Forum:Banning creation of new articles

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Banning creation of new articles

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6214 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

WARNING! This page contains profuse whining. Proceed with caution.

I'm proposing that we ban creation of new articles for a while. This is because we're spreading ourselves too thin.

The constant stream of new articles is an unstoppable flux of crap that will eventually be deleted or left for people such as me to fix.

Category:Rewrite is filled with crap, and there are thousands of articles that aren't in that category that still suck donkey ass. If we keep creating new crappy articles and ignore the ever-increasing pile of shit that is our wiki, we will fail miserably.

If you think about the fact that 90% of the articles in Special:Newpages are shit and will be huffed or drastically rewritten, and 60% of the articles that exist need to be huffed or rewritten, and the new pages continually add to the cruft, it makes sense.

Thoughts?

~ Unflameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 00:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Vote

Score: -10 censors

• AGAINST, I've been here since September 2005, and its always been like this. Hopefully with new admins around we are doing a topnotch job of filtering. While this does mean plenty of ICU's and Huffs, that's the ways its been forever. All you can do is help. Stopping new articles would make us the subject of the loss of the talents of plenty of good writers. So yah, no. --The Zombiebaron 01:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Right in the middle of an article writing contest? Wow. --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 01:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Against. Same as Zb, except October where September is. Oh, and I'm not Zb, I'm --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 01:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• AGAINST I agree with what Zombiebaron said. Sure, the newpages are cluttered with crap, but that's the way it has always been. All we can do is report crap articles, one-liners, and vanity to QVFD. Luckily, with the new admins filtering out a vast majority of the crap, so our condition is likely to change for the better. Besides, if we banned the creation of new articles, we would never have Fisher Price. --General Insineratehymn 01:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Against. ^What he said^ --Coleridge49 01:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Against. New articles are good for us.--Witt, of UNion Entertain me* 05:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• FUCK NO. —Hinoa talk.kun 01:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

VERY LARGE





TEXT. Also, Against. -- §. | WotM | PLS | T | C | A 05:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• AGAINST This must be a joke. Uncyclopedia can never stop growing! Besides, if we ban articles, that means no more people can join Uncyclopedia, since everyone's userpage is an article... Cheddar Cheesia 01:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

A REALLY BIG HEADER

And another reminder that I'm voting against. --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 06:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Utterly against. Possibly the most fucking stupid idea I've ever heard on this wiki. And that's saying something. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 10:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Against. One person's crap is another person's amusement. Half the British comedy legacy is built on this dogma. -- Dutchy 12:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Against - Pointless vote, but who cares. Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 13:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Consider the crap that I'm forced to wade through in order just to rewrite an article. On a good day, I can rewrite 3 articles in 8 hours. Tons more are created, and perhaps 100 survive without being huffed. Let's say 80 of those 100 are utter crap. So each day, there are 77 more crap articles being added to the ever-growing stack of crap. – Preceding unsigned comment added by Flameviper (talk • contribs)

Umm, would banning the creation of all new pages be something of a baby-out-with-bathwater situation though? I mean, condemning all new articles on the basis that, as you put it, 80 out of 100 of them are crap is rather like just shutting down uncyclopedia because 80 out of every 100 articles on it are crap. Besides, if your intention is to rewrite all the articles we have then what's to stop all the crap contributors from simply doing that as well? 10 out of 10 fo initiative, but minus several million for good thinking. --Sir Jam 13:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wah — H. Peebles - D - HS 01:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Never Going To Happen We have discussed this a million times. We aren't banning article creation. We aren't blocking anon ips. Nothing like it will ever be implimented on this site without a sea-change of opinion caused by some massive change in circumstances. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.... I guess the anom IPs issue is still debatable. I insist, just no new articles from IPs. They could still edit already existing stuff. -- herr doktor needsAraygun  [scream!] 05:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Against. 1) That's what ED does. 2) That would go against the "anyone can edit" thing. --» >UF|TLK|▋» 20:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Even though this seems to be a stupid idea we should consider implementing this say during another forest fire week, stop articles being made so admins will be able to deal with the crap that is already there. --KWild 07:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see the humongous text above. I'm not repeating myself. —Hinoa talk.kun 10:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean the one that says "A really big header"? --KWild 13:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a possibility to avoid IP edits or at least IPs creating new articles? Identifying all the editors would already be a great progress I guess. -- herr doktor needsAraygun  [scream!] 13:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

A wiki means anyone can edit. If you get rid of IP edits, it's not really a wiki any more, and besides, a lot of great contributors started out as IPs. Also, what's the difference between an IP and a registered user? There's still no way of identifying them - it's just using a word instead of an IP address. Besides, it makes it easier to use recent changes - the majority of IP edits are vandalism. If we stopped the IPs, we'd still get the vandalism, but it would be less easy to spot. -- 13:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought about this ethical question. But, as registering is free and quick, I don't think forcing users to identify themselves - with annonymous nicknames - is against the wiki basic concept. By the way, if we just refrained IPs from creating new articles, still permitting edits on already created stuff, it's just removing another privilege. IPs already can't move articles or upload images. -- herr doktor needsAraygun  [scream!] 13:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well Wikipedia has Articles for Creation, which seems to be like Pee Review except for IP's new articles. --KWild 13:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Mandatory minimum content for new articles

Probably unrealistic...merely another pie-in-the-eye kind of wistful thinking, probably. But. What if a new article had to, at minimum, be 200 words long, have at least two sections, contain one image, contain links to other articles, and be placed in at least one category?

And if the L33T HAXORbot of Wiki Goodness does not detect these minimum requirements the article can only be saved to Construction:namespace. And articles in the Construction namespace resideth not in the privileged realm accessible by Random page, categories, and links from other articles. They are, as it were, confined to purdah until they grow up.

No, it probably wouldn't work. ----OEJ 00:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that an image should be necessary. --KWild 04:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

But what about disambiguation pages then? What about Snowman!? What about the children? • Spang • ☃ • talk • 13:01, 25 Jan 2007

OMG! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!! -- sannse (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Snowman! —Braydie at 20:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

And brevity. S

Yeah, well, things like Nihilism are good ideas and there should be a way to get similarly clever articles out of Construction and into the main namespace when they are proposed. But the dumb ones would have to stay in Construction forever. FOREVER! Buwahhahaha, my pretties, you are never...getting...out...ALIVE!----OEJ 02:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about everything else you're saying, but a construction namespace sounds kind of nice...   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 00:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's called User:Username/Article. -- §. | WotM | PLS | T | C | A 03:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Check out Absolute Power. There shouldn't be a length requirement. Funny is Funny. --PantsMacKenzie 14:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Or better yet, check out Fisher Price. --General Insineratehymn 21:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This one too. -- 22:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Consider this: We all know there are some funny short articles. We can recognize funny when we see it. However, there are a large number of really stupid one- or two-line "articles" posted each day. This proposal does not ban short articles, and it does not place a minimum length on new articles, it just proposes that sub-minimum new articles are not automatically included in the main namespace. They can be added to the main namespace if they're found worthy -- maybe by a nomination process, or maybe just by an admin moving them. But the crap ones that don't meet minimum requirements just stay in the Construction namespace until they're purged.

The point, if there is a point, is to encourage newbies to post articles that have some substance to them. They could no longer post "Teh Ghey is a ROFL for Geoge Bushs pekker" and have it appear immediately in the main namespace. Anyone wanting a new article to actually be added to Uncyc's main data table would have to put some work into it right off.

Now, the fact is I don't have much faith in this proposal. It strikes me as clunky, unfriendly, and at best a partial fix for the problem. But please don't misunderstand: it does not ban short articles and it does not ban short new articles. It sorts them into a separate bin for further consideration, that's all. ----OEJ 00:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Spanking anyone?

Score: +4 death treats

• N+F ~ 21:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• For, but if anyone needs a spanking, it should be Flameviper, for brining up the idea of banning the creation of articles. --General Insineratehymn 21:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• For. --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 20:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• For. I grab his shoulders. -- herr doktor needsAraygun  [scream!] 20:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)