Forum:Forest Fire Month

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Forest Fire Month
Note: This topic has been unedited for 2966 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Anybody who's visited the VFD lately will've noticed the large amounts af articles being posted just from category:aliens alone, and the few amounts of "keep" votes being given to them. Most of them should've been NRV'd and QVFD'd when they were created, but they weren't. Then they should've been FFW'd, but they weren't. And that large amounts of these articles exist in many categories means that there are hundreds of crap, useless, unfunny articles that were'nt deleted in the Forest Fire Week, and seeming as only 1413 articles were deleted over a period of 168 hours, a longer time would be needed to delete all these. So this is why I propose a Forest Fire Month. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 16:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree

Score: +11
  • Yes, yes, yes, vive le forest fire month! Kokot.kokotisko 13:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 16:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • AF-FIR-MA-TIVE. If not a month, then another week to mop up the dregs of the last FFW. I'm ready to do my part. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 17:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Definitely. Or we could just have Shandon fix up every bad article on the site. He's pretty damn good at saving NRV and VFD. -- Sir C Icons-flag-us Holla | CUN 18:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Fires are pretty, especially with iArticles in them. --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 08:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Of Course. There aren't a lot of NRVs that spark good ideas these days anyway. --- Jaques Pirat IS NOT FRENCH! TP, F@H 19:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • For I'm in FF mode 98% of the time, anyway.........Rad 19:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I knew there was a reason I liked you. (Besides the Xtreme Potatochop Slutting) --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 13:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Sir Sikon [formerly known as Guest] 16:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • For, or maybe one week every 6 months so I don't get bored of using the QVFD page all the time. --Sbluen 06:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • KILL 'EM ALL oh yah and...AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. --Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 12:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • For, particularly because a week is just far too short, and an entire month allows for more people to help rid of the shit. --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 23:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • For, and we also need to burninate a bunch of the hateful and unfunny stuff being added. Really. There's a lot of hate speech that isn't funny, libel that isn't funny, and similar, that has been added lately. It's like the-site-that-I-will-not-name sent all their members here to add hateful stuff to our site like they have on their site. We probably also need another admin or two, I just haven't seen any that I would support lately...except one that needs to be symbolically made an admin. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 05:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagree (and reasons why)

Score: +8
  • A helluva lotta mediocre to good articles were undeservingly deleted in that meat-cleaver massacre alone[1], today I helped to prolong the life of a few articles that wouldn't have been given a second thought in that hellfire. Which is why I say no forest fires period. Um, isn't QVFD enough anyway? Mr. Briggs Inc. 17:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Eh?
    • Comment No. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 17:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The more they die the stronger they become. Btw. we need to put down their authors in the first place so that they go back to wikipedia. Kokot.kokotisko 13:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Against if there are lots of articles in the VFD and QVFD doesnt that mean that the system is working. why go in with a flamethrower and hit come crap along with some good stuff. If it isnt broke dont try to fix it, youl just end up making it worse.--Sir Silent Penguin Penguin foot "your site makes no sence" The illusion is complete 17:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment My point is the system isn't working. If it was working then I wouldn't've even thought of this idea in the first place. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 17:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment well why dont you try to put more emphisis on the system rather than try to just delete everything in sight, perhaps the sight needs more admins to help out, or somthing, forest fire doesn't work either. try to come up with another solution rather than just ripping the site to shreads.--Sir Silent Penguin Penguin foot "your site makes no sence" The illusion is complete 17:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Retort. No, it isn't. You see, QVFD is only a worthwhile endeavor when two factors coincide: a.) you must have users (like myself, Ghelae, Sbulen, and others) who continuously scour the "Recent Changes" log, the "New Pages" list, the "Dead-End Pages list," and even the "Short Pages" and "Orphaned Pages" lists for any instance of vanity/slander/racism/plagiarism/general stupidity (as there's a fuckton of such pages hidden on this site!), and b.) you must have admins that are willing to monitor the QVFD pages (if not actively scour said hunting grounds themselves.) This is all well and good until you realize that the sheer influx of utter shit is moving much faster than even the most vigilant of QA watchdogs can catch. Hence the fact that there are still plenty of substandard articles scattered around the site, left to be discovered like rotten Easter Eggs. The purpose of the Forest Fire Week was to shift the focus of every gun-toting admin to the monitoring and speedy deletion of crap, be it new or old. Essentially it was a week where they were given carte blanche to delete as they saw fit, judging by the acceptable standards of the site. As far as "worthwhile" content being deleted, well... that's the breaks of trying to add during the Burning Season. Also, many such articles were restored after polite requests by the authors, so I have no sympathy for people who apparently didn't care enough to even ask to have their work restored. And as far as your "helping prolong the life" of certain articles on VFD, that's great. On the whole, however, I think that regular purges of substandard material (substandard according to the established definitions of what passes for humor according to both administratorial edict and popular concensus of voting users) are an excellent idea and serve a valuable purpose. Perhaps it's a harsh way to keep up the quality, but it seems to work just fine. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 17:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Another Retort in case the above was too long to read How does the process of Forest Fire Week/Month "rip the site to shreads"? If there is an article which shouldn't've been placed of the FF list, and admin will remove it, therefore no articles which shouldn't've be deleted won't be. Ultimately, my point was that too many articles clogging up VFD, and almost all of the entries unamimous agreement to delete them, means that we have lots of articles which are of too poor quality to stay on Uncyc, and they aren't being gotten rid of quick enough. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 17:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
        • We must put down their authors. Kokot.kokotisko 13:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Against. We are doing fine. The average quality of the articles has been increasing for months. Sysop one or two more users or make another FFW in a couple of months, that's enough. Gheale, are you trying to excecute your treat to huff the whole wiki? As moses once said: Let my wiki grow!---Asteroid B612B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 18:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • We JUST HAD a freaking Forest Fire week. Not my fault that Ghae was'nt here for the fun. —Sir Major Hinoa [TALK] [KUN] 16:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment What do you mean I wasn't here? And you spelt "wasn't" wrong. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 17:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's me who missed the fun. Kokot.kokotisko 13:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • A quarterly FFW would be better than going apeshit for a whole month. Or have permanent FF but have it set up like them hi-falutin' nucular missile silos, where two admins have to agree to kill the wiki. This would, hopefully, avoid or minimize trigger happiness among rogue nations, erm, admins. Not that I don't trust admins...it's just that I don't trust anyone I can't see. Modusoperandi 17:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • A permanant Forest Fire is what we need! That would mean that we rmv QVFD (as anything which falls under that category should just be burninated in the FF), and NRV may go, so good idea! ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 17:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Against. Admins can just delete sheer cruft without vfd stuff anyway. Do you suppose we want more admins? --Chronarion 17:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • No, but it may help. And a FFW or and FFM wouldn't just be for cruft and the like. It would also be used for articles that should've been NRV'd, but weren't. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 17:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Against. FFW was fun, and I enjoyed requesting crappy articles for deletion. But sometimes promising articles got deleted, and that should be avoided. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 00:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment If there are any asrticles you think shouldn't've been deleted, then you could always Ask An Admin™. Anyway, see the idea above (somewhere) about one-or-two trusted admins to burn the FFM logs on the fire, instead of the whole lot, so admin discretion is more... ore less, depending on the way you look at it. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 06:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I always oppose forest fire week. The effort put into mass deletions, if applied towards improving articles, would be far more effective in raising the overall quality of Uncyclopedia. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment You have a point, but most of us are too lazy (like me) to put that effort into improvement, and deletions look better in the recent changes, and shift it along more. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 07:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Personal tools
projects