Forum:TurboVFD

Forums: Index > Village Dump > TurboVFD

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6225 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

ok, I'm thinking of a TurboVFD; generally we find there's a lot of freshly created cruft on the site that's genuinely borderline, but really probably deserves deleting anyway, but at the behest of upsetting someone if a single person decides to delete it, people get upset.

Therefore, I think TurboVFD would be a good solution to this; any article placed on TurboVFD has a 24-hour lifespan at most, and if it receives 3 or more deletion votes net then it gets killed, optionally the article can be saved if a user agrees to take it on board in which case they can move it to their userspace for working on, if it receives less votes after 24 hours but none to suggest keeping it, then it's huffed, and if there *are* votes arguing to keep it, then it gets moved to VFD where a proper vote is held.

Right now, the VFD takes too long for articles to receive a "fair" trial when the articles that are significantly less than "fair" themselves really are deserving of swift justice. Thoughts? --Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 12:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

We already have this....its called an Admin. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

"but at the behest of upsetting someone if a single person decides to delete it, people get upset" --Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 12:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats when a substantial ban will give them the opportunity to put things in perspective. We can't have people upset now can we? -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

So you are saying ICU looks unfair to the authors because the article survival is decided by a single admin after the one week? Maybe we could set this in two stages then: an ICUed article, after the one week tolerance time, will enter this TurboVFD, as you say (I prefer Death Row VFD, hehehe). Users can't add articles directly to Death Row VFD. Any article there will be deleted in 24 hours, even if it doesn't receive a single vote - being huffed is the default. People - other than the author - can vote to save the article instead. What about? -- herr doktor needsAraygun  [scream!] 12:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... the kind of article that's really too bollocks to deserve the 7 days, but has a decent enough concept or slices of material that someone *might* want to do something with it... but really, working under the premise of a speedy deletion --Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 12:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Death Row (I relly liked this name...) votes could work like this: score +2 for clemency. People can still vote for deletion to counter votes for keeping given by other users. The +2 score is necessary for an article needing more than just its author to being preserved. -- herr doktor needsAraygun  [scream!] 12:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't need two places for people to decide whether or not to keep an article. That's just multiplying entities unnecessarily. Maybe ICU use could be restricted to trusted users.... That would seem to create an Uncyclogarchy (trademarked) but whatchagunnado? Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 00:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually think that the combination of VFD/QVFD/Admins is quite suffice. I do think, however, that we have a bit of a problem with the ICUs. We have new users coming in, and two days after that they start NRVing everything on site (pun intended!). I saw a recent example of a now very popular article on VFH getting NRVd 5 minutes after it was created. Maybe we should set some usage rules on ICU usage? ~ 12:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That's funny how you liberals are conservative when regarding Uncyc rules, hehehe... This is not, however, another evil plan of mine, this is Olipro's. By the way, ICU is really a little bit confusing. The author can remove it from the page and sometimes this is considered a fault punishable by ban, and other times it's just okay. What if we enforce an article being put on Pee Review in order to the author remove the ICU? -- herr doktor needsAraygun  [scream!] 12:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Alas, think I have a better idea. What if we add a positive value (clearly explained on the template) to ICU? An article with ICU is guaranteed to survive at least one week. Authors can't self-ICU however. If the author removes the ICU, any admin can delete the article on sight. -- herr doktor needsAraygun  [scream!] 12:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Death row? I though this was supposed to be a quick procedure. --Kelpan 13:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hehehe. -- herr doktor needsAraygun  [scream!] 04:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Slight change on ICU

This way:

Aside from the text, the only rule that changes is that admins can delete de-ICUed articles at their own criterion. -- herr doktor needsAraygun  [scream!] 04:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As of yet, ICU and NRV have been working OK for new articles (except when stupids remove the tags). All I am concerned about right now is all the old shit left over from 2005 and early 2006. --» >UF|TLK|▋» 15:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Vintage Forest Fire Week? -- herr doktor needsAraygun  [scream!] 16:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

In most cases though, things are restored if they are requested to be restored. Unless there is a very good reason for it. —Braydie 18:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

TurboVFD...

...do we already have that? Why, yes we do. It's called QVFD (Quick Vote For Deletion) --General Insineratehymn 21:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not fast enough. I routinely put stuff there from the same person. --01:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)