Forum:The war against WiPs

Forums: Index > Village Dump > The war against WiPs

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6314 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

...And I don't mean normal Works in Progress, I mean Worthless "In Progresses". I refer to microstubs created by IPs which are needlessly spared from QVFD, since they are tagged by the authors with the {{Construction}} or {{WiP}} tags. This is a terrible practice and results in a load of terrible articles slipping beneath our radar. In time, the WiP will expire, but there's no guarantee the IP would remove the tag before then. Having a microstub tagged with the {{Construction}} tag is just as bad as having an ICU removed from an unimproved tagged article.

I propose a new measure: Any new articles created by IPs containing a ((Construction)) tag are liable to be ICU'd, QVFD'd and/or deleted. Any thoughts on this? -- 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 23:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What's the difference between immediate deletion and waiting a week? It's still going to be deleted; construction has its own short-term category. I think. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 23:04 Sep 04, 2007

There's no guarantee that the IP will remove the tag before the week is up and it will slip pass. Plus, it's more efficient to just get rid of it on the spot. -- 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 23:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes! Yes! I was right! Category:Work In Progress & its maintenance page! I wasn't wrong for once! Looks to me like unedited WiP's get huffed just like ICU's, so what's the diff between a WiP tag and an ICU? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 23:14 Sep 04, 2007

I also believe that removing stuff like that rather damages the integrity of the system. If you're worried about a page slipping through the cracks, add it to your Watchlist and wait for it to expire. If the IP removes the construction tag without improvement, QVFD. Otherwise, just let it run its course.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 23:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

True. It does promise seven days. And unless you're a severe abuser, I think anyone should get the right to a week. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 23:53 Sep 04, 2007

Just take a look at articles like Epilepcy. You think that honestly has the right to live a week? We're talking about fake-WiP-microstubs-made-by-IPs, here, not actual articles under contruction. -- 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 20:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That's what the Dr. meant by "severe abusers." Ohadaloni did that, and it got him infinibanned. That's abuse. Microstubs, even one word, that denote a concept, deserve life for the seven days decreed by the...decree.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 20:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think banning all anonymous users and requiring all accounts to be at least 3 days old to edit might really stop the crap. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 21:30, September 5, 2007

Oh wow. Nazi.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 21:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Neh. Some users do useful things in their first day or so. Others suck. Personally, if I had to wait three days to edit, I'd have gone nuts. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 21:10 Sep 05, 2007

Plus, THE was an IP for a good bit of his early career. If he hadn't been able to edit, who knows what would've happened?-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 21:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

THE never made any microstubs and tagged them with as a WiP. I'm not persecuting against the IPs, but they are the primary creators of these "articles". -- 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 21:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

How come they can't make it so IP's can't create pages like Wikipedia does? IP's can't write anything worth while--Sir Manforman 21:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds better than my idea, actually. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 21:41, September 5, 2007

Well, some can, you know. Some even get featured. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 21:23 Sep 05, 2007

Well, pretty much 99.9% write crap and IP's who write good stuff could easily register an account --Sir Manforman 21:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If we ban logged out users from making pages, all we'll do is create a new problem, useless n00b users. Now, there are things we should have limits on. Like, Pee Review, for example. Users will log in and contribute three lousy reviews, then never contribute again. A limit on that would be nice. But, what we really need is some way to make sure everyone reads HTBFANJS. I seriously get the feeling that all the IPs and n00bs that write crap have never even looked at it, or just took one look at it and said "Oh, I don't need this shit, I know what's funny!" If we can get people to read that.... well, then I'd bet we'll have a serious outbreak of pages that don't suck. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 22:05, Sep 5, 2007

We could require users to answer 10 questions about HTBFANJS correctly in order for their accounts to be activated. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 22:08, September 5, 2007

Can you please stick to the topic? Read the damned title and comment on the actual idea instead of proposing alternative and far too extreme solutions. I don't hate all IPs, I only hate the ones who are maintenance template abusers. -- 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 22:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

/me gets crazy glue to stick himself to the topic. Well, to be a template abuser, you'd have to create at least, like, three or more WiPs. Most IPs only create one. And also, think about it this way — they're saving us the work from putting their crappy article on QVFD, as it'll get huffed whenever the admins go through the WiP list. So really, by slapping {{construction}} on, they're helping us huff their articles. And like I've said before, any page needs a chance to survive for a week. It's not like it'll never get deleted — it only delays the inevitable. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 22:34 Sep 05, 2007

It's possible to keep a shitty article alive by removing an ICU, users and IPs alike do it all the time and it goes unnoticed unless a particularly vigilant admin happens to be on at the time it's removed, and it's just as easy to remove a WiP before it expire. Why let an article possibly slip through the cracks when, instead of putting it on your watchlist, you can put it on the deathlist? -- 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 22:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

By your logic, the ICU system is also flawed. Although I have to agree — people do have the habit of removing those things, but what else can we use instead? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 22:34 Sep 05, 2007

More admins? Just accept my idea is feasible already, it's not that big an issue >_> -- 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 23:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't like, though. It's not going to solve the major problem that you've brought up: two of our three major new-article crap-detection systems are screwy. Furthermore, saying that they can be ICU'd at any time doesn't solve a thing; it's the same problem, only with a fancier template. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 23:23 Sep 05, 2007

Then we could at least make it less screwy my implementing my idea. There's no point in letting a 1 edit 1 liner survive for a completely unneeded 6 extra days when we can just delete it now. -- 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 23:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's different. You said IPs. If you said "crappy one liners are subject to deletion at any time", that makes more sense. Your first proposal sounded more about IPs than the articles themselves. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 23:44 Sep 05, 2007

Sorry if it came off that way, but like I said before, IPs are the primary, if not only creators of those types of articles (spare the Crazy Israeli). If it would make you like it better, I'd have it extended to users too, though it wouldn't make much of a difference. -- 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 23:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If we have to do anything, I'd like it to just refer to the articles, IPs or users or not. It mentions nothing of crappy one-liners, which is really the only thing that deserves mention. But, erm, I dunno. I dunno if we need to do anything at all. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 23:30 Sep 05, 2007

"Crappy one-liners" = "Microstubs" -- 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 23:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Plus, it's technically taboo to delete anything with a WiP tag, so this would essentially create the necessary loophole -- 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 23:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Why can't we welcome IP's than and give them the links to UN:DUMB and all the other pages if that is the IP's are the problem. You are not suppose to welcome IP's, apparently--Sir Manforman 22:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

While I generally spare articles which have construction/ICU templates (as I'm sure many others do), it does seem logical that there should be some leeway in determining a "good faith" article and the average one liner. Perhaps we could have an Uncyclopedia equivalent of Wikipedia:Articles for creation ? MadMax 07:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't like the idea of deleting WIPs, until I saw the article WOW is gay. Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 14:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I QVFD'd the page. THAT, folks, is an example of a bad-faith WIP tag. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 18:45, Sep 7, 2007

I'm beggining to think that if an article should always have seven days, unless it is a blatant violation of our vanity policies, just plain outright crap, if the construction template is the only thing on the article and/or you are a sevrere abuser. When the 7 days are up, it would be deleted if it still sucked. If the article is good, but too short, it could be tagged with {{Expand}}--Sir Manforman 13:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking of a new WIP rule. If anyone tags an article they wrote with {{WIP}} or {{Construction}}, they must do more work on it within 7 days or it gets deleted. If they can't guarantee that they can improve the article within a week, they must either put it on QVFD or move it into userspace. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 07:37, September 9, 2007

Microstubs don't slip through the cracks. I can personally guarantee that fact. Although I haven't been here to do it for the last couple of weeks, all tiny construction/ICU pages I see are usually added to my watchlist. Then, as an extra line of defense, every so often I do a Dynamic Page List query on short pages to see that all the extreme rubbish has been cleaned. Anything less than about 750 bytes (and rising) will at some point get seen by me. Despite how long and annoying it makes my watchlist, I still say we give most people a chance to improve stuff. Having said that though, I will very occasionally destroy a construction-tagged no-liner if I'm in a bad mood, and I know other admins have been known to use their discretion on the rule as well. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 13:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)