Forum:Proposal: Lock all featured articles forever (mwahahah! (disregard that))

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Ministry of Love > Proposal: Lock all featured articles forever (mwahahah! (disregard that))
Note: This topic has been unedited for 3267 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Ok, can anyone explain why we leave our glorious features open for every dumbass IP to come ruin? If an article has reached the lofty heights of featuredom, chances are further changes will only ruin it (particularly the kind that we normally seem to get from arrogant noobs who think they are better than me). It's a bit irriatating to have to constantly revert these cahges, but what about the features whose authors aren't around anymore? Pontentially, they could amass an infinitie amount of cruft, with no one to scrub them with one of those tiny brushes. You know, the small ones? -- boorish Ape (legislate) (Riot Porn) 19:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nah. Iz wiki. Let it stay that way.  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  SU&W) 19:59 Sep 06, 2008
What if we didn't? -- boorish Ape (legislate) (Riot Porn) 20:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually I think thats an idea - a lot of other wikis will lock out featured content? — Sir Sycamore (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
So when I waz younger, me and my chums used to go fishing down in the estuary. Mostly we never caught anything, sometimes just huge lumps of seaweed, sanitary towels, condoms, crabs (not like you are thinking), and hardly ever anything worth keeping. We had to throw it all back, it was a pain in the ass. Then one day... I swear, we caught this 2 foot long black ribbed nobbler. The moral of the story? We can always compare a current version to an old version, check if anything good has been added, and revert as required. What? That story had nothing to do with this? Well... Go Fish! MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 20:13, Sep 6
Your stories suck. -- boorish Ape (legislate) (Riot Porn) 20:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
That’s a very convincing point - but there's a pretty big group of IPs and general wankers (we all know them) who add "quotes" "joke categories" etc - or vandalize more as they cannot be bothered to write their own article - I think there’s little evolution here (admittedly some articles will break the rules) some articles are unlikely to be improved upon - I think it's an idea unless there’s a debate on the discussion page otherwise, to protect some of our best stuff? — Sir Sycamore (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
MrN makes a good point. However, the probability of an edit improving an article is inversely proportional to the quality of the article. So it is very unlikely (based on my theorem) that there will ever be an edit that improves a featured article. Plus, authors have their own style, which makes it unlikely for a new edit to fit, IMO. Also, fish-kettle. -- boorish Ape (legislate) (Riot Porn) 20:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
So what if the original authors want to edit it?  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  SU&W) 20:27 Sep 06, 2008
I'm 21 in six (or so) weeks, all my braincells have died off, I would not trust me with my original works... — Sir Sycamore (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
They could request to have it unlocked. -- boorish Ape (legislate) (Riot Porn) 20:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
That is such a stupid idea, I feel dumber just hearing it.  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  SU&W) 20:36 Sep 06, 2008
Meh. -- boorish Ape (legislate) (Riot Porn) 20:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeahno. Pretty much goes against the whole 'wiki' thing. Besides, even though most edits to my features have been shit, a few of them have been really beneficial to the article. Spelling fixes, mostly, but every once in a while a new joke that works with the page well and adds a dose of humor. Most of the spellfixes, by the way, were from IPs, so I wouldn't even want to permanently semi-protect the articles. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 21:09, Sep 6
What I meant:
There were clearly some edits to all of these articles that sucked mightily, and required revertage. There were also a bunch of edits that didn't. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 21:29, Sep 6
One IP made a page of mine better. That's enough for me to vote Nay on Proposition 9 (from Outer Space). Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 21:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm telling ya. It was 2 foot long! With nobbles down the side also. MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 21:16, Sep 6

Why do we never try out my crazy schemes? -- boorish Ape (legislate) (Riot Porn) 21:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Join the club, we have T-shirts.  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  SU&W) 21:58 Sep 06, 2008
We never try out anyone's crazy schemes. We fear change. I'm getting scared just typing it out. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 22:43, Sep 6
I remember the last time we changed something. Things were different afterwards... MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 22:53, Sep 6
Lies! Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 22:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
It'll be different this time. This time it'll be... more the same... -- boorish Ape (legislate) (Riot Porn) 22:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I am divided on this issue. Though you're absolutely right in saying that the majority of IPs make stupid or destructive changes to good articles, if you protect featured articles all those crappy IPs will start registering to edit them anyway, resulting in the culmination of sockpuppets of unregistered users, and thus complete chaos. Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 13:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

In addition, entirely locking featured articles from all users, except for admins, might be unfair to non-sysop users, but it might just be the best thing to do in this imperfect reality. Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 13:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
for the infinibanning of all sockpuppets of unregistered users. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 13:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I never proposed anything like that! Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 18:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Personal tools