Forum:The Red Light District

Forums: Index > Village Dump > The Red Light District

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4238 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

I've noticed in the past few weeks that the Review line has been stacking up. I also have noticed that some users view Pee Review as a way to whore their article. This got me thinking. I was considering starting the Red Light District, a place that would be similar to Pee Review, except you wouldn't get an in-depth review. You would simply get an opinion on whether or not your article is feature worthy and why. If it is feature worthy, the reviewer (or pimp as they will be called in the RLD) will nominate it. That easy. I know that good articles will always find there way onto VFH, but that's not really what this is about. It's more to help relieve some of the strain on Pee Review. Anyways, just an idea I was mulling around. Just wanted to see if this was something that could prove useful. I'll stop typing now and wait for Romartus to abstain from this issue. --—John Lydon 14:05, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

For. It's a good idea, well worth starting. Why not? Everyone will want to push their best articles, and RLD is a natural place for that. Of course prudent people will never allow anything like WHORING. Fucking virgins. -- Style

Guide 17:58, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a vague outline up in the next few days. Hopefully it will show everyone how it's supposed to work. --—John Lydon 18:35, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

We already have the "speedy review" option, but not many people do use that anymore nowadays. -- TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 20:25, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

I do believe we have other pages that do that, for example, VFG and I remember some userspace whoring pages. I think trying to revive an existing project would make more sense than making a new one. --Mn-z 20:54, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know the Speedy Review and VFG existed. I am now forced to rethink my current position. --—John Lydon 11:48, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

A good idea. VFG is mainly, imnho, for pages which can't make feature status, although many do. It seems to be the gathering place for the absurd which are too iffy for the average sensibility. I've never looked at Speedy Review, but the name Red Light District is perfect for this idea. Aleister 12:16 1 9

It's a decent idea. Good articles tend to sit on the queue for weeks with everybody too scared to review them. Conversely, I don't think it's anything a sort of "check and nom" purge wouldn't fix.--Black Flamingo 18:11, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

I remember suggesting something very similar to this once. Also,

For. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk)

GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 18:15, 2 September 2010

Why don't people...

...just nominate articles that are sitting on the queue that they think are feature worthy? Like, say, this or this? If they get featured, they can just be removed from the queue. If they don't get featured, the author can wait for a pee review or revise the article based upon criticism it received on VFH, or both. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 01:34, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

You know what, I just might follow my own advice. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 01:34, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

If everyone just went nominating articles willy-nilly we'd soon see VFH be flooded to ranks over 30 articles. Of course, I doubt there's that many qualifying articles on the queue right now, so it's worth a shot. Then again, it won't really solve much unless they all pass through pretty quickly. If the nominations fail, then it does little but to further delay the review another week or two, since people would be less inclined to review an article that is already nominated.

Devil's advocate aside, I think it's a good idea. -- TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 02:02, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I have similar concerns. I think it's only the sort of thing that should be resorted to when there are, like, 40+ articles in need of a reviewing but scant reviewers to review them because, say, they just went back to school or whatever. (Though we have had this same problem most of the summer.) I imagine something like this would pass especially quickly, though, so it shouldn't be much of an issue. I'd have gladly reviewed it if I didn't have tons of reading to do already. So yeah. Plus only about half the current VFH queue is made up of featurable articles at the moment anyway, so a sudden influx of quality might not necessarily be such a bad thing. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 02:29, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so much concerned about articles that are feature worthy sitting in line for a review. The whole point of RLD would be to stop people from jamming up Pee Review for no other reason than to get their article nommed. We all know it happens, frequently. I've reviewed articles in depth only to have the author throw the article back onto the review list without making a single change, In the hopes the next reviewer will tell them it's the best article ever and nom it to VFH. RLD would be a place to throw an article up that you don't neccessarily want to have reviewed in depth. If you just want someone to nom it, you could throw it up, the reviewer would check it out, tell you if it's feature worthy or not and why. I still don't have all the details worked out, but there would be a designated comittee (kind of like steel kidneys) that would be able to put any article that was given the nod by a reviewer on VFH. This would do two things; 1) It would help relieve some of the overflow on Pee Review and, B) It would help to promote higher quality stuff on VFH. --—John Lydon 15:58, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

I am all for higher quality stuff on VFH. That's something I won't abstain on JL. --

RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 17:50, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

You should do it John. I'm sure no one will object if you make it in your userspace. I'll sign up for the comittee if you'll have me. --Black Flamingo 18:05, September 2, 2010 (UTC)