately expanded pages around, let us know. --Andorin Kato 18:40, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Looks ok to me, nice work--Sycamore (Talk) 18:47, July 31, 2010 (UTC)