Forum:Idea for VFD
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Someone on IRC brought up a thought that "If an article hits a total of five votes and has three more delete votes than keep votes, it should be deleted." That seemed like an awfully close vote to me, which made me think about close votes on VFD in general. If someone votes to keep an article, clearly they must see SOME hope for it. Maybe that person/those people might be willing to fix up the article until it's no longer VFD material.
So here's what I propose. We create a template for articles that survive VFD, on the one condition that someone volunteers to work on them and/or rewrite them if necessary. If the article isn't fixed within a certain amount of time, it gets vaped. Huffed. Deleted. Kind of like ICU for existing articles, only without the automatically resetting timer.
What does everyone think? I'd even be willing to write up a template and put it into circulation, if people want. --05:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmmmmmm... that kind of supposes an objective reality as to whether an article is really good or not. In most cases that get keep votes, the keep voters are of the opinion that the article as it stands is good enough to keep. While many of the delete voters are never going to like the article however much work the keep voters put in. So you can't really say whether it's definitively good or not, just how many people like it, which is a rough guide when an admin is choosing whether the vote merits a huff or not. Imposing definite vote numbering standards is also not necessarily helpful in this delicate business, although I'd be open to persuasion on that point.
- (Personally, I'd like it if we were more slanted towards keeping articles if enough people like them, but I realise that's not a popular opinion!)
- Oh, and by the way, if someone really wants to work on an article, they can always ask an admin to unhuff it and put it on their userspace for working on. --Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 09:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Before we implemented the voting tables people used to vote "rewrite" sometimes. That was a huge mess, it was usually unclear if the voter ment "rewrite shortly or else delete", "keep it as it is, but add rewrite tag", "delete and write something else instead" or any other nuance. We had to stop it couse it became too confusing and unproductive, admins just interpreted the "rewrite" votes the way they felt or ignored them completly. We even had long and meaningless discussions on the true and ultimate signification of the word rewrite. I say we stick to the "delete" or "keep" options. You can always rewrite an article wether it is kept or not. However, I agree articles should be deleted only if there is a clear majority for it, and if it's close to a tie the least dramatic option (keep) wins.---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 16:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I think a feature planned for a future version of mediawiki is a deletion queue. It's like deletion, but with a delay where it could be challenged. It might be possible to say, "if you rewrite this you can contest the deletion". • Spang • • 01:14, 14 Jul 2007