Forum:Vote or Die

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Vote or Die
Note: This topic has been unedited for 3352 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.


Alright, VFD has become constipated. VFD policy is that we delete after one day and six net votes to delete, but currently only four people even frequent VFD (at best). So go there and vote so we can clean out the page! —Sir Major Hinoa [TALK] [KUN] 16:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

People, Uncyclopedians DIED to that you had the right to vote on VFH and VFP. That and allowing you to carry on your bizarre sexual practices. Vote NOW! Least we forget. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)
Yes, please! Think of the children! And remember folks, make use of QVFD if something really eats it. It's not a "lost art!" --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 17:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
And er... I can't think of anything witty to say! Better let Oscar try it:

“No, I can't think of anything else witty to say either.”

~ OW on saying something else witty about VFD
Damn. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 17:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
You could always ask George Bernard Shaw. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 17:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

“No, I'm struggling too.”

~ George Bernard Shaw on witty stuff about VFD.
Apparently, he's struggling too. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 17:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Open Letter about VFD

(Especially for Ghelae and Kokot.kokotisko)

The point of VFD is to list articles for a few days. During these few days, the community will have an opportunity to vote upon the articles, determining if they are to be kept or deleted. If you clusterfuck VFD with a couple hundred articles, it is very hard to get votes. In fact, you actively discourage votes because people aren't interested in reading a hundred articles and then editing the page a hundred times to cast their votes. In addition, when you fail to tag each page with the VFD template, some people will never know to vote on a page they consider one of their favorites.

It has become fairly obvious that the two of you listed above don't have any idea what the purpose of VFD is, and are just spamming the page with articles you don't personally find funny. Having spent a couple of hours cleaning this massive shitpile up, I hereby make the following mandate:

User:Ghelae and User:Kokot.kokotisko: You will take one month off (Call it Sept 1) from submitting to and voting on VFD.
Read some articles. See what other people submit. Get a feel for what we're trying to do. After that point, you may submit one (1) article per day to VFD. Pick the worst one you can find, submit it, and vote on it and others.
Submitting articles which have been featured/quasi featured is a clear sign of incompetence. Submitting articles with a long community history indicates that you don't really know the site well. Submitting well-written articles which you just don't get indicates you aren't taking the time to find really crappy articles.

The point of VFD is to remove poorly-written, unfunny crap. If you submit something, make sure it fits this category. Check the history, and ask an author if you're missing something. Check the history to see if it survived a VFD vote already. Do a search on the content if it's fairly long, and see if it's about something you are unfamiliar with.

I appreciate everyone who votes and submits stuff to VFD - it is an important part of keeping up the quality of this site. However, for it to be effective, we need to not flood it, and articles need to be up long enough for people to vote on them.

And, of course, fix up articles if possible. Even if all you add is one quasi-funny line, if everyone did this, we wouldn't have to delete many articles. If you spot a couple of articles with some value, merge the good stuff, and submit the husks for deletion. Thanks. 15:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I get it, but 2 things:
  1. "fail to tag each page with the VFD template"
  2. "Submitting articles which have been featured/quasi featured"
As far as I'm aware, I did neither. If I did, I didn't realise I didn't, and if it was just Kokot, then it would help if it was clearer. If it was a generalism, then... erm... meh. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 15:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
You had a few of #1, he had both #1s and #2s, leading me to consider an infinite ban + walking over to his place and cuffing him upside the head. 15:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, which 1s were #1s then? ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 15:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea. I just tore through something like 60-70 articles. There were at least two or three in a row that you added, without tagging the article. As a semi-diligent admin, I either deleted articles which were obvious crap, VFD tag or not, or I left articles which were semi-good and lacked the VFD tag. Until I got really irritated, banned some people, and just rolled back a couple of dozen VFD tags and blanked the rest of VFD. I figure we can re-add a few articles at a time, and get a decent number of votes on them. 15:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah... like the articles you kept even with unamimous "delete" votes, for example. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 16:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I like how 2 out of those three didn't get a VFD tag on the article. That's the sort of shit that makes me want to hand out some "stop bitching at me for other people's idiocy" bans. 16:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... I thought I put the template on them... obviously not... weird. Well, I suppose that's another reason not to VFD so many articles at a time that you lose track of which ones you've edited and which ones you've not. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 16:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid that Ghelae's right; the purge, while completely warranted in light of the flooding, did result in plenty of substandard articles (such as the above) getting shuffled back into the deck, as it were. Still, I feel that the point is well-made -- we have multiple ways of removing crap from the site, and VFD was getting pretty bogged down (as it used to prior to The G Man's meltdown. Once again, I urge anyone who finds a piece of utter garbage to make use of QVFD rather than clutter up the VFD page with crap that only the most brain-damaged algae-feeders would find amusing. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 16:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
So... perhaps we should add more standards for QVFD then? ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 16:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe, but one thing we might consider would be a rule change: "No article can be added to VFD unless it has been NRV'd or Template:fix'd first." The idea would be that anyone who disagreed could swap the NRV/fix tag with a VFD tag and put it to a vote, as-is. Otherwise, the same rules for NRV/fix would apply. The downside would be that more borderline articles would get deleted rather than rewritten, mostly because NRV's and fix's are less conspicuous... But to some extent all of this presupposes that people aren't going to tag these articles maliciously. (I know, not bloody likely!)
Ghelae, I think you might have forgotten to put the VFD tag on "Spacefaring brontosaurus," but that was the only one I saw... Either way, I'd say the fix tag would have been more appropriate for some of the older articles, at least. I know it takes longer, but I think with those you just have to be more patient, even if they clearly suck in some way. Ahhh, well.  c • > • cunwapquc? 16:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Damn it, it looks like S.U.'s onto my need for immediate gratification of my destructive appetites... oh hell, I'm talking out loud again. Good ideas all round! AF-FIR-MA-TIVE! --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 16:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of having higher standards for VFD, and I'm sure I put the VFD tag on Spacefaring Brontosaurus. Oh well.... Anyway, due to that there is no time limit for {{fix}}, someone might tag a page with {{fix}} and get their sockpuppet to change it to {{vfd}}. Also, I still think that adding more standards (if you get what I mean (and I hope you do (because if you don't you should (as otherwise you're losing your grip on the English language (etc (etc (etc))))))) to QVFD is better. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 16:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

As delete-happy as I am, there is a limit to what we can delete without heading backwards. We need articles which need improvement - that's how most people start editing here. If all they have to edit are new articles which get NRVd instantly or featured articles which get reverted, they're less likely to stay. There is some ideal % range of good articles to read and mediocre articles to improve which will keep this site growing. I feel that we're starting to cut into the mediocre article % a little too much. There are plenty of really crappy articles with no potential for rescue which need to go - find those first. FFW didn't get all of them, that's for sure. 16:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

So we're gonna have to raise our standards? WHY! WHYYYYYYYYYYY! Can't we just... erm... make a practice-article-sandbox or something... or... for the editing articles bit, then... erm... hmm... I dunno... I'll think about it. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 16:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
There is too many of them. 08:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Dear friends, I am happy to read this after the ban from blue I got. Let me reply and explain myself. Yes, I am a n00b, but that can be a b00n, since I am not encumbered by the community bias. I don't know the history of this particular hilarious site, but the art practiced here has a history much longer, which I don't know either. What I know is how I was dumbstruck by the sheer dumbness of the majority of articles, and how I immediately saw that the principle has hell of a potential. I read all the venereal policies, and I started to improve article by article, I wanted to save the unworld from drowning in diarrhoea. I studied the wiki before I made my mind. I understood that half of the funniness here comes from the act of writing itself. Etc. etc. etc. This site needs deletions. One day, even fabulous two cows and past featured articles will have to go, perhaps to a museum, but go. Even Sophia's haikus should go one day and Oscar should ideally tame himself. I was trying to be considerate. I even considered the problem of length of VFD page, that's why I actually stopped adding more articles there. Almost on purpose, I added a small amount of not-so-crappy articles - what's the purpose of voting if the articles are so blatantly unfunny and stupid that the vote is unanimous? I wanted to let us realize the deletion threshold. VFD got constipation because its owner is full of crap. It's not my fault if the peristaltics doesn't work. Good articles need inspiration, but right now there are enough of them to permit advising deleting everything else. Otherwise crap pile. Unfacts are more difficult than facts. Every fool can copy&paste facts bit by bit to wikipedia, but here one even needs to destroy a good article if there is a better idea. It is liberating to find the terms you are about to abuse free rather than loaded with crap. As for the VFD page, I apologize for the discouraging effect, but on the long run it is not possible to keep deleting all the crap and keep VFD short. As for the VFD tags, I might have forgotten one or two, my apology, I'm not a machine. But to summarize my judgement, Uncyc needs only 2 things:
1. To add a few top-notch articles.
2. To delete all crap.

I can do either, I don't care, I just wanted to help with trash, I can return to my article on Onomatopoeia instead, I'd appreciate if some native speaker sees it through. As for the crap, I'd even dare to say that it is necessary to discourage users who can only write crap. Kokot.kokotisko 20:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh heh... Not a very compassionate sort, are you! That's OK though, we do need delete-happy people here. But you'll never fit in if you can't accept that humor is subjective, and by turns you also have to give people a chance to improve their writing and humor skills without getting discouraged by overly-aggressive deletions. If they can't improve, they'll usually either go away on their own, or end up as admins. Besides, it's a free site, so you get what you pay for...
But my real question is, what's the percentage of crap, in your opinion? Half? More than half?  c • > • cunwapquc? 20:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Before or after I've blown through on my newly sysopped Dalekmobile? (just kidding, I know there's no third nomination coming.) --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 20:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Random sampling of 20 pages gave me about 60% crap. Of course, this is just my personal opinion, which is natural since I am a person. That's why we have voting. And I am far from complaining, I'm having fun trying to help a good cause and getting emotionally involved with you guys here, it's O.K. if you ban me, you can't punch me through the screen anyway :). Kokot.kokotisko 20:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


This fuckin' idiot tried to VFD Kool Aid, which is a FEATURED ARTICLE. Moron. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 21:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In Soviet Jonestown, Kool Aid VFD's you! 21:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh my... --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 01:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean to do damage, I'm not saying it's bad, I was trying to promote the discussion over the standards of voting among about 20 thoroughly stupid articles from Special:Longpages, to know where the threshold is. I even fun-posted the VTF page itself to notify others that I'm not so shit-serious about my postings. Just asking for others opinion on quality control. Can't you take it? Is featured holy? How holy? It's all too easy now to say that whole Ucyc is crap by pointing at articles like Belgiumgium and Unbooks:Rigism. Kokot.kokotisko 08:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I really must be getting soft...I don't think I banned them for an hour over that. However, my hand will fall hard if they *look* at vfd anytime in the near future... 21:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Erm... how will you know if we've looked at VFD? ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 07:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
That's easy - you already have, and there's no way to prove otherwise. You just have to hope that justice is as swift as a retired, one-legged pirate using a walker. 12:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Of couse I have... otherwise I couldn't of VFD'd the articles. But not after you typed that. I removed it from my watchlist. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 13:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Nope. You just looked again, to prove to yourself that you could, and because you throught that there was no way for me to tell. But I can tell. Muhahahahaha!!!!! 13:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
... ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 14:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
This is increasingly beginning to smell like wind-up to me, actually. I just read through Onomatopoeia, and it's hard not to think this fellow's having us on. It reads like a Harlequin Romance novel, to be honest.  c • > • cunwapquc? 21:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
O.k. let's not discuss this here, it's not finished, check what the page was before, I thought to make it into a blatantly fake myth as a means of deletion of the original contents. You got better idea, you go delete it and rewrite it after me, or go tell me what to write on the fucking talk page. Kokot.kokotisko 08:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, if no one had pointed out that Kool Aid was a featured article (or didn't have FEATURED in large friendly letters in the top corner), I may have put it up for deletion myself. I do think we need to have a decision made over Featured Articles (I personally would like to see them Protected at the point of Featuring to preserve them just as they are for future generations, but thats just me). -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)
Yes, it is just you. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 13:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
No, it isn't. I too would like to see "featured" articles protected (at least temporarily,) because they would then serve as a traceable chronology of writing trends. More honestly, however, I'd like to see them protected because slapping an article on the front page is tantamount to a declaration of "open season" for all the fuckwits and vandals to wreck it. Seriously, which are the most vandalized articles here? The ones we put links to on the front page, naturally. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 13:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
And yes, I know it's easy enough to revert vandalism, but slogging through 40+ one word/line edits is a pain for anyone. Don't let the grubby little bastards touch 'em in the first place, I say, and then we won't have to spend our time cleaning them. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 13:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean at the moment of featuring or just ultimately? ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 13:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I know it would probably make the most sense to just put temporary protection on them, but I kind of like Mhaille's "time capsule" idea as well. So I guess my answer to your question is: Yeah. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 13:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
A single-barrelled answer to a double-barreled question - that is, you can't make up your mind. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 13:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. I just think both ideas are equally meritorious when one balances out their pros and cons. I'd be equally happy with either, so I'm more ambivalent than undecided. Plus, my barrel's big enough to hit multiple targets.  ;) --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 13:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Basically, you can't decide which one's better because you think that they are both good, so you don't think any individual (for example, perma-protecting at feature-point) is best, so Mhaille is the only one... so far. Oh, and are you sure? ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 13:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
A.) Pretty much, yeah. But I'd support Mhaille's idea if that was the option to gain prevalence. I'm only against the idea of not protecting them in any fashion. B.) Definitely, although it helps if they're clustered together. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 14:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I could see a copy being placed at something like Uncyclopedia:Featured Articles/Kool Aid and protected. With Uncyclopedia:Featured Articles being a page with an automagically generated feature list composed of the subdirectories. Then the main article would get some sort of featured template/skin which points to the static copy of the page as featured. It would protect the featured article, provide an easy way to browse the articles as they were when featured, yet allow those articles to continue to evolve in their natural habitat. 13:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorta like taking an animal from the wild and chucking it into formaldehyde? Yeah, that's quite a good idea. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 14:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I like that option too. That makes three courses of action that I'd be happy to support. (What do you expect? I'm an Aquarius. We don't really care about very many particulars.) --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 14:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you care about whether-or-not you being an Aquarius has anything to do with it? ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 14:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I would care, but I'm an Aquarius, too. -- Imrealized ...huh? 15:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, not particularly. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 15:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)