Template talk:ICU

Humor value of this template

Could we do something to play up the "Intensive Care Unit" aspect of this template? Pentium5dot1 01:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Suggested revision:

This article is in the Intensive Care Unit. Please help it fight for it's life so it won't die a painful death.
See NRV for instructions.

(with "help" being the link for editing the article) Pentium5dot1 07:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

My gut feeling is to keep the text short and sweet. Also ICU is supposed to be a double pun: "I See You" and "Intensive Care Unit". Plus, there is sort of a question hanging around using humor in these tags. This tag is really one of the most official, matter-of-fact tags we have, so there is some question as to whether it should be intentionally humorless. I think the argument that might carry the day is if a new wording would help the functionality of the tag. I.E. will a bit of humor cause people to be less intimidated, while still taking the tag seriously, so that more will look on the tag as reasonto fix up the page. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

All right, I concede that my idea is probably baseless, but is this template being deprecated in favor of {{NRV}}? Also, could we possibly make a fork of this template instead of rewriting it? Pentium5dot1 22:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The reverse. we are trying to get rid of NRV slowly in favor of this template being used. If you plan on tagging pages with ICU and you have read all the directions and obey all the rules, then you can fork this template to a subpage of your userpage and alter it, then use that subpage as a template. ICU originially stated out as just such a fork of NRV. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Jarhead

Recently I had this unbelievably awful article tagged ICU and huffed. But Zombiebaron an admin who created the article got upset and said because it's been around a while an ICU tag should not go on it. When I politely informed him the ICU tag template comtained no such provision he changed the template at his whimsy and then the page immediately became protected. So now no matter how awful an article is if it is around a while it can't be huffed and this template was drastically revised without discussing it on the talk page also which reeks of admin abuse. Basically if an article is awful it should be able to be tagged ICU no matter how old it is.

• Note no one ever asserted the article is actually funny because that would hurt their credibility. Quadzilla99 03:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Also the edit summary: "Users don't need to edit this" by the admin who protected the page reeks of a superiority complex by the admins who changed it, and states clearly that non-admins opinions on the subject are not of any value. Um, this Wiki is not run by admins like a business is run by managers. If it is please show me the official policy page that indicates that. Quadzilla99 03:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Also show me the page where admins are allowed to decide the edit restrictions of non-admins particluarly the one relating to editors inability to edit templates. Quadzilla99 03:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Also ZombieBaron commented that this template was meant only for new articles which is either a lie or a misunderstanding (probably the latter) as until today it had never mentioned that. Quadzilla99 03:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This template is intended to give authors who have just written an article notice that their article will not be kept if it isn't made better. It isn't simply to be used for getting an article you don't like deleted. That is what VFD is for. Add it there if you think the article should be deleted. If you want somewhere where what you have been told is written down, try The Ten Commandments of Tagging, or Uncyclopedia:Maintenance tags. Also read up on the info page at Uncyclopedia:NRV, and perhaps the deletion policy for good measure.

About me protecting this template. It is one of the most often used templates on the site, and used on around 300 articles at any one time, so is a potential target for vandalism, as any vandalism here would instantly be included on 300 pages. It also includes complex wiki coding which the average user is unlikely to understand. All in all, it is an important maintenance template that normal users have no need to edit. You can still use it. If you want to make a change, request the change here - your opinion is important, but to put it bluntly, directly editing such a template requires a level of trust that the average user just doesn't have.

As for why I protected it now, I noticed Zombiebaron editing it, and while checking out his edit I noticed it wasn't protected, so protected it. Nothing to do with you or your complaints. So perhaps my supposed superiority complex is actually your inferiority complex. You might also find people are more understanding if you are more polite. I hope you found this helpful. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 03:43, 10 Feb 2007

I was hardly involved with any recent maintenance tag organization, so I'm not really the person to ask. However, I know that tagging old pages with NRVs had been a longtime no-no (there have been onsite discussions about this), and since ICU appears to be basically the New NRV, I'd assume the same rules apply. And although Spang is a useless glob of swine spittle, what he says does make sense. ICU is a "business" tag in the same way Help is a business page - it's actually meant to serve a purpose aside from humor, and as such it has to be clear, consistent and protected from vandalism and wanton edits. In conclusion, use VFD for this particular page and other older pages you feel are lacking. —rc (t) 04:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

What RC said. Also, with reference to the "offending" article, it might not be the height of satire, but not every article can be. As an Admin I constantly chose to not delete articles that, although well composed, are not my particular taste in humour. Had I come across the article I would have left it, or I may even have added a few lines to the content. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Ok, I'm going to put this on VFD. I really don't mind what happens to the article but I feel this will solve the disagreement. —Braydie at 12:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok good enough, I didn't want a couple of people making a decision that affected a lot of other people. Kind of weird that it never mentioned the new article restriction before. Thanks everyone. Quadzilla99 01:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That was my oversight. But the page does exhort you to read the deletion policy before using the tag. On the deletion policy page it does indeed specify that pages older than a week can't be NRVed or ICUed. We made that policy decision almost a year ago, IIRC. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Options to add

sub=original sub=vanity --AAA! (AAAA) 08:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I still don't get why vanity is ICU-able... if it's acceptable vanity (there's none) a vanity tag won't help. If it's unacceptable vanity, qvfd it. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 05:00, 22 Jun 2007

Odd place to link

Why do sub=format, sub=notfunny and sub=random direct the writer to the Village Dump? They're not likely to find writing help there... – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 20:28 Aug 26, 2007

Nagging

I'm getting tired of {{ICU}} requiring me to use a sub= or fix= attribute. I was much happier just being able to put {{ICU}} on a page without needing a sub/fix message. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 00:16, October 7, 2007

Also, like the {{Construction}} and {{V}} tag, the timestamps should automatically come up instead of typing them--Sir Manforman 00:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Manforman, disagree with Starnestommy. The idea of {{ICU}} is to give the user a chance to fix the article before it gets mercilessly huffed, so you need a message to nudge the author in the right direction. Otherwise, they just get a 7-day countdown, and don't know why. And my complaint (in the above section) still stands unfixed. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 00:22 Oct 07, 2007

What it did before is it didn't remind you to use the fix/sub messages, but allowed you to. Also, sometimes, there's no way to tell someone how to improve it, even though it can be improved. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 00:38, October 7, 2007

Starnestommy, the simple way to get rid of that message is... to use a fix or sub message. The information given on the ICU tag on its own, while nicer to the author than the old NRV, is next to useless in helping them know what's wrong with it. The whole point is not to mark it for deletion in 7 days, it's to get the author to improve it in 7 days. The more help you give, the more useful your tagging is. And if there's no way to tell them how to improve it, tell that what's wrong with it. And if you can't think of what's wrong with it, perhaps reconsider why you are tagging the article.

Manforman, the "tagged on" date is the only bit that uses the timestamp, so removing the timestamp is possible, but when that change was discussed in forum:ICU change, people seemed to want to keep the timestamp. It would be easy to make it optional though, as I doubt anybody actually reads it ever.

Dr Skullthumper, care to suggest a replacement, or are you suggesting just removing that link? Perhaps pee review might be more suitable, but I'm not sure how likely they are to find help there either... • Spang • ☃ • talk • 00:47, 07 Oct 2007

I'm stumped for a replacement — considering Pee Review doesn't help an ICU'd article much — but I'd like it removed. I know in the past there's been quite a few "help mah artikle!" or "save mi liek funni plz" Village Dump topics, and I'm thinking the link might be partly responsible. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 00:53 Oct 07, 2007

How about this: if no sub or fix is supplied, default to using sub=original. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 01:02, October 7, 2007

Disagreeing again because I'm just that annoying because if you put in a default, people'll get into the habit of just tagging things as {{ICU}} without a reason. That two-second decision to type in one of the subs can help the article's author understand what the hell's going on. Having a default is just as bad as not having a sub at all. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 01:15 Oct 07, 2007

Not to mention, the wording and look of the original tag was the very reason it was changed from NRV to ICU. To default to that would basically be like changing it back to NRV with alternate options. And I'll take the VD links out of those templates in a bit, I have to go and eat cheese right now. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 01:23, 07 Oct 2007

A question

I saw either some IP or new user make this point a while back on someone's talk page, and it got me thinking. The {{construction}} template makes it very clear that no improvement will result in deletion, maybe ICU should make it clearer. Right now, all it says is that the page will be re-checked, perhaps it should say that "This page will be re-checked on XX:XX, DD MMMM YYYY (tagged DD MMMM YYYY), and if not improved it will face deletion." That way, there might be more incentive to finish and improve the article.

Oh, and ICU still links to the village dump, so...yeah. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 23:33, Feb 3

Do my bidding

Since this page is protected, someone else will have to {{sofixit}}. For the "format" option of this template, I think the "few red links" bullet should read "few (if any) red links". This reduces the ambiguity so people don't think their articles need "a few red links". Sure, you'd have to be pretty stupid to think that, but I know some stupid people. --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 02:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Expiration check

This template should check if 7 days or more passed since {{{1}}}, and if 7 days or more passed since {{{1}}}, it should say that this is an expired ICU and this template should be removed if this page is improved or this page should face deletion now instead of always saying it will be re-checked (some time which may have already passed) and if not improved may face deletion, for example, {{#ifexpr:({{#time:U}} - {{#time:U|{{{1}}}}}) > 604800|Expired ICU top message[[Category:Expired ICU]]|Regular ICU top message}} --IMWT27 (talk | contribs) More than 7 days ago

I have already written my own version in Template:ICU/testcase. Remember, anyone should be free to edit Template:ICU/testcase (which is recommended to use only on the sandbox for testing purposes) and the main Template:ICU is the real template. --IMWT27 (talk | contribs) More than 7 days ago

Dude. ICU works from 7 days since the article was last edited. Nothing to do with the date. I don't understand what you are trying to do with this new template, or what the point of it is. MrN  Fork you! 10:49, Apr 28

I understand what IMWT127 was saying and have changed the grammar when expired: if it used to say "This page will be re-checked on 7 October 2006, and if not improved will face deletion."; after 7 October 2006 it says "This ICU has expired. Original tagging date: 7 October 2006."

I temporarily added cartoon icons until I noticed User talk:Black flamingo11#Per another admin's request and decided the icons placed undue emphasis on "time's up". A grammar fix is fine, but a tone of "it's too late" would only be discouraging.

Separately, per Wikipedia's wikipedia:WP:TESTCASES: /sandbox is for experimental code and /testcases (plural) for invocations to check. I've moved the page to Template:ICU/sandbox. A nice thing about naming it this way is that {{documentation}} checks for a /sandbox and links to it. Dark Web, White Hat (talk) 08:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Further note: Every template using {{documentation}} now has links to edit or create /sandbox and /testcases. I've imitated enough of Wikipedia's infrastructure that the WP:TESTCASES system should be easier to follow in general on this wiki. Dark Web, White Hat (talk) 09:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)