Forum:First Conservation Week 2008
Although I had come a bit late to starting it this time, Conservation Week is now open. Maybe the template we put on there last time should be placed on the front page?
Due to me being late in this matter, it will be extended for an additional three days from the standard 1st to 15th run. I apologise, but other matters always seem to get in the way now...
Enjoy! ~ 
Jacques Pirat, Esq. Converse : Benefactions : U.w.p.
4/03/2008 @ 02:29
- Its CW already. Yay that means V week is near! Anyhow, shouldn't templates and things be up on the main page, and a page doccumenting all the rewrites be made?Lieutenant THEDUDEMAN Dude ... Totally UOTM KUN GotA F@H 03:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah. Somebody should probably do that. Oh, wait. I just did, and the "page" you speak of is UN:CW. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 03:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
So, does this mean we're having a V week after the C week? (Vote, I guess)
- For. Its tradition. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 03:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- No. C-Week is alright, but I really see no need for V-Week. Just because it's "tradition" (read: we only did it once) doesn't mean when we should do it when it is absolutely not necessary. --
TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 
03:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC) - Super Deletionist For Time and time again. Lieutenant THEDUDEMAN Dude ... Totally UOTM KUN GotA F@H 03:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hell no. Didn't we just like, just vote against this? FFW, not CW, that is. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 03:47, 04 Mar 2008
- Actualy, if i remember correctly, we voted to postpone it until after CW. I might be wrong, but I' 90% sure I'm right.Lieutenant THEDUDEMAN Dude ... Totally UOTM KUN GotA F@H 03:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- No V-Week, please. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon
(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:52, Mar 4 - No V, no week and most certainly no Borscht. ~
06:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC) 
predictable vote--<<
>> 13:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)- Abstain I don't think the current formula of V week is correct, but for me, VFD can't do what (in my opinion) needs to be done. We have many articles which might fail QVFD if created now, and I just don't think that's right. MrN
Fork you! 21:43, Mar 4 - Nuh-uh. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 02:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I say, instead of a V week after a C week, let's have a VC week, where we dress up as Ho Chi Minh and invade South Nam.-- The fatgoat Talk (to me, obviously) The Crap I've Done 06:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Nope - Not necessary, per the fact that VFD is very rarely full these days, compared with a year ago when it was full about 99% of the time.
Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 07:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I agree that VFD is rarely full these days Cs1987. From what I have seen it's actually been full a fair bit. A number of users keep rather large lists (mine has hundreds on it) which could be put onto VFD, but are not for fear of being accused of "flooding VFD". Those of us who post new articles for deletion generally also try to leave space for the less frequent visitors. That's often why VFD has been sitting at about 18 or 19 recently. If a statement was made that it was OK to "flood" I think you would see the VFD page being constantly maxed out for the foreseeable future. MrN Fork you! 15:09, Mar 5
- Adding five articles at a time to VFD is absolutely fine, but I would still consider adding ten to be flooding. If four users added five articles each to VFD, it would fill up in no time. I haven't seen that happen in recent months, so I'm standing by my view of the situation. Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 00:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Adding five articles at a time to VFD is absolutely fine, but I would still consider adding ten to be flooding. If four users added five articles each to VFD, it would fill up in no time. I haven't seen that happen in recent months, so I'm standing by my view of the situation.
- I'm not sure I agree that VFD is rarely full these days Cs1987. From what I have seen it's actually been full a fair bit. A number of users keep rather large lists (mine has hundreds on it) which could be put onto VFD, but are not for fear of being accused of "flooding VFD". Those of us who post new articles for deletion generally also try to leave space for the less frequent visitors. That's often why VFD has been sitting at about 18 or 19 recently. If a statement was made that it was OK to "flood" I think you would see the VFD page being constantly maxed out for the foreseeable future. MrN
- For of course, but then again, I like the blasphemous 'Q' word. Oh noez! --THINKER 17:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Happy Fun Discussion time
I still dont understand why everyone hates V week so much. The way I see it, it's the same as ICU in that we give the article one week to get fixed up or else it is deleted. While I'll agree that we can lose some quality because of that and someone's careless taging, theres probably ways we can make sure that quality articles are not deleted. Heres one idea I had a while ago, but got ignored. What If every article taged with {{V}} gets a two person desicion, either that it's crap or that it's not. The first person who decides the article is not of high enough quality slaps some modified version of the V week template on there, and then if another person agrees that it sucks, their name is either added to the template or something, or a new template saying this article has the 2 person support. However, if someone protests the deletion, it can be shifted to VFD, which is increased to 30 for V week, or something. Users will still have the chance to adopt the article and save it from deletion if they think they can make something of it. However, sence we would be doing this after CW, most of the articles that are in category:Rewrite will have already been rewriten. Just an idea. Lieutenant THEDUDEMAN Dude ... Totally UOTM KUN GotA F@H 04:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm against V-Week 'cause it's unnecessary. As of this writing there are 6 slots open at VFD--if you see a lousy article, just post it there. In general, I think VFD's been moving along pretty quickly lately. So unless we get to the point where we have VFD logjams at 20 slots like the ones we had when there were 15, I'll be against another V-Week. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 04:17, Mar 5
- To expand on the above idea (and ignore Led's edit conflict) with something that has a very very small chance of success, we could also have that second person be from a group of historically level-headed users. The people most likely to be involved in the V-Week purging are either those that would either attempt to purge all one-liners, despite their popularity, and those that would fight viciously for their preservation. Therefore, if TheDudeMan's suggestion is implemented it wouldn't be very effective in the eventuality of a dispute. However, if somebody from a hand-picked group of impartial and level-headed users were to look over each of the articles listed for deletion, it would be much more fair. The reason this probably won't happen, however, is because it both show favoritism toward certain users and most people will probably view this as more trouble than it's worth. If anybody thinks this is a good idea, though, I believe it would work excellently. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 04:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, acctaully, there is a group of "historically...users" people who already have the final say in deleting pages. The admins. We were all once users, who, were "hand picked" from the masses. Sure, some admins are considered more "level-headed" than others, but we have the final say. So, basically, what both of you guys (THEDUDEMAN and Boomer) are suggesting is, de facto, the system that we already have. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 22:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- In all honesty, I've noticed both admins and users get extremely hot-headed during arguments. About an equal number of each, actually. However, both posts went two days without being edited so I suppose it's invalid anyway. Also, in some more uncharacteristic honesty, THEDUDEMAN's proposal still stands as it calls for the input of two users before it gets deleted rather than the current system where a user nominates an article and an admin gives it a once-over before making the final decision. However, as previously stated nobody seems to care so I don't know why I'm still typing. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 00:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I seem to care though, don't I? I work long and hard at seeming to care. But, THEDUDEMAN does have a good point. I think that the "two user votes before deletion" system could be accomplished without silly templates, though. We need only have one page where the first user lists the the article, and then, if another user agrees, they can remove it from the page that the first user added it to, and add the {{V}}. I dunno. It seems (from the above vote) that V-Week will need quite a large overhaul before anybody will accept it, and that most people don't really care to help overhaul it (as this bottom section seems to demonstrate). Oh well, such is such is such. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 01:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- We already have a system where multiple users have to check out a page before it's deleted. It's called VFD, and there are more than 10 spaces open on it as I type this. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 01:46, Mar 8
- Want me to fill it up right now Led? MrN Fork you! 04:52, Mar 8
- Yerr, just because VFD isn't full doesn't mean that it couldn't be filled up in half a second with crap that needs to be VFD'd. V-Week is necessary in my book, but having it right after C-Week seems a little rash. ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN • WotM • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF @ 05:06 Mar 8
- If more people did actually vote on VFD we would not need V week. MrN Fork you! 05:25, Mar 8
- In an effort to try and explain myself more... /Begin Rant: It appears to me that there is a difference of opinion over the importance of cleaning up Uncyc of the more "poor" articles. Some users don't mind if there are poor articles around, whereas other do. I guess that some consider that anything can potentially be good, and might inspire something brilliant so it's worth hanging onto. Others consider that we have a lot of articles which would not pass our current ICU or possibly even QVFD process, and think that this is not right. I'm with the second view. Although I agree that anything can be useful I just don't think (in many cases) that it's worth the downside of having so many poor articles in the mainspace. It sets a bad example, and must be frustrating to new users who create an article which gets an ICU when we have other articles that are obviously much worse. Now it would be great if we could handle this with VFD. Unfortunately I don't think we can. At least not in a reasonable time period. I busted my balls last month over at VFD, and hardly made a dent in what I think should be done. Although VFD is obviously the best system, it often appears that more effort is required from the community to delete an article than was actually put in by the author in the first place. Surely that's not right? I guess it's also part of the reason why many people don't bother voting on VFD. Now I guess if you consider that VFH and what's on the front page is really all that matters then we probably should keep everything, but for me I value the general quality of the entire site, and would really like to see standards go up a little. Obviously I understand that a V week, or any variation thereof it is inevitable that we would delete some article which we should not. Although I don't want this to happen, I think it's worth it for the benefit we would get. Omelets and eggs... /End Rant... MrN Fork you! 06:20, Mar 8
- Please, don't misunderstand me. I don't feel that bad articles are somehow ok, or anything even close to that. Instead, my problem with V-week is this: All the time on VFD I see an article nominated for deletion, and it receives two more delete votes, giving it 3-0 in favor of delete. Then, in a day or two, five people show up and vote keep, and the page is kept--oviously, it had something in it worth keeping. During a Vigilance Week, that page would've been deleted, and five users would've been disappointed because a page with some humor to it got deleted. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 18:40, Mar 8
- Please, don't misunderstand me. I don't feel that bad articles are somehow ok, or anything even close to that. Instead, my problem with V-week is this: All the time on VFD I see an article nominated for deletion, and it receives two more delete votes, giving it 3-0 in favor of delete. Then, in a day or two, five people show up and vote keep, and the page is kept--oviously, it had something in it worth keeping. During a Vigilance Week, that page would've been deleted, and five users would've been disappointed because a page with some humor to it got deleted. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon
- In an effort to try and explain myself more... /Begin Rant: It appears to me that there is a difference of opinion over the importance of cleaning up Uncyc of the more "poor" articles. Some users don't mind if there are poor articles around, whereas other do. I guess that some consider that anything can potentially be good, and might inspire something brilliant so it's worth hanging onto. Others consider that we have a lot of articles which would not pass our current ICU or possibly even QVFD process, and think that this is not right. I'm with the second view. Although I agree that anything can be useful I just don't think (in many cases) that it's worth the downside of having so many poor articles in the mainspace. It sets a bad example, and must be frustrating to new users who create an article which gets an ICU when we have other articles that are obviously much worse. Now it would be great if we could handle this with VFD. Unfortunately I don't think we can. At least not in a reasonable time period. I busted my balls last month over at VFD, and hardly made a dent in what I think should be done. Although VFD is obviously the best system, it often appears that more effort is required from the community to delete an article than was actually put in by the author in the first place. Surely that's not right? I guess it's also part of the reason why many people don't bother voting on VFD. Now I guess if you consider that VFH and what's on the front page is really all that matters then we probably should keep everything, but for me I value the general quality of the entire site, and would really like to see standards go up a little. Obviously I understand that a V week, or any variation thereof it is inevitable that we would delete some article which we should not. Although I don't want this to happen, I think it's worth it for the benefit we would get. Omelets and eggs... /End Rant... MrN
- If more people did actually vote on VFD we would not need V week. MrN
- Yerr, just because VFD isn't full doesn't mean that it couldn't be filled up in half a second with crap that needs to be VFD'd. V-Week is necessary in my book, but having it right after C-Week seems a little rash. ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN • WotM • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF @ 05:06 Mar 8
- Want me to fill it up right now Led? MrN
- We already have a system where multiple users have to check out a page before it's deleted. It's called VFD, and there are more than 10 spaces open on it as I type this. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon
- Oh, I seem to care though, don't I? I work long and hard at seeming to care. But, THEDUDEMAN does have a good point. I think that the "two user votes before deletion" system could be accomplished without silly templates, though. We need only have one page where the first user lists the the article, and then, if another user agrees, they can remove it from the page that the first user added it to, and add the {{V}}. I dunno. It seems (from the above vote) that V-Week will need quite a large overhaul before anybody will accept it, and that most people don't really care to help overhaul it (as this bottom section seems to demonstrate). Oh well, such is such is such. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 01:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- In all honesty, I've noticed both admins and users get extremely hot-headed during arguments. About an equal number of each, actually. However, both posts went two days without being edited so I suppose it's invalid anyway. Also, in some more uncharacteristic honesty, THEDUDEMAN's proposal still stands as it calls for the input of two users before it gets deleted rather than the current system where a user nominates an article and an admin gives it a once-over before making the final decision. However, as previously stated nobody seems to care so I don't know why I'm still typing. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 00:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, acctaully, there is a group of "historically...users" people who already have the final say in deleting pages. The admins. We were all once users, who, were "hand picked" from the masses. Sure, some admins are considered more "level-headed" than others, but we have the final say. So, basically, what both of you guys (THEDUDEMAN and Boomer) are suggesting is, de facto, the system that we already have. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 22:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Some Mathematics
Currently, there are 22891 articles on Uncyclopedia.
There are 200 featured articles and 81 quasi-featured articles.
There are 132 pages in UnProjects and 163 pages in Uncyclopedia's In-Joke category.
There are 81 policy pages, over 200 topics in the village dump, over 200 topics in BHOP, 161 topics in the ministry of love, and over 200 topics in the help forum.
This means that there are 657 pages that are almost certainly not going to be deleted because they are of some use, or are probably of some exemplary quality.
There are also at least 761 pages in the forum which are counted as articles, but are actually not, and 199 archive pages counted towards the article count, but actually not of any value.
On average, 173 of Uncyc's articles will be deleted in QVFD or placed on CVP every week, so there are on average 1790 pages on the database which are of some use, of exemplary quality, are archives or forum content, or will be deleted on sight which are most likely counted toward the article count. This is not counting a small amount of admin vigilantism where there are articles deleted on sight.
This means that there are 21101 pages which are of "meh" quality, are good ideas with shitty implementations, or are simply not deserving of space on the database at all. Converted into a percentage, only 8% of articles on Uncyclopedia are of significant quality, are in-jokes, or are of some sort of use and aren't questionable for deletion. The rest is essentially "lost content" which is of decent quality, or little quality and thus subject to rewrite or deletion. Note that these calculations may also include things within the "Uncyclopedia" namespace, which is not counted normally in the article count. ~
Jacques Pirat, Esq. Converse : Benefactions : U.w.p.
8/03/2008 @ 22:47
- I have a new proposal... Wait for a new post in the Dump. MrN Fork you! 23:13, Mar 8
- 8% seems pretty good to me. This is a wiki. Worse, this is a wiki that tries to be funny (not like those lazy bones at Wikipedia. They deal in "facts". Pbbt!). Humour is hard. Roughly one in ten pages being better than meh is a pretty good hit/miss, ratio, considering that nobody here has any idea what they're doing. Are we going to say "Sure, you're just figuring this out, but you don't meet our low bar." to every Tim, Don and Barry that stumbles in here, ponders, and tries to write something? QVFD the worst of it and VFD the iffy stuff (and maybe a violent purge, every once in a while). That's enough. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 05:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think there's a big flaw in this reasoning, in that you assume that anything that hasn't been featured isn't worth looking at. Humour isn't democratic - you don't need a 15-person majority to agree that an article's funny before it becomes funny. And I've laughed at a lot more things that haven't been featured than have. Also, that article count is only for mainspace articles - there are loads of featured articles in others namespaces, and that count doesn't include any project, forum pages, user pages or anything like that. If you want to include all those things you mentioned, that actual count is more like 200,000 pages. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 13:00, 09 Mar 2008
- For some reason, on my wikia wiki, forum namespace articles are counted towards the article count. I assumed the same works here, although we do not have any other extra namespaces. And I nod, that there is decent content in the last sentance. I'm just including what is definitely not deletable content, and is easily countable. I'm not going to sit here and go through Special:Allpages just to get a statistic which is going to be extremely biased towards my sense of humour. I would say that about 25%-60% of articles would be funny to a decent amount of the Uncyclopedia population and of significant quality that are not part of that solid almost positively not deletable block. ~
Jacques Pirat, Esq. Converse : Benefactions : U.w.p.
9/03/2008 @ 16:47
- For some reason, on my wikia wiki, forum namespace articles are counted towards the article count. I assumed the same works here, although we do not have any other extra namespaces. And I nod, that there is decent content in the last sentance. I'm just including what is definitely not deletable content, and is easily countable. I'm not going to sit here and go through Special:Allpages just to get a statistic which is going to be extremely biased towards my sense of humour. I would say that about 25%-60% of articles would be funny to a decent amount of the Uncyclopedia population and of significant quality that are not part of that solid almost positively not deletable block. ~