Forum:VFD is broken

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 03:49, May 20, 2013 by Simsilikesims (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > VFD is broken
Note: This topic has been unedited for 333 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.
VFD is broken. I have known this for some time, but I needed proof, because I know many people will dismiss my point of view as being "overly deletionist". But now I have that proof.
VFDAug252012
Fig 1.0

If you draw your attention to the vote captured in Fig 1.0 you will see exactly the way in which it is broken. The current rules of VFD require a minimum of +5 for deletion. This minimum was introduced at the height of Uncyclopedia's popularity, when we many more active voting users. In now times the minimum means that one keep vote may totally stop the deletion of an article.

Let's get rid of the +5 minimum requirement and return to the old system. The old system had no "requirement", but instead left the decision to the judgment of whichever admin happened to be passing by. The new system was designed for a huge community, but the old system helped grow that huge community in the first place. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 05:45, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

Vote: Remove the +5 minimum requirement for deletion of VFD?

Score: +8
  1. Obviously -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 05:45, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
  2. Symbol EXTERMINATE vote small ANOTHER EXCUSE FOR MASS DELETION SPREES --fcukmanLOOS3R! Desu desu 05:47, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
  3. k ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Icons-flag-au 06:42, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
  4. Against. Most VFD contributers bandwagon vote. Also most who vote are hardly 'top gun' contributers who'll carefully consider the nominations in between writing their masterpieces. This slight weight towards keeping articles is not significant within the culture of the site in recent years. It might be worthwhile considering that the community has thinned as has the requirements to delete other peoples work.--Sycamore (Talk) 12:01, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
  5. Against. Just because the current number of contributors and voters is small doesn't mean that it won't be larger, even later in the year. Besides, now that we have fewer people writing articles, the deletion of existing articles would seem to discourage writing articles rather than encourage it. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 19:47, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
  6. Symbol neutral vote Abstain. The +5 minimum is only recommended. Articles have been deleted in the past with scores of 4 and sometimes even 3. --Pwn head Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 19:49, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
    I was unaware of that. Several months ago, I got complaints on my talkpage for not strictly adhering to the "requirements". I have indeed deleted pages with scores of +4 in the past, but only ones that I had not yet voted on, thus making the fifth vote implied. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 02:50, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
  7. Just as how the limit was raised from 15 to 20 when we now are lucky to get 5, another archaic VFD guideline that hinders productivity and rewards the dramatic. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 04:35, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
  8. Yeah. Cat the Colourful (Feed me!) Zzz Sleeping Cat 05:29, 28 August, 2012 (UTC)
  9. PurpleDickVote Boner. -RAHB 05:31, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
  10. PurpleDickVote Boner. Haha, dicks. But seriously, this is stupid and always was stupid. Ethine sig  05:44, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
  11. Symbol against vote Against. Might seem odd that as one who has often been eager to cast out an offending article, I am not keen for us sliding from voting for deletion to letting an admin decide. Perhaps 5 is too many right now so suggest as an experiment lowering it to 4 for now. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 06:46, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
  12. Symbol keep vote For. Note that I'm using the Symbol keep vote Keep. template for no reason. —qzekrom.net16.net clicky! 18:04, August 29, 2012 (UTC)
  13. Symbol for vote For.--Bp2611 23:02, August 29, 2012 (UTC)
  14. For. Delete everything. -OptyC Sucks! Icons-flag-us CUN01:06, 30 Aug
  15. Symbol for vote Reluctant for I get the feeling this is going to spiral out of control, but what the hell. EpicAwesomeness (talk) 06:55, August 30, 2012 (UTC)
  16. Symbol for vote For. I said this two years ago, but none of you listened. --ChiefjusticeXBox360 18:45, August 30, 2012 (UTC)
  17. Obviously for. I don't know about you, but I think that if a crappy article is voted to be deleted, it shouldn't really matter by how much. I do think, however, that the +5 vote threshold should be replaced by a 5 user threshold, so that rather than restricting hotly debated deletions with the vote limit, we can only allow articles with 5 or more total votes (delete, keep, or anything) or 10 votes (I think 10 may be fairer) to be deleted, so as to ensure the whole community gets a fair say. ---...- 19:48, August 30, 2012 (UTC)
  18. Symbol for vote For. The +5 rule is arbitrary and dumb. But mostly arbitrary.  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  formspring) 06:43 Aug 31, 2012
  19. Against because 50% of delete votes appear to be from people haven't read the article. mAttlobster. (hello) 07:52, September 1, 2012 (UTC)
    Bad faith, plus 80% of keep votes are self-proclaimed bandwagoners who read even less of the article. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 22:15, September 1, 2012 (UTC)
  20. Symbol for vote For. Having a fixed minimum for an article to be deleted, such as the +5 rule, can easily lead to what's portrayed in the example, especially if that many users don't actually get involved with VFD. IMO as long as most of the voters agree with the deletion, again portrayed in the example, then that's fair enough. Sir Georgie Harangue Mediocracy 18:00, September 2, 2012 (UTC)
  21. Symbol against vote Against. I might support reducing the minimum required deletion majority to 3, which I thought it was de facto already reduced to by allowing admins some discretion on the matter. I will not, however, condone reducing the required deletion majority to zero and potentially allowing articles to be deleted because one or two people vote delete and an admin drops by that thinks it's utter shit that has no place on this wiki. Humour is subjective, and some articles that are liked by a considerable amount of people may seem like a giant turd to a group of other people. There's nothing wrong with having safety measures installed to avoid rash deletions. If said safety measures require updating (because the userbase has shrunken, for instance), then update them, but don't annihilate them altogether. Sir SockySexy girls Mermaid with dolphin Tired Marilyn Monroe (talk) (stalk)Magnemite Icons-flag-be GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 23:14, 6 September 2012
  22. Symbol comment vote Comment. I'm for dropping the minimum down to +3 deletion, but I'd rather see a percentage figure used as a deciding factor. 70%+ in favour of deletion makes more sense to me. That means a deletion would require 3:0, 4:1, 5:2, 6:2, 7:3, etc requirement. This allows the flexibility for increasing number of users voting and getting a clearer idea of user base consensus. This limits the "excuse to delete articles" argument, as it's a clear majority. I'd also be inclined to remove the 24 hour limitation on votes to delete on a +5 to delete within the 24 hour timeframe. We use a similar system with the article health on VFH and the 3 day/-3 vote system. It's more complicated, but the calculation can be automated as part of the VFD template (as the template already does calculations for us, so this is nothing new.) having said that, the quality of our article base has been moving steadily toward more latter day style articles. There are a lot of articles that are considered "borderline" by current standards, but are on par with 05/06 FAs. For VFH to be predominantly stale, and for articles marked as {{fix}} to be at a minimum does not appear to be an issue. With the increase in patrolling and the FFW last year, the number of poor quality main space articles is the lowest I have ever seen it. VFH may be "broken", but in the bigger picture, it possibly doesn't need to be "fixed".                               Puppy's talk page12:51 07 Sep

Broken

“It's broken, VFD... broken.”

--Perv of the month Кıяву Тαгк Сойтяıвs 2012-08-31T00:31

Get rid of the +5 requirement

Oh wait, you said that. Also increase the minumum time (like two-three days) before deletion just to ensure that nothing is deleted with two votes after an hour or something. -OptyC Sucks! Icons-flag-us CUN03:39, 31 Aug

Personal tools
projects