Forum:New Template Idea

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 19:25, December 19, 2008 by Mnbvcxz (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > New Template Idea
Note: This topic has been unedited for 1944 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

This purely optional template is being proposed to mark out pages which may wind up on VFD, and politely warn authors of those articles that they are under consideration for VFD nomination.

This template exists mainly to say "does anyone want to keep to this article before I place it on VFD." Its purpose is to minimize fly-by-night deletions and fights on VFD and the resulting drama thereof. Currently, many articles are deleted within a couple days, if not hours of their nomination on VFD. However, the nominators of such articles may have been planning their nominations for several weeks without informing anyone. With the use of this template, the authors, and other interested, can be warned that a given page is under consideration for VFD.

In addition to minimizing drama, and pissing of newer authors because of fly-by-night deletions, this template should make VFD run more smoothly and quickly. By removing articles of disputed quality, fewer articles will languish on VFD, allowing more articles to pass through, and hopefully, minimizing any potential drama by removing the sense of urgency when discussing potential article deletion.

This template is designed for use by more experienced VFD nominators who keep lists of future VFD noms they intend to make. In fact, the work instructions etiquette rules require that the placer of this template watch the page and keep add the article to his/her VFD list. By the way, the name, CVFD, means Considering for Vote For Deletion.

Template itself with included work instructions

This optional template is a polite way of warning anyone interested in an article that you intend to nominate it for VFD in the future.

Etiquette for template:

  • Please only post this template on articles that can be nominated for VFD per the Deletion Policy.
  • If you use this template you MUST add the article to your watchlist, and maintain a separate list of all articles which you have placed this template on.
  • Please wait a while between placing this template and making your VFD nom, to allow people time to respond.

Is this template on your article?

If someone has placed this template on one of your articles, don't consider it an insult. They could have nominated the article for VFD without bothering with this template, but are trying to see if anyone is interested in it before they do. If you are, please leave a comment on the talk page.

Please note that is is a courtesy template and its use is completely optional; so merely removing it won't necessary stop the article from being nominated on VFD.

Usage: {{CVFD|YourUserNameHere}}
note, the red link goes to the talk page.

Explanation of Verboseness

The following is quite verbose explanation of how the template should work and various possible issues about it. It is not a list or rules, its mostly commentary on the template (why it looks how it looks) and a list of potential issues with it.


This template is designed to be as inoffensive as possible to the authors of the articles nominated for VFD. Additionally, the template is vauge, by design, of what will happen to the article if someone wants to keep it. Depending on the reaction of the article defender, it may be wise to let the article live, suggest a move to userspace, or even go ahead with a normal VFD against the author's objections. Some uncyclopedia members believe that one should try to minimize drama and author pissing-off at all costs, even at the expense at allowing VFD-quality articles to survive. However, there are instances in which a deletion should go forward even if it pisses of a fellow uncylcopedia member.

The template is designed to allow the placer or the template to either back off at the slightest objection or pursue a deletion in spite of objection. Basically, it avoids the two extremes of allowing any objector to take the article off a VFD list and the other extreme of commanding, "from on-high", a defense of the article. To avoid the first extreme, it asks for a objection to deletion, and does not promise that the article will remain on mainspace if an objection is raised. For example, mere deletion of this template will not take the article off of VFD. To avoid the other extreme, the template is as inoffensive as possible, and does not, in itself, ask for a defense of the article.

Suggested Use

This template does any not way effect the VFD procedure; it is merely a polite warning.

This following Flow Chart of the correct and "polite" use of this template. In each step, both the potential deleter, i.e. placer of the template, and the article defender, i.e. the person who thinks the article should be kept do what is suggested by ettiquette. It is not a list of rules, but just how suggestions on how to use this template politely and consistently with other users. Basically, its to show how it should ideally be used to get everyone on the same page when discussing the merits of the articles.

Step #1, Potential Deleter (abbr. P.D.) will place template, watch page, add to VFD list. At this point, the potential defender generally should not give reasons why the article should be deleted. Doing say may (depending on the situation) create unnecessary drama. The article Defender(s) (abbr. Def.) should then:

A) Not make any objection (i.e. nobody will defend the article). P.D. then should place the article on VFD.
B) say "I want to keep the article" in its talk page. Go to Step 4.
C) say "I want to keep the article" in its talk page and give reasons. Giving reasons for defense here is not required or expected, but may be helpful. It is the obligation of the P.D. to first say why the article should be deleted. Go to Step 4.

Step #2, The P.D. decides if the article is really that bad, or not:

A) the article isn't that bad and its not worth a VFD fight and the potential drama. The P.D. defenders removes template, and says "Ok, we should keep it" in article talk page.
B) The article really is that bad, the P.D. offers, up politely, why the article isn't up to Uncyclopedia's standards. Go to step #3.

Step # 3. The Def. thinks over the P.D. comments, and decides if the article really was worth keeping, the Def. will then

A) the article really was delete worthy. Say, that upon further reflection, the article is VFD worthy, P.D. then can place article on VFD, after waiting for any other defenders of the article
B) The article should be kept. Give reasons why the article should be kept, including (but not limited to) the following:
  • The P.D. is missing the joke
  • promise to improve the article
  • Inform the P.D. that this article is a well known in-joke
Go to step #4

Step # 4. The P. D. considers the comments of the Def, and decides if the article really should be kept.

A) The article isn't delete worthy. The P.d. removes the template, ect.
B) the article is, even considering the reasons for defense, vfd worthy. The P.D. responds to the comments of the Def. Go to step 5:

Step #5. The P.D. and Def. have a conversation about the VFD-worthiness of the article, either:

A) the P.D. concedes, because either the article really was good enough, or maybe, because the Def. will throw of fit if it in nominated. then removes template, ect.
B) the Def. concedes. Article stays on VFD list.
C) after a reasonable amount of discussion, neither concede. Article stays on VFD list. The P.D., may, using his judgment to determine if it will decrease, rather than increase drama; as a courtesy, tell the defender when he will nominate the article for VFD.

Suggestions for Dealing with the Improper Use of This Template

Again, these are suggestions, not rules. For most of this is just using your judgment.

Improper Use 1: Invalid Template Addition This occurs whenever the adder of the template lacks authority to currently nominate the article on VFD. Some examples would be on articles under 7 days old, articles with a construction tag, addition by an ip, et cetera. In these instances, the template should be removed with the comment of "invalid template usage" or something to that effect. If your feeling really gracious, you may make a comment about it on the article's talk page.

Improper Use 2: Orphaned Template This occurs when the adder of the template either fails to remove it, or disappears during the process, failing to make a required response. There is no hard and fast rule about how many responses should be made. However, the P.D. should say something in response to the Def. comments, even if its a little as "I'm sorry, but, even considering your comments, I still believe your article is not up to uncyclopedia's standards for mainspace articles" just to show s/he's read what was said.

Improper Use 3: Invalid Deletion of Template This occurs when a template is removed improperly, i.e. before the P.D.(s) and Def.(s) of the article have reached a decision. If this occurs before any response, it should be taken as saying "I want to keep this article" if the article isn't that delete worthy and isn't worth a fight over. Otherwise, it should be restored with a comment that the removal was invalid.

Potential Issues

Issue #1: Misuse of this Template as a reason for VFD survival

The first potential issue with this template would be arguing that the misuse of this template would be grounds for keeping an article on VFD. Since this template does not create new rules, and our purpose is not to have articles on technicalities, I would say that, per policy, the use, misuse, or abuse of this template is not grounds for invalidating a VFD nomination. However, if those on VFD want to save articles because the nominator is a dick, that is their decision.

Issue #2: Template Spamming

Additionally, there is a risk that this template could be spammed by newer users who don't keep records, or even ips. However, I don't see that as much of a problem. For one, anything could be spammed, including other deletion templates. (For example the ICU template, the Fix template, the VFD template.) This template is only a courtesy template, not a maintenance template, so spamming this template would cause less harm than most others. At worst, the following will happen:

  • This article is spammed, forgotten about by the placer, and not noticed by anyone. The result is a template on an article nobody cares about.
  • This article is spammed, and someone replies. The placer of this article then doesn't reply in turn. The person wanting to keep the article can then remove the template after a while without a reply.

Issue #3: Use for "VFD Fishing"

' Certain people might use this template as a means of "fishing" for VFD nominations. I would regard it as less than courteous to place an article on VFD nom if someone else (who is actually going to get around to making a VFD nom if nobody objects) has placed this tag on the article recently. I wouldn't say it rises to the level of "dickery" though. This might cause some perverse incentive by making the template a de facto "maybe VFD" category, and giving authors a reason to improperly remove it. It will also give spammers of this article a perverse incentive, by, again, making it a de facto "maybe VFD" category.

However, I don't see that as being too much of a problem. For one, "VFD nom-stealing" does no good. If someoone else is going to nominate an article on VFD soon, what good would it do to "steal the nomination" i.e. nominate an article for VFD that has someone elses CVFD tag on it.--Mnbvcxz 15:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


I might be missing something, but this seems like "paperwork" - you know how I feel about that. Also I fail to see how this will really help. I never nominate an article thats a work in progress I'll use either an ICU, Fix, Ugly etc. The ones I nominate are clearly abandoned by people who till have their sanity (irony implied) and so I don't think this will help - nice idea though:)--Sycamore (Talk) 15:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. While the basic idea is nice (ie - not to piss off writers) this is exactly why we enforce the VFD tag on everything that is put on VFD. No VFD tag (meaning - the writer doesn't know that this is up for deletion) = no deletion. And also - VFD isn't a guaranteed deletion. Using this one as policy will put it on top of VFD process, QVFD, ICU and five other maintenance tags, meaning - more bureaucracy. However, using that as a personal template (without expecting any guidelines to be used with this template) can be nice, if you think that you might offend the writer. ~ Mordillo where is my RAT'S COCK? 15:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Its a courtesy template, not a maintenance template. I am suggesting it as an optional template for experienced VFD users. Its basically the standardized equivalent of saying "does anyone object if I put this article on VFD". The problem with the VFD tag rule is that the time spend on VFD is generally much too short for anyone to notice that the article was on VFD. I'm also not trying to create guidelines as much as trying to trying keep everyone on the same page about what the template is for.--Mnbvcxz 16:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, it's a good idea - as long as it remains an optional template when we don't enforce the usage of it. While I agree that VFD run time is sometimes a bit short, the writer can always ask for a restoration to his user space when he can re work it and release it again. Out of my experience (both from the deleted and the deleting side) - this hardly ever happens. ~ Mordillo where is my RAT'S COCK? 16:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I sort of divided over how much etiquette standards are needed. The verbosity of the above section is more to explain how I hope this template will work and get everyone on the same page about what I am talking about rather than establish guidelines. If the etiquette standards are too verbose, then it might overwhelm the potential poster, possibly give vandals ideas, and turning the suggestions into the Most Holy Law of Uncyclopedia; but if they are too brief, you run the risk conflicts and potential drama arising over differing interpretations of how this template is to be used. I'm sorta leaning toward the keep the instructions short and let any issues be dealt with when they arise. Also, this template might be best kept on userspace and not mentioned on deletion policy pages to prevent it from being spammed by noobs (who might misuse it as a "hard fix" template)--Mnbvcxz 18:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Put it in the mainspace, but don't link it from anywhere. For now anyway... MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 20:59, Dec 8

this page

has a lot of words on it. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 23:15, Dec 8


Is any one opposed to mainspacing this, as is, with current work instructions? (Work instructions meaning what is on the template's page, NOT my explanation of verboseness.)--Mnbvcxz 19:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather you didn't but the Cabal will have the final say - this is just me repeating myself--Sycamore (Talk) 19:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Should we have a vote on it?--Mnbvcxz 19:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
No - lets not have some spiraling drama. Maybe have another read of what me and Mordillo have said to you. Theres a key flaw with this. Nobody should be nominating on VFD whilst an author is working on an article and this is yet more spam/complications for the site. I apprciate you've put time into this, but its just a bad idea.--Sycamore (Talk) 19:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Um, Mordillo said, "OK, it's a good idea - as long as it remains an optional template when we don't enforce the usage of it."Therefore, although he does some reservations about it, I'm assuming he's in favor of its use, at least as a userspace template.--Mnbvcxz 19:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
P.S. The purpose of this template is not to get in flame wars with authors or edit wars over adding this template. As a rule, I would follow the theory that any article which being defended shouldn't be placed on VFD (unless its really really really really bad, vanity, commercial spam, child pr0n, or the like). Most VFD noms don't have serious defenders, i.e. people that really want to keep the article. Its also not a process template, I am not suggesting that this template be needed to do VFD noms, so it really can't complicate the process. The only problem I would see is nomination stealing or fishing, see issue #3 above.
This might be a problem if this template says on an article for weeks because the placer has a very long VFD list. I would say, to solve this, after the template has been on for 5 (or whatever number, just so everyone is on the same page) days, its fair game and can be nominated by anyone without any "discourteousness", as long as nobody is clearly using this template as a de facto "where to find stuff to nom on VFD category"--Mnbvcxz 19:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Fact is VFD is sometimes too fast, and when users do find that their article has been deleted they may not realise that it can be recovered and moved to userspace. Placing this template on an articles page will send an e-mail to anyone who has their account set-up for that and is monitoring the page. This could well help bring a few old users back to the site. I know that some users do a great job of nominating for VFD, but others are also less experienced. This template should actually increase the actual throughput of the VFD page as it will reduce the number of articles placed on VFD which should not be there. I think we should go with a trial period and see what happens. Using whatlinkshere we can tell where the template is, and if ever we decide we want to totally remove it, I can do so with ease using MrN9001. I don't see any possible harm in it. If people don't want to use it they don't have to. MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 02:45, Dec 11
So, does that mean the consensus is in favor of the template? Two (or three, I'm not sure were mordillo stands) to one. I'm surprised that only 5 people commented on this.--Mnbvcxz 01:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I mean exactly what I said before - no objections on using that as long as it doesn't become policy - but rather something that you and others can use as a "nice to have thing" nothing more than that. And this should not interfere in any way with the VFD process ~ Mordillo where is my RAT'S COCK? 01:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, that is what I want to use it for. BTW, are you for mainspacing this or keeping it on userspace?--Mnbvcxz 01:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

So, do I have permission to mainspace it?

If nobody says anything, I'll assume I do.--Mnbvcxz 07:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

anything. MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 10:46, Dec 19
You don't count, you are somebody, MrN. Anything. There, now nobody said it. Colin Explode fireALL YOUR BASEExplode fireHeaney! Casa Bey Superfly Portfolio 18:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
It looks like I waiting awhile on User:Nobody to come into create his account and give me permission to mainspace this.--Mnbvcxz 19:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Personal tools