Forum:A big Beatles clean-up

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > A big Beatles clean-up
Note: This topic has been unedited for 1430 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

I have recently discovered [[Category:The Beatles]] and it has more than sixty pages. So I thought, why don't we take a look at them and either clean them up (a lot of them need to be) or VFD them if they are really bad? And I think many of us here know something about the Beatles... Anton (talk) 09:45, September 3, 2013 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. When discussing something like this, try to provide us with a link for easy navigation, eg. Category:The Beatles. Sir Reverend P. Pennyfeather (fancy a chat?) CUN VFH PLS 10:28, September 3, 2013 (UTC)
Oh, ok. I will try to list some articles needing work below. Anton (talk) 11:58, September 3, 2013 (UTC)

Articles needing "A Little Help From My Friends"

(From Category:The Beatles)

  1. Back in the U.S.S.R. (not bad at all and would probably be featurable if some tidying-up would be done);
  2. Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds (needs images, better prose and humour);
  3. Revolution 393 (maybe it should be moved to Revolution 9, which is now a redirect to Revolution 393; the author's opinion about the song should be transformed into something funnier);
  4. Maxwell Edison (good concept; a mix of different moments from many Beatles songs; needs less first persona);
  5. Ringo Starr (has good images but is very hard to read and too random in some parts), etc.

There are many others, you can check the Beatles category. Anton (talk) 11:58, September 3, 2013 (UTC)

I would add McCartneyism, which from the title is a decent concept. The actual article, however, needs a complete re-write. I'll have a go at some point. Sir Reverend P. Pennyfeather (fancy a chat?) CUN VFH PLS 23:13, September 5, 2013 (UTC)
I probably won't have a go, actually. I'm all out of ideas at the moment. Hopefully someone else can re-write it, otherwise it warrants deletion. Sir Reverend P. Pennyfeather (fancy a chat?) CUN VFH PLS 21:09, September 7, 2013 (UTC)

Articles Beyond Help

Unless anyone objects, these warrant deletion:

Add more to the list if you think they're crap. Sir Reverend P. Pennyfeather (fancy a chat?) CUN VFH PLS 17:15, September 5, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, bad. Anton (talk) 19:19, September 5, 2013 (UTC)
Should they be nominated them for VFD? Anton (talk) 09:15, September 7, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I know the official policy says they ought to, but in the last such clean-up we dealt with them through the forum. Offering a common law interpretation (based on previous rulings), I would suggest that provided the articles were displayed clearly in a public, advertised forum inviting people to object if they felt the need to, and provided the forum were appropriately titled so that people could reasonably expect discussions of this nature to take place, then I think that any uncontested articles could simply be deleted without further ado. This, after all, is a good description of VFD itself. However, even a single objection would warrant going through VFD. I understand people might object to this, and would like to find out others' opinion on this matter. Anyone? Sir Reverend P. Pennyfeather (fancy a chat?) CUN VFH PLS 21:09, September 7, 2013 (UTC)

The original authors, and I use the term loosely, have a right to notification (in a predictable place, not "somewhere inside Village Dump") that we propose to delete their darlings. So I would appreciate it if you VFD'd them, put the {{VFD}} tag in the article, and let the vote run at least 24 hours. The nomination can reference this Forum, and there does not have to be a separate nomination for each article, though one recent time that we batched nominations, PuppyOnTheRadio complained because he didn't oppose them all. I know the Chief did not do it this way for the England clean-up, though I put a mention of that Forum in VFD. Spıke Ѧ 21:38 7-Sep-13

Very well. Makes sense, I suppose. Sir Reverend P. Pennyfeather (fancy a chat?) CUN VFH PLS 21:42, September 7, 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm wrong - not being a big Beatles fan - but as far as I can see Revolution 393 is actually a turd floating upstream. I'm not nominating for VFD because I rarely vote, so nominating seems disingenuous, but I usually suggest at least 20% of an article needs to be redeemable to be worth keeping and then rewriting. I found nothing in this worth keeping. (The Cockroaches were a much better band in my opinion. And had more longevity.)                               Puppy's talk page11:30 08 Sep 2013
Several phrases are worth keeping and rephrasing. For example, the fact that bad music is called "experimental". But, yes, the article is full of author's opinion about the song. Anton (talk) 15:29, September 8, 2013 (UTC)
Personal tools