Forum:FFW 2013

Forums: Index > Village Dump > FFW 2013

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4334 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

Since lots of people are calling for a Forest Fire Week over in this other forum, I thought it prudent to start an official vote on whether or not we will be holding one. I would like to return to the "classic" FFW format, so let me explain what exactly I am proposing (also because some of you may not know what a FFW is):

1. Forest Fire Week will last one week. (I'm thinking 3rd week of January)
   
2. A Forest Fire Week page will be set up. Everyone will be encouraged to list pages that they think deserve deletion on the Forest Fire Week page.
3. All week long admins will patrol the Forest Fire Week page deleting pages.
4. Users are encouraged to try to save pages from the list. To save a page they will add {{WIP}} to the page, and then work on fixing it up. After that normal {{WIP}} protocol will apply.
5. ???
6. Profit.

I could go into a long explanation about all of the wonderful benefits of the Forest Fire Week process, but that would be hella boring so let's just vote! -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 08:21, December 28, 2012 (UTC)

Pardon the newbosity, but I can't figure out how to vote. Do I have to write 'boner' and sign it? Do I tap on the monitor, once for yes, twice for no? --Bill Melater (talk) 14:13, December 28, 2012 (UTC)

Write Yes and your vote will be valid. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 14:18, December 28, 2012 (UTC)

To vote boner and sign it add #{{boner}} ~~~~ below the other votes. Then increase the score in the {{s|##}}. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 16:50, December 28, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I'm going with the boner--Bill Melater (talk) 18:25, December 28, 2012 (UTC)

Is there a mechanism like last time where a page can be saved without needing to WIP it? --mAttlobster. (hello) 07:10, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

This is a different system from last time. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 07:26, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

If someone lists a perfectly good article, how do you save it?--mAttlobster. (hello) 07:39, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

If somebody lists an article and you do not understand why they have listed it, ask them on their talkpage. If somebody is listing perfectly good articles for no reason they will be banned. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 07:57, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

What if somebody lists a perfectly evil article because it's offensive? >:) -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 00:08, December 31, 2012 (UTC)

Offensive to who? Censorship reigns. Zombiebaron, I hope you and the other admins uphold the banning of anyone who lists good pages, and those who don't check the history of an article. The "rules" state that the user should check the history page for vandalism before listing a page, and hopefully the person will read the page. Last time some users were listing six to ten pages a minute and not getting banned. They were listing pages and categories that they had tried to VFD and failed without getting banned. This is a serious concern, as after the last ffweeks the red links here were, and are, still epidemic in features let alone all the pages. Use the ban stick quickly, please. Aleister 12:15 31december'12

Unlike two years ago when we did the last one (when a system of templates was used) the proposed system requires users to edit a page which will create much more oversight. We will be able to definitively point to a list of page and say "This is what we deleted" and the history of the page will plainly show who added those pages. I would like to once again remind you Aleister that the speed at which people make edits does not determine how much time and effort they put in, and just because you see somebody "lists six to ten pages [in] a minute" doesn't mean that they didn't spend an hour deciding to list them. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 02:18, January 2, 2013 (UTC)

Given recent events, I would suggest this is put on hold until things settle. -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 20:59, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

I agree. There is a shift in the community makeup since the recent exodus. --Mn-z 21:45, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

Make it stop. I fear FFW's create so many red links that disaster is the name of the game. There are many pages which should go, though, and maybe we can check out the list that the other site provides during FFW. Aleister 21:59 9-1-'13

THE VOTE

Score: +11

1. Obviously. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 08:21, December 28, 2012 (UTC)
2. Extreme boner -RAHB 08:22, December 28, 2012 (UTC)
3. Fountain of cum ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 08:24, December 28, 2012 (UTC)
4. It's a penis - Although I'm still holding out for the return of Vigilance Week. -- Kip > Talk • Works • • 08:28, Dec. 28, 2012
5. Hopefuly we can have a more concise wiki with a far higher level of quality before the potential move. --ShabiDOO 08:30, December 28, 2012 (UTC)
6. ✓ Recommend
   Bizzeebeever and 5 others like this. 08:36, December 28, 2012 (UTC)
7. Against. Crap is what makes Uncyclopedia what it is. There. I said it. I'm not apologizing. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 09:08, December 28, 2012 (UTC)
8. Pounding one out. Bill Melater (talk) 18:23, December 28, 2012 (UTC)
9. One last erection-inducing event before we ditch Wankia forever! Sir Georgie • Harangue • Mediocracy 18:44, December 28, 2012 (UTC)
10. Whatever happened to Cajek? Madclaw @ ^talk 02:44, December 29, 2012 (UTC)
11. Extreme Against. Not that it'll matter though. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 04:02, 29 December 2012
12. Cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt crap crap shit -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 07:27, December 29, 2012 (UTC)
13. Against.--Sycamore (Talk) 10:47, December 29, 2012 (UTC)
14. Burninate, as the last time we had it, half of our actually good articles at Uncyclopedia are removed. It took me months for me to re-edit and revive Malaysia. That article was infamous in a Malay newspaper. |Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Pinoy CUN|IC Kill | 12:00, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

    So you're saying FFW got you to restore and improve a heavy-traffic piece. Sounds like it's doing its job. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 17:24, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

    Au contraire. According to wikipedia:Uncyclopedia#Criticism and controversy "In January 2008, the Malaysian Internal Security Ministry issued a directive alerting newspaper editors not to trust Uncyclopedia. It said the article concerning Malaysia contained "untruths, insults and ridicule" and was demeaning to the country. Uncyclopedia's users found this statement more humorous than serious, and subsequently parodied the directive in an UnNews article." The article was indeed notable and deleting it out-of-process in this manner just plain stupid. Beware the trap of heart! Carlb (talk) 01:29, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

15. For. →A (Fallen Reich)_{15:58 29 December 2012}
16. 4 – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 09:41 Dec 30, 2012
17. for (.)Y(.) --1234JKL (talk) 18:33, December 30, 2012 (UTC)
18. I join Socky's Extreme Against So many good articles get killed with almost nobody checking them. Last time people would toss a template on 10 articles a minute, this is a horrible4 decision. This is a bad thing. Aleister 00:16 New Years Eve ;12
19. Against. Too many deletions of articles that would otherwise be considered sufficient quality.                                • Puppy's talk page • 12:06 31 Dec
20. Against. There is already enough articles that aren't even made when trying to link something that should be written. Like car. Seriously. I had to write car. After maybe 6 years is it? And I stumble upon it not being written? We don't need anymore pages deleted. Or mass deletion.--Sir Peasewhizz de New York (Chat) (Stalk?) 02:03, January 2, 2013 (UTC)
21. For. Easy topics are what attract people to contribute. Study and study again have shown this, and the lack of remaining topics is indeed oft attributed as a reason for Wikipedia's decline in editor attraction and retention and stuff. We don't need more problems, let alone to adopt theirs as our own. -— Lyrithya ༆ 03:45, January 2, 2013 (UTC)

    This is actually the most salient pro-deletionist point I maybe ever heard. Just sayin'. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 06:10, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

    It is. A VFD "Keep" vote citing, "Notable", is without doubt the worst reason ever. If an article is notable and crap, it should be deleted so that this notable subject can have a decent article written for it. mAttlobster. (hello) 11:11, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

    ^^ Boom ^^. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Thu, Jan 10 '13 11:15 (UTC)

22. For. Zombiebaron told me to. --Skizzerz 03:58, January 2, 2013 (UTC)
23. For. But I'm going to keep a much closer eye on the process. --Lord Scofield Stark 15:50, January 2, 2013 (UTC)
24. For. --User:Jack Phoenix/sig 16:11, January 2, 2013 (UTC)