Template talk:WiP

Thanks for the seplling corettion. I'm not a very good speller. --Signed by Elassint the Great ^Hi! 19:44, 28 November 2007 (EST)

dubious template

Although this template is very pretty, I also think it is useless and redundant. As opposed to, say, a note from an editor saying they are gonna work on an article a lot in the next few hours, so hang on before jumping in. I mean, "This article is a work in progress; feel free to either add to the article or offer input on the talk page." is a simple definition of what any article on a wiki is. Right?

I therefore propose that it be deleted. human 18:15, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Or completely rewritten... human 18:22, 30 January 2008 (EST)

And renamed, without that capital "P", which makes no sense. human 18:24, 30 January 2008 (EST)

For that matter, is an article on a wiki ever final? Aren't they always a work in progress? Pinto's5150 ^Talk 18:28, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Well, that's the point I'm making. One could certainly have a wiki where articles do get "finalized", but this isn't one of them. human 18:51, 30 January 2008 (EST)

I can't tell if I find that really encouraging or really depressing. Possibly both. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 19:09, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Hehe. Well, articles can certainly become relatively "stable", if they are so good and complete noone can improve them further. But there's always new information, new links to add, etc. I suppose the emotional response depends on what you expect from something to an extent. I have songs or poems that I consider completely "finished", because they are, on their own terms, "just right". I have others that will never be finished. I let my pleasure in the former buttress my sadness in the latter. And drink heavily. human 19:23, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Coming from WoWWiki, you'd be amazed at how articles are never finished. There's always some little way to improve it. Kirkburn 19:25, 30 January 2008 (EST)

proposed rewording

"An editor/user:so and so (done with a paramter) is currently undergoing major rewriting or improvements to this article, so please ignore anything that seems terrible wrong until this template is removed. Also, attempting to edit during this period may result in incessant edit conflicts. Feel free to make awesome suggestions on the talk page (linked) though!"

Thoughts? Suggestions? Pitchforks and torches? human 18:28, 30 January 2008 (EST)

What we really need is an "I know this article is incoherent crap at the moment, but it'll get better once I overcome my terminal lazyness"-template. Cf. Søren Kierkegaard. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 18:33, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Sure, that would be good, too. Although I do love the bizarre circularity of the structure at Soren K. How about a "lack of progress" template? Or "I started and forgot to finish" template? Actually, "stub" works well. human 18:36, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Yes, I suspect mr. K. himself would like it as well. But 'stub' it is, then. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 19:10, 30 January 2008 (EST)

I just added a template to the template in order to facilitate the above discussion. Kirkburn 19:14, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Sweet. human 19:21, 30 January 2008 (EST)

How...meta.--PalMD^{-Did that sound a little harsh?} 19:26, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Oh, and clarified it. Kirkburn 19:27, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Now that it's our coolest template page, I can't bring myself to delete it! human 23:23, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Going bye bye...

8...4...2..1...0 ħuman 03:26, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

It's not redundant on a wiki, Wikipedia uses them for two things:

1. To prevent editconflicts
2. To excuse a page from looking disheveled

--Ipatrol 19:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

So? We're not WP, we like looking disheveled. Also, usually when someone is "building something" they just put a note on the top 'til they're done. No one uses this that way, it usually just gets left on top of articles that need a few headers deleted. ħuman 20:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)