Forum:A potential modification to ICU

Forums: Index > Village Dump > A potential modification to ICU

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6201 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

I just had an idea for ICU. Because the current ICU checks the article 7 days since the last edit, some IPs and n00bs keep editing the page without actually changing anything to bypass ICU. However, most other templates, like Template:Construction, call for the article to be checked 7 days since the template was added. I was thinking of a compromise between the current ICU and WIP. First, 7 days since the tag was added, we compare the current revision and the revision where the tag was added. If it's improved some, we'll keep it. Otherwise, delete it. Note that this check is to see if the author has tried to make it better, not if it's actually good. Second, 7 days after it was last edited, it'll be checked for overall quality. If it's not very good, huff it. In the likely scenario that the tagged revision is the same as the current, just delete it immediately. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 20:02, September 28, 2007

Ah yes. Who wants to design the cover of the "ICU/WIP Instructional Handbook"? --EMC ^[TALK] 20:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ooh - I volunteer to do the binding! I assume we'll want hardback, what with all those many many pages inside. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 22:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Dibs on being mentioned in the dedications and acknowledgments, since I sorta spurred this whole thing. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 00:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'm the one that was thinking all day about how to phrase my proposed policy. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 00:14, September 29, 2007

Of course, that's why you're writing the book, silly! -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 00:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, template abuse that I've heard about but never seen. Can I have examples? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 00:23 Sep 29, 2007

I've never seen it. I'm unconvinced anyone actually does it beyond actually trying to improve their article, which is exactly what we want them to do.

Construction templates etc. are actually also checked 7 days from the last edit, they just don't say that.

Whenever I did ICUs, I'd always delete it if it was bad, and if it looked slightly redeemable, check if it had been improved to that state or tagged in that state and make a decision from that. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 01:10, 29 Sep 2007