Forum:It's not about V Week. Honest.

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > It's not about V Week. Honest.
Note: This topic has been unedited for 6098 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.


MrN's proposal to end talk of {{V}} week and {{FFW}}...

This picture is relevant to this proposal

OK, first of, I know that a lot of you are sick of hearing about the above, but hopefully some of you will take the time to read this proposal. I agree that writing is more important than deleting, but in my opinion the effort required by this proposal would be worth it.

I agree that {{V}} week and {{FFW}} are not what we either want or need, but I do feel that something other than the current VFD process is required.

Why? I understand that some users don't mind us having the poor articles whereas other do. I guess that anything can potentially be good, and could inspire something brilliant so it's possible to argue that it's worth hanging onto. Others consider that some of our articles would not pass our current ICU or possibly even QVFD process. Personally, I'm of the view that the second view is true, and I don't think this is right.

What's the rush? 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 or is possibly deleted via QVFD when we have other articles that are 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. 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 this is 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.

As I said, I don't think {{V}} and {{FFW}} are the correct way to handle this. No one wants to see "random huffing" of articles, and putting the power to delete old articles into the hands of a a small number of users is probably not a good idea.

You are actually still reading? Well, blow me... No really, do!

So what's my suggestion? OK, brace yourself... It's different from {{V}} and {{FFW}} honest. If approved, I suggest we called it 'Keep Week'.


Maybe this is not what it appears to be?

I propose a 3 stage process:

Stage 1 For a period (of maybe 1 or 2 weeks) a large list of poor articles would be created (on the 'Keep Week' page) using alphabetic headings to group articles together, and cut down on edit conflicts. A sig would be left by the person who put it there, and they would also need to put a suitable tag on the article in question. Maybe a 'Keep Week' tag?. If you don't put the tag on, or do not sig each nomination on the 'Keep Week' page it does not count.

Stage 2 After the first stage, all new nominations would stop. No new articles may be added to the page. For another time period (not sure how long), ANY USER can 'vote' keep by putting an indented comment underneath the article in question saying why they think it's worth hanging onto, and crossing through the nomination . When voting 'Keep' you must also remove the 'VKeep' tag from the articles page.

Stage 3 After stage 2 the admins can Delete anything which has not been voted 'Keep'. If a vote of 'Keep' has been made, but the tag was not removed the admin can still delete. It will be possible to quickly find all of the pages marked with the tag using 'What links here'. Obviously the admins would need to check that the tag had not been added without an entry being made on the 'Keep Week' page, and this could be done by checking the 'What links here' of the article in question.

Basically to delete the articles the admin would:

  1. Check 'What links here' for the tag, and go to an article.
  2. Check 'what links here' for the article to make sure it has an entry on the 'Keep Week page'.
  3. If it does, they can then use their discretion to delete the article. The admin does not "have to" delete it. It's up to them.

An example is shown below during stage 2...

??

A

C

J

P

Issues raised in IRC

  1. Well, obviously the author of an article will just vote 'Keep'
    That's fair enough I say. If they are still around. Lets keep the article. There is always VFD.
  2. I don't really understand how this is different from {{V}} week or {{FFW}}, and we already voted not to do that.
    The difference is that all users have the option of keeping any article. In V or FFW, once an article is nominated, it's just down to the admins. This is about keeping, so if you really care about keeping something, go ahead and do it. If people don't care enough to save an article, it's probably not worth keeping...
  3. This is going to be one hell of a mess, and it's just not worth it.
    Maybe, I'm not sure. People are going to keep complaining about wanting {{V}} week and {{FFW}} and as I see it, doing this should help silence these views. Also, because it's so easy to choose to keep an article, any possible dram should be kept to a minimum.
  4. MrN's sexual organs are just too large, so this is never going to work.
    OK, maybe they did not say that.

If we do decide to do this, whatever happens we will at least generate a rather large list of 'potentially' bad articles which could then be used as the basis for possible future nominations on VFD.

Obviously the Admins would need to be on particular guard for bad faith edits, and general dickery with this, but I think it might just work, and could perhaps 'keep' both the delete and keep camps happy.

What do yall think? MrN Icons-flag-gb.png HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 00:45, Mar 9

Well I'm just going to put a tittle um TITLE no... tit here and see what happens...

MrN9000's tits
Score: 5
  • I skipped a few of the opening comments (tl;dr), but the actaul proposition is pretty good. I think that by shifting the focus away from mass deletion, we just be able to trick Bradaphraser into agreeing with this. For -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 00:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • A "tittle"? *giggle* Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 00:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Forish... I still like V week better, but this will do. Although the idea is kind of confusing. Also, tittle.--Lieutenant THEDUDEMAN Dude ... Totally UOTM KUN GotA F@H 03:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This = V since anyone can add {{VA}} to a {{V}}'d article. That being said, for. --Algorithm 03:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • F♥r. Great idea. Yeh, after reading this whole thing, that's all I have to say. ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN • WotM • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF @ 23:59 Mar 9
  • For I guess I should vote for this. I can't help noticing that most of the people who have voted so far are VFD regulars... MrN Icons-flag-gb.png HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 00:42, Mar 10

A clarification from the jerk who keeps holding his position despite the fact it's obviously unpopular

Ok. My vision of what Uncyclopedia should be is something more like YouTube, Videosift, Wikipedia, or bash.org. I honestly think that you get better quality by KEEPING the mountains of crap. It's counter-intuitive, I know. You'd have rules that people would have to follow, certainly (delete the slandanity). You'd have articles taken off and deleted for being teh suck, sure. I'm suggesting focusing on classifying the articles rather than deleting articles that don't make a certain standard. Yes, my friends, I'm advocating keeping those very articles that offend and insult me and lack anything I recognize as humor. BUT we would classify the articles as being good or less good or quite bad, actually, and it would all stay, so that, in the end, what was left could INSPIRE others. I still, to this day, regret that we've lost the chaos of 2005. Our articles are much, MUCH better than they were, certainly, but I wish we could classify more and delete less. Check my articles if you'd like an crude, terrible example of how it could be done. Rewriting articles and refining the rating system should get the brunt of our efforts, not deleting bad articles. VIVA LA RATING SYSTEM!--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 03:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

REVIVE THE RATING SYSTEM!!! Back when we still had it, the article quality was better. If we can get the rating system back, we just might have a better way of ensuring quality. --Sir Starnestommy Icons-flag-us.png (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 04:46, Mar. 9, 2008
Well...the ratings thingy we had was based only on how many people liked it, not (like Amazon) on how many people voted and how much they liked it. Plus Spang totally gamed the system. But Brad and I say this every quarter, and it lands with a meh every goddamned time. Personally, I blame Brad. He lacks the charisma that I also lack. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 05:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I maintain that my userpage got 1,431,655,766 out of 5 completely legitimately. Also, we already have a rating system available to use, there's just no part of it you can see. The difficult bit is using it in a way that's not very easily exploitable, and that does what people want it to do. I'll add it to my list of things to do. Like that VFH thing. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 12:41, 09 Mar 2008
Like on VFH, it would be great if we could have a system which ensured accurate and impartial voting. Just don't see how you are ever going to do it on a Wiki. Hea! How about an award for who votes the best? Now I'm joking, calm down everyone... Also, hows about actually giving an opinion on Keep Week? MrN Icons-flag-gb.png HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 12:55, Mar 9
Oh yeah... Well, despite the fact that I don't really see why so many "events" need to have week in the title, this is definitely the best of the suggestions for deleting awful pages without losing too many good pages. Having said that, I don't think there's a need for one of those right now. Perhaps if VFD was constantly jammed up, but it's not. Also, I agree with Brad et al, a rating system that works would be way better than deletion sprees. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 13:17, 09 Mar 2008
Thanks for that Spang. Yea, VFD is defiantly the best system, but my reservation with it is that it often actually takes more effort from the community to vote on VFD than was put in by the author in the first place. I would rather see that effort going into writing new good stuff. This view only applies to the really really bad stuff, and I'm just hoping to get rid of some of that. Hopefully you don't think this is too much of a "week" idea. :-) Thanks... MrN Icons-flag-gb.png HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 13:55, Mar 9
I doubt that an article rating system will help. I doubt that anything will help, really. Frightening cynicism, but it's true. If a minor wants to drink, he/she's going to drink. It's a proven fact. Just ask the families of those affected by it. Parents can set up rules, curfews, breathalyzers as a lock for their homes, and they can punish for transgressions. The man can ban underage drinking, require identification for alcohol purchase, and arrest young ones who are apprehended while intoxicated. People can get into HUGE accidents and die in horrible, tragic stories which are relayed to the next generation of kids who grows up saying "Mommy, I'm never going to drink." Yet, drunk driving is still the cause of one fourth of the collisions on the road, and is the number one killer of teens.
Now, to relate that overwrought (and probably dickish) metaphor to Uncyclopedia: if a 'tard wants to make crap, he/she/it's going to do so. It's a proven fact. Just ask the admins who delete shit all day, every day, since 2005(TM). The users can set up rules, curfews, breathalyzers as a lock for their home, and punish for transgressions. The man can ban crap creation, require identification for creation purposes, and arrest young ones who are apprehended while dicking around. People can get into HUGE fights and leave in huffy, pathetic wakes that are told to the new generation of productive n00bs who grow hardened while saying "StarmanW, I'm never going to be a dick." Yet, here we are arguing about the same shit once again, and it shows no signs of stopping.
Why do we need to cut down on crappy articles, exactly? Sure, if they are the first impression somebody gets of us, it may be detrimental to our reputation. But for all the crap, there's just as much good. I think the crap is getting too much limelight of late. If we want to advance our reputation as a humor site, then we have to try to make good stuff. Getting rid of the bad stuff with such manic intensity that we need ANYTHING more than our normal procedure is as counterproductive as the US Congress concentrating on the indictment of Roger Clemens on steroid charges instead of fixing their stumbling economy and their partisan idiocy.
BOTTOM LINE: Crap happens naturally. Excellence takes work. What we should measure our quality by is not the crap that we have, but instead by the amount of excellence we have.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 21:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
*one person stands up, and starts clapping slowly. Then another, and another stand up and clap, slowly at first, then faster. Then more and more people stand and clap, faster and faster, and the forum soon erupts in cheers. WOO!* In non-hollywood English: amen to that, brotha! - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon.gif(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 22:11, Mar 9
Isn't that what I said? No? Well, close enough.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 02:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
For. --Littleboyonly.jpg 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 Oldmanonly.jpg 00:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

People "gaming the system" to get rid of articles that are funny, but they don't like

First let me say that there is a reason why we have the rewrite tag. Most people ignore it and just submit the article to VFD or QuickVFD. Failing that they wait for a Forest fire Week, or V Day, or whatever to get rid of the articles they don't like. For example articles that make fun of liberals often get deleted because someone who is a liberal doesn't like it and after it fails a VFD they try to get rid of it some other way. I try to balance things out here at Uncyclopedia so they aren't one sided and make sure that everything gets made fun of equally. Now I know a majority here holds a left-wing view, but we need articles that make fun of liberals to counter such attacks from Conservapedia etc that we are viciously liberal or whatever, and show that we can make fun of anyone despite their political viewpoints, etc. Also people try to get rid of articles they don't understand, for example if an article is written in a UK or USA viewpoint, someone who doesn't get that viewpoint will try to delete it. That is really wrong on many levels. We need articles that are funny to UK, USA, and anyone from any country so that we have something for everyone. It seems like a majority of the people here want to delete something they don't find funny because it is easier to do so without putting in the effort to rewrite it so it is funny to them. I mean a lot of stuff that has potential often gets deleted because someone isn't smart enough to get the punchline or they don't happen to like the viewpoint in the article. We can hold many events to delete or rewrite articles, but we have failed to address the real problems at Uncyclopedia in that most people are "delete happy" and don't want to even bother trying to save an article that might have potential if it was dumbed down or made funnier in some way. For example I don't like articles with too many swear words in them, but sometimes I write swear words in them to go with the flow and try to make it funnier even if I don't find swear words funny. Or maybe I'll just rewrite the swear words to funnier words. What we really need here is some sort of quality control system for fixing up articles so they are funnier. I mean not everyone can be as talented as Milton Berle, Jack Benny, Jim Carrey, Robin Williams, etc and write stuff that is 100% funny, but we all need help at being funny sometimes. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I resent the fact that you say that all Jim Carrey and Robin Williams touch is funny insults them. Clearly you haven't seen The Majestic, One Hour Photo, or Two Idiots and an Incurable STD.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 00:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
One Hour Photo was hilarious! I laughed my ass off for the whole first hour! Then the manager asked me to leave. I told him "No, you leave, man!" He beat me ever so severely. I still black out, sometimes. The doctors say that the beating is why my brain is broked. Well, I told them "No, you leave, man!" Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 04:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, but see, now that your brain done was broked and stuff. How do we know that you are knowing the right movie correctly?-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 01:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I give up on this one

If this was going to be popular enough, I think there would have been more votes by now, and obviously we have more important things to do. Maybe in the future at some point we could revisit this idea, but right now, it's just not the correct time. I'm sorry to have caused such a mess. Please go vote on VFH VFP and maybe even VFD. :-) MrN Icons-flag-gb.png HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 23:27, Mar 11

Just remeber that ideuz is a good thig. Aslo, remeber thet wen yu paint, opin a windo. Jeez...anibody els here feelng litehedded? Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 23:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://uncyclopedia.com/w/index.php?title=Forum:It%27s_not_about_V_Week._Honest.&oldid=2867566"