Forum:Proposal to permanently abolish ICU

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Proposal to permanently abolish ICU
Note: This topic has been unedited for 2455 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

I would like to propose that we permanently abolish the ICU template and simply tag new articles that need more work with either {{WIP}} or {{Fix}}. Why? The ICU template serves exactly the same function as the {{WIP}} template. One week after the final edit the article is rechecked and either deleted or the template removed because the article is sufficiently good enough.

Then what is the difference? We know what ICU means, thats the article has potential but isn't quite their yet but what do the new users think? They think we want to delete their article because it sucks and this is often responded with very bad things such as blanking their Work in Progress, asking for it to be deleted, simply not knowing what to do or leaving. This is bad because we want them to stay and we have good intentions that they do not see. The solution as I stated before is it simply tag it with {{WIP}}. Now what they see is us encouraging them to finish what they started and then they might stay and become part of Uncyclopedia. So lets do it! User:Frosty/sig3 00:31, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

Vote - Should we abolish ICU and instead just tag it with WIP?

Score: 6
  • PurpleDickVote.png Strong For As I stated above it will encourage newbies to stay and IPs to join. User:Frosty/sig3 00:31, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
  • PurpleDickVote.png Strong For What a wonderful way to kick off New User Month. -- Major Sir Zombiebaron GUNWotMUotMPotMAotMEGAEDMUPotMMAFEZotMIotMVotMUGotM (shout) 00:33, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
  • PurpleDickVote.png Strong For Less confusion. User:Tasmania/SIG 00:37, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol for vote.svg Yes yes yes. Because the {{WIP}} and {{Fix}} templates accomplish the same thing.--User:Snippy/sig 00:49, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
  • PurpleDickVote.png Yeah okay. But I'm going to start deleting the ones that look like binary vomit from now on. -RAHB 01:49, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
  • Kinda for. I like the idea of abolishing the current ICU. I think ICU should still exist, but without the '7 day warning' BS. It just needs to be fixed. And I do agree with RAHB; certain articles just need to get trashed right away. User:WeinribŽivojinović/sig/alterego 14:36, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
  • Against. The problem is not the ICU tag nor has it ever been. We simply should not have the arbitrary Fix/30 day tag as it stands. Admins should delete the crap after seven days and whatever is left should be (or has formally been) a 'Rewrite' (for users or something like IC) - if there's a problem that was what the Poopsmiths Lounge and VFD was for. The reason we have less users is not the ICU or the NRV tag that preceded it.--Sycamore (Talk) 07:17, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol against vote.svg Against. If we were going to do this then all fix tags should be looked at. I have changed some ICUs to a 30 day fix. Perhaps the ICU template is a bit too blunt and can upset/deter new contributors but my concern is we will start to collect a lot junk articles occupying spaces where other writers may be stopped from changing or editing. --RomArtus Imperator(talk) 09:39, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol against vote.svg Against. Instead of permanently abolishing the ICU, it would be better to edit it so that it sounds less blunt (as per Romartus' suggestion). This way, there will be an effective mechanism to identify and eventually filter out junk articles, but it will not act as a deterring force for new users. User:Zheliel/sisg 14:50 October 1
  • Symbol for vote.svg For. WIP serves the same purpose as ICU but in a way that puts less scrutiny on both the user and the article. That way, they're still told that their article needs some work but not in a way to say "it's shit" and will likely keep users around. Every little helps. User:GEORGIEGIBBONS/sig 18:39, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
  • Silent For. — clicky! 19:26, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral. The good thing about the ICU tag as it stands now, is that it gives the writer a clue about what needs fixing about a new article. The WIP tag just states that the article is under construction, and has a 7 day reprieve and nothing more. The ICU tag probably should be reworded to be friendlier to new users, or else replaced with something mentioning that the article is under construction and still needs X. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 21:24, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
  • against--fcukmanLOOS3R! Desu desu.png 04:21, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
  • For. If the article lacks something, someone can tell the user what it lacks. ICU seems just unnecessary. Cat the Colourful (Feed me!) Zzz Zzz...morning? 04:49, 2 October, 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol against vote.svg Against. Simply reworking the ICU to be less harsh (like we edited the preceding NRV to be less harsh) should be enough. LikeSimsilkesims said, it has the important feature of giving suggestions to improve the piece, in case users are too lazy to spell it out themselves. Also important is reworking the page about the ICU tag, because a lot of n00bs will go there once they see their stuff tagged. And besides, I find it hard to believe that even the current ICU could be such a deterrent to new users to begin with. --Lord Scofield Stark 11:54, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
  • FOR There must be better ways of doing this. Let's sponge this cat out of its basket. mAttlobster. (hello) 13:31, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait I changed my mind, 100% For because if you've got a suggestion for an article just tell the fucking author yourself. --Littleboyonly.jpg TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly.jpg 19:47, October 3, 2012 (UTC)