Forum:2007 Spring Cleaning

Forums: Index > Village Dump > 2007 Spring Cleaning (talk)

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6398 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

Remember: Only YOU can prevent shitty articles.

It's spring (in the Northern Hemisphere, anyway), so I think we should do some spring cleaning. A Forest Fire Week should help along with closer QVFD monitoring. --Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • FFS • WP) 02:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Vote: Should we have a spring Forest Fire Week?

Score: -3 user votes / -5 admin votes

• Nom and For -- Too much crap is being created; much of it survives over two weeks. Two weeks is too long of a life for vanityshite, micro-stubs, and attack pages. --Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • FFS • WP) 02:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• FUCK YEAH!!! --» >UF|TLK|▋» 02:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• F☭R, I'd better get that Vote or else template for this. 02:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• For. Nah, not that I care so much. -- herr doktor needsAbrain  [scream!] 02:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• No. Just do what you'd do if there was a FFW, except use QVFD and VFD instead. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 03:06, 14 Mar 2007
  • Comment Uh huh, and does FFW have a 15-vote limit on old crappy pages? --» >UF|TLK|▋» 03:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Against - I think our efficiency of QVFDing and huffing has been pretty good recently. I don't see any need for an FFW. Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 03:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• I have always HATE HATE HATed forest fire week, and I suspect I always will. Be diligent every day, and there is no need for an orgy of destruction.--<<>> 03:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• EXTREME FOR I wish every week were forest fire week. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 03:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Lethargic Against. Once a year is enough, I hope.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 07:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Against: Think we are keeping on top of things at the moment, plus our last one is still within living memory. A Forest Fire Day every so often wouldn't be so bad though..... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)
• Yar. I was originally going to say against, but having just reverted and reported 8 blankings, many of which have been blanked for 6-12 hours, it's a definite yes from me. Besides, "spawn camping" on Special:Newpages is fun. --officer designate Lugiatm MUN NS CM ZM WH 08:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Against, didn't we just have one recently? --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 08:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • When was that? November? --» >UF|TLK|▋» 22:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Against per Mhaille, and the fact that (no offense, but) nominator wasn't even around for the last one. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 09:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Against The usual motives Mr. Briggs Inc. 11:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Eh?
• Springtime for Hitler and Germany Deutschland is happy and gay! I mean, no FFW. Overrated. Really. --KATIE!! 11:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Against as per all the other who said per someone. Or something. ~ 11:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• For. I'm usually against, but the amount of crap acumulated this last two months is unprecedented.---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 12:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• For!!!! So long as my new article which isn't vanityshite, an attack page, or a stub of ANY kind becomes a victim. --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 13:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Against. We're okay as is. -- Contestant CUN -- VFH NotM Buzz Ctrbs 20:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• For: Give it to me baby. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 20:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Against. It hasn't even been a year since the last one. Wait until November. -- Mitch 00:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Against —Braydie 00:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• You say Fuck, I say... NO! -Han Solo (High Gen. Grue) Comlink Grueslayer
• 9. November wasn't too long ago.--Witt, of UNion Entertain me* 04:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Nyet. —Major Sir Hinoa prepare for trouble • make it double? 17:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Yesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyes --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 21:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• No We don't need it... trust me, I delete so much shit on a daily basis I think I'll cry if you try and convince me I'm missing some -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 10:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• For /me wants to see Olipro cry. -- §. | WotM | PLS | T | C | A 23:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

to those of you who are against the idea

Explain to me why this crap has survived since 2005. --» >UF|TLK|▋» 22:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Because it has no categories and is thus available only through random page. If it were put up for VFD it would not survive. If we had another Forest Fire Week, good stuff might not survive. Mr. Briggs Inc. 22:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Eh?

I just added it to VFD, you could've done that unknownfile - jack mort | cunt | talk - 22:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Patience. There is no reason why you should not be able to wait for a spot to open up on VFD. Also, if you think FFW is so great, then why did that article survive last year's FFW? Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 02:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A way to make regular VFD swifter

I don't want to start another flamewar thread, so I will post this here. What about a new rule on VFD stating that when someone votes for "keep and rewrite" that user should rewrite the article himself? We could avoid lots of crap being preserved this way. -- herr doktor needsAbrain  [scream!] 04:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the way VFD currently works. It's just that most people don't realize it. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 03/16 21:49

What happens when two or more people vote keep and rewrite? (Which is what'll need to happen for the article not to get huffed anyway.) Not to mention the times when some vote "Keep and don't rewrite". If I say "Keep and tweak" to an article, is that enough to give me responsibility? Aaargh! -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 07:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah -- personally, if I vote "keep and rewrite" I try to start the rewrite process personally. If I don't see myself able to help rewrite I try to put the "rewrite" sugestion in the comments and abstain from actually voting. If two people vote that way, both should do some work on the article. This is of course unenforceable: you can't force someone to be creative and do creative work. But I would very much encourage people to use "keep and rewrite" as a personal commitment to do some of the rewriting. Well, anyway. Life goes on, long after the thrill of rewriting is gone. ----OEJ 16:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we could implement a Wikipedia-esque way of putting things up for deletion so we can nominate articles under subpages and reduce clutter. --» >UF|TLK|▋» 04:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should try to keep things like this as centralized as possible. Once we're using subpages for deletions things will become a lot harder to keep track of. —rc (t) 05:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

We can easyly centralice any amount of subpages using the <forum> feature, which WP doesn't have.---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 05:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

We already have subpages for images and templates linked on the VFD page. These never get used at the moment. And by the way, I tried to work out how to tell Wikipedia a page was worthless the other day and just gave up through sheer beaureacracy-related confusion. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 07:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What I meant is to make a one page for each nomination and centralice them with the forum feature. Maybe we are not there yet. Or may be we are, this new "only 15 open nominations rule" isn't good.---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 11:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The 15-rule isn't that new (depending on what you mean by new!) - it's just that we've been making it steadily more visible at the top of the page for the last few weeks so people might actually stick to it! I think it's a good thing so as to get enough votes to delete stuff quickly, but it does need admins to check and clean it often, which causes bottlenecks occasionally. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 13:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

For history buffs, the rule was added in December after scenes such as this. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 13:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Did we decide on a bump punishment?

Because bumping something a month old just to change "crappy" to "shitty" is about as pointless as it gets. Sorry QZ99. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 20:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dunno, but I've disabled the edit tabs on old topics now. That should finally be enough to stop the bumping. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 03:30, 16 May 2007

Put them in the comfy chair! :) After all, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I was just WAITING for someone to make that joke...--<<>> 19:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well done Spang! Now, how do I disable it in javascript? :-) -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 19:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Arrr. Forgot about that. You can still access it normally from the edit tab on the history page etc, or by typing the address manually, or by adding the line var enableOldForumEdit = true to the top of your user javascript. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 11:17, 16 May 2007

Can still be worked around by clicking edit in the history page, but not like it matters --» >UF|TLK|▋» 23:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Spang. I might leave it for now though - it'll remind me to think before I bump! -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 23:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)