Forum:VFD 'Trial Run'

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > VFD 'Trial Run'
Note: This topic has been unedited for 3460 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Okay then, we're coming to the end of 'VFD History Month' and the little 20 article trial run. So what happens now? Vote for whether this should be kept or not? Or do we just abandon the whole idea and go on our merry little way? BonSig.png (Bonner) Icons-flag-gb (Talk) Feb 29, 20:36

We declare Canada as a monarchy and ZB as the heir-apparent. ~Jewriken.GIF 20:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

According to my "information" which was obtained from my secret spy network OK I looked through {{VFDarchive}} (using the date of the initial nom) we got 324 articles through VFD in January, and 347 to the time of this post in February. There are also 20 articles currently on the page. Some other points which I think are worth noting include the general craziness voting wise we had in January, and the fact that we changed the deletion/keep process a little on the 10th of Feb after a discussion on the VFD talk page. Now I did not get the best of grades in Maths at school, so I will not comment on the accuracy of these figures, or the significance of any other factors which may affect them. I'm also drunk. Obviously. MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 22:20, Feb 29

I vote we keep the 20 article limit, until people feel that it needs to be changed again. Just like I voted for last time. And pretty much everyone else. Spang talk 22:59, 29 Feb 2008

  • Now, as I'm sure we all know, I'm the villain in this movie. All you wee little kiddies just want to run through the rye, and I'm not going to stop any of you from running off the cliff. Or some kind of metaphor like that. Basically, I was against raising the limit, and I still am. Firstly, the difference of 23 articles (we can probably just call it 20, to account for any mistakes MrN9000 seems to think he may have made counting) isn't significant, and can easily be explained by good Poop-smithing, fluctuations in the number of voters, quality of articles found by nominators, and the length of time spent debating each individual article. If I recall correctly, it was in February when some fool thought it would be a good idea to nominate a bunch of short articles, just to stop all the constant whining, causing those articles to sit around VFD for about a week, "clogging the flow". Secondly, VFD isn't really about quantity, is it? Its like VFH in reverse. We're looking for the cream of the crap. The changes made on the 10th haven't yet had their full effect, and I feel that if we go back to a limit of 15, we will better be able to enforce a "don't nominate the borderline crap that can be saved" attitude. As part of this, I purpose some kind of structure be put into place that assists rewriters in finding articles to rewrite, as Category:Rewrite is in terrible shape at the moment. With such a format, we could put the "borderline crap" articles through, say, 15 day of "Please rewrite", before nominating them for VFD. I dunno, that's just an idea. But the real point is that I think we should go back to 15 articles on VFD. This test has only swayed my opinion farther in that direction. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 23:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I like ZB's "15 days to rewrite" idea. Also, how many more articles were nominated in total to be deleted, whether or not they were actually deleted? I'm interested in seeing if it was significant gap between how many more articles were nominated in total - if there was one, it probably means that people were nomming articles for the sake of maximizing the nominations to the 20 article limit more than nominating articles that were actually unquestionably deletable. -- §. | WotM | PLS | T | C | A 23:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Those 'figures' are for total throughput of VFD. I have no idea how many were deleted or kept. To be honest, in such a short period of time I don't think any sort of statistical analysis could really prove anything useful. Also, I'm too lazy to count em. MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 00:03, Mar 1
Ah, OK. I thought that you were just counting articles that had been deleted, rather than total articles nominated. In that case, this was almost surely not a success, if not a failure. -- §. | WotM | PLS | T | C | A 01:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Something i've liked about this trial run, is being able to go to VFD at various times in the day and still finding space to nominate things. When the article limit was 15 you didn't see that kind of flexibility. I have got through a good chunk of crap this month simply because there has been space to nominate it rather than having to rush in when VFD is poopsmithed and do it in a mad panic before the space is taken. Therefore I am thoroughly For keeping the extended limit. On another note I like ZB's idea on the borderline VFD stuff. Maybe we should make a tag for this or something? And extend the limit from 15 days to a full month to allow people time to work on it. BonSig.png (Bonner) Icons-flag-gb (Talk) Mar 1, 10:54
I pretty much agree with Bonner here. In addition, when the contentious stubs were nominated early in the month, the 20 article limit was pretty much the only thing keeping the queue moving at all, otherwise it would have stagnated in a pool of tug-o-war votes. I do like the idea of a more proactive rewrite tag for borderline cases - I'm sure we save a few articles because they have potential, but that potential never then gets realised. However, this will only work as long as people keep an eye on this potential new category. Overall though, I think the 20 article trial worked well, and would be for keeping it. --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 11:38, Mar 1
The reason that I chose 15 days when I was coming up with that rewrite idea off the top of my head was the fact that we already have {{Expand}}, {{Fix}}, and {{Ugly}} (along with many others, such as {{anti-list}}), all of which (though not used as much as they probably should be used) are on a 30 day limit, and are deleted after going a full month without edit. So, if you want to just keep things that are "borderline crap" for 30 days, we can just keep the tag system we already have. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 14:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I certainly didn't see any problems arising from the increase in the limit, so I am for keeping the limit at 20. Icons-flag-au Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 12:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as there is a limit, I'll be happy. I remember back in the day when there was no limit at all, and how much of a pain it was to get through to vote, let alone what Gwax had to go through to decide on it. In short, Symbol neutral vote abstain. —Hinoa talk.kun 21:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep it at 20. It seems to be working pretty well, and my obsessive compulsiveness like the nice round number 20. Optimuschris 21:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep It is now much easier to find space on VFD. When it was 15, I would find something really sucky and check out VFD, and if it was full, would probably just forget about it. Now there is almost always space. - UnIdiot | Talk? | Theme - 23:05, Mar 1

Keep --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 23:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Another issue

I'd like to set a minimum vote for deletion. At the moment I only remove articles that reach 5 for deletion votes (including subtraction of against deletion votes). I'd think that in any case that an article get less than that, it should be kept. Also, re-deletion nomination should not be repeated for at least 30 days. How about it? ~Jewriken.GIF 11:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

/me' coughs[1] and smiles innocently... I'm also in favour of doing something to cut down on repeat nominations, perhaps even within a greater than 1 month time frame. Personally I would also like to see the guidelines changed to refer to 'What links here' rather than (or as well as) the talk page and history to indicate past nominations... 'What links here' will link to a VFD archive page (if it's been on VFD before), whereas the article history, and talk page are less reliable. MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 13:58, Mar 2

My say in all this

ZB, what exactly has gone wrong with raising the limit to 20? Others, what were the benefits of raising the limit? As far as I see it, it needs to be quantified as a gains/losses equation rather than a "all the people not doing the work liked it, but the guy doing the work didn't". Voting sucks when you're the sheep in a wolf's den and it's time to vote on dinner. As I see it...

Benefits of limit of 20 instead of 15

  • It APPEARS to keep the flow moving with fewer logjams, though more logjams could develop as a result of this and there could be underlying problems that need to be resolved other than the 20 article limit.

Problems with limit of 20 instead of 15

  • More work for the admin, maybe? I'm not seeing any, but I'm also not really paying attention.

Feel free to add to these lists until we get something clearer to help build consensus. As I recall, we agreed to move the limit back to 15 REGARDLESS on March 1 and we'll hold the debate with the limit there.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 14:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, the original vote to increase the limit was 22 for (2 admins), and 2 against (2 admins, one of which is now also for). I reallly don't see why there's still any question about it. Spang talk 14:47, 02 Mar 2008
I'm just trying to make sure ZB feels like he's had his say, that's all. And we did agree to bump it up and then move it back to have the debate, but as you say, more people support it now than did then, so yeah, it's pretty much a done deal at this point.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 15:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Psh. I guess we're raising it to 20. The thing is, I didn't really see any change at all in the month of February, and the fact that 20 more articles got through than in January doesn't really seem to mean anything positive or negative. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 17:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Personal tools