Uncyclopedia talk:Votes for deletion/archive1

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

VFD weirdness

I've been having problems with VFD all day. It's duplicating sections that I didn't even touch in my edits, deleting comments I haven't come near, deleting the entire contents of the archive, and now it looks like Splaka's having trouble as well. I'm fairly certain not all of the messed-upedness is my fault, though some of it may well be, but I don't know why the page has been acting so oddly. Perhaps its bloated size is leading to errors? --Rcmurphy KUN 07:32, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

If you are having a problem, the proper place to report it is on the Uncyclopedia:Report_a_problem page. See the link to the left. ;)
At least, that's where I put my problem which seems very similar to yours. I think this is an actual wiki bug which occurs when editing (even small sections of) really large pages. As I noted, Carlb once blanked an edit of mine somewhere, and had no idea how he had done it. I think it was on the Community portal, when we had a massive bloat of comments there, before moving to the dump. Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 21:43, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Striking Things

It seems that the </s> needs to be on a new line otherwise the strike-through escapes and wreaks havoc among the innocent sidebar links and such. --Spintherism 16:43, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I'm kind of confused - this striking of mine looks fine to me, and doesn't seem to be messing anything up. Yet you indicated that you were cleaning it up due to "rampant Strike Throughs". I see from the history where you dropped the end-strike down a line, but on my screen, there is absolutly no difference. Can you post a screenshot or something? And what are you using for a browser? And does anyone else have issues with this? --Famine 01:17, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I'm using Safari, so I wouldn't be surprised if your browser reads things differently. Here's a screenshot of the stricken page [1] for your viewing pleasure:
--Spintherism 04:51, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC)


Wow - that's god damned nifty. Amazing! Now my assumption is that this is a bug in Wikimedia, not in Safari, but I could be wrong. I might go snooping around looking for other people having this issue. I use Mozilla Firefox, and it's not an issue. I'm wondering if anyone else with other browersers can comment. Speciffically Opera and IE, but also Konqueror. Maybe I'll fire up my linux box and check that sometime soon.

Thanks for the sshot - that really is crazy. I'll try to remember to put my end-strikes down a line. --Famine 21:04, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Looks fine in Opera 8.01. --Rcmurphy 21:07, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Safari 1.2.4 on OS X 10.3.7 here and I get lines thru the edit buttons etc., below the edit form after I preview. The lines continue to the end of the page. ==Marcos_Malo S7fc | Talk 09:04, 10 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I just checked again, and I am indeed getting the lines when viewing "normally" and they infect the sidebar, but not the templates.--Marcos_Malo S7fc | Talk 09:08, 10 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Orphaned Pages

I cleaned out some vanity links from Romania and Estonia, but forgot what all the links were. Went in through Orphaned pages and found and whacked them, but got sidetracked and went through and whacked bunch of the orphans as well. I tried to leave those which were good, and had short, potentially linkable names. I also tried to leave those which made me laugh out loud, or which were recent additions, or had multiple collaborative editors.

Anyway, I whacked a lot of orphans, and will probably do more when I get around to it. If you have issues with me whacking this much stuff, let me know. --Famine 21:01, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think about half of the pages on the site need to be huffed without mercy. Commence the whacking, I say. --Rcmurphy 22:00, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've been thinking the same thing, but I wasn't brave enough to huff with no remorse. I have been hardned by the orphan pages, I think. Looking at how much we get in additions each day, I feel better about whacking a bunch of stuff. Especially if it's crappy. I just don't want to alienate too many people. Only the really crappy writers. ;) --Famine 19:02, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Damn these block-compressed revisions. Is there a fix out yet? They are driving me nuts! --Famine 19:58, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Voting time window

So, how long are we going to keep the voting open on these pages before action is taken? 3 days? a week? Other suggections? --PantsMacKenzie 11:16, 10 Mar 2005 (EST)

i think 10 lightyears should be good. --Metaphysical 12:07, 10 Mar 2005 (EST)

ten lightyears is a bit much, I think a lightweek should be long enough (t=x/c) --Towr 12:09, 10 Mar 2005 (EST)

I suggest that we vote to a minimum of 4 votes or if someone gets bored and feels like deleting. 3 days seems good. --Chronarion 13:30, 10 Mar 2005 (EST)

I've put up the article to be deleted. Please all vote for its deletion! Curvybianca 17:14, 11 Mar 2005 (EST)

After 3 days bury it, just like a dead body.-- 00:42, 22 Mar 2005 (EST)

I submitted Anime Nerd for deletion yesterday, and now the submission is completely gone. It's not even struckthrough or in either of the archives. What gives? --EvilZak 16:54, 26 Mar 2005 (EST)

David the Lastnameless and Pae Do and Paedophile and Cthulhu and Cthulu are all getting on for 2 weeks old now given that all have a majority of keeps (even Pae Do and Paedophile). I know I'm not an admin but I could see no reason to keep the sword of damaclese (sp?) hanging over them. Therefore I've struck them through and removed an {{vfd}} tags from the respective pages, if I've been naughty I'm sure I'll hear about it and my changes can be reverted. I was even careful to make the changes in one edit rather than my usual style of editing something then spotting a mistake and re-editing it. --Elvis 11:16, 10 May 2005 (EDT)


I am just trying to figure this out by example, and I am unsure of a few things:

When you add a page, does that count as a vote or are you supposed to vote too?

And when you nominate a page for deletion, are you supposed to put a notice on that page?

Add a vfd tag to the page and here. --Chronarion 19:41, 11 Mar 2005 (EST)

Two VFDed articles make it to the highlights page! How proud. We glow with satisfaction, prince. --Chronarion 14:02, 16 Mar 2005 (EST)

This is just my humble rant, but imho don't really dumb pages belong somewhere? I mean obviously we can't have a really dumb page taking up something that someone would have something really funny to put there but... same for vandals. There should be a page that everybody just vandalizes. That way the urge is taken care of. But about all these 'vfd' pages--if you have something funnier to write and it's tagged, how about just replacing the article? I mean better a stupid article than no article at all right? Or am i off-base here? Anonymous Koward

Pretty much, we rewrite the page if we can, and trash it if we can't. The thing is, there's still a link in the system, so the next person to write it just clicks and has a clean slate to write on. --Chronarion 01:04, 22 Mar 2005 (EST)

True. But the person who put it there obviously thought it funny. I'm for deleting pages outright if there's absolutely *no possible humor at all*, but as long as it's funny to four people and we've got nothing better yet, it's not going to kill us to leave it there. I'm still for the vandalism page ;) Anonymous Koward

See Vandalism --Chronarion 21:23, 22 Mar 2005 (EST)

Deletion vs. Delete and plough over with salt

I think that some pages seem so completely devoid of potential that they need to be both deleted and have any links to them remove to discourage people from attempting to write them again. Anyone else think this, or am I just on some kind of sick power trip? --Machinecurse 01:19, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)

Yes, you're on a sick power trip, and so am I because I've done exactly that. --Uvula Donor 11:30, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)
I agree. For example, the author of Rich Scanlon spent more time link spamming than he did plagurizing the article. I stared down the what links here list getting rid of the links, but I only got down about a quarter of the way before I gave up. It looks like the list [2] has been killed a bit more since then. Exactly what you were talking about has happend to Rich, someone (Y ahora tu) has followed a link, and started the page up again. So yah, if you have time, I think all links should be deleted. --Paulgb 15:04, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)
Scanlon cruft tracked down and killed. --Uvula Donor 15:20, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)

Hi guys, I'm sortof a noob at this, but have contri'ed some popular pages, I'm just kinda worried that all my bad linking is making alot of work for the edit crew, does every time I make a bad link create a new page, or does a Hells Angel get his wings? lemme know, if so I'll try to be more careful and respectful of your worshipsfulnessesses--slack 18:30, 15 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Do you mean when you make a link thats red? Like this? If thats what you mean, there is no porblem with it, it just gives someone else the oppertunity to create that page. It does not give the server or the edit crew any extra work --Paulgb Talk 19:24, 15 Apr 2005 (EDT)
BUT! I'd recommend not linking random phrases like "linking random phrases," because that kind of page (often) either breeds stupid humor or will remain empty because no one wants to touch it. I've looked through some of your pages and I don't see anything like that, though. --Rcmurphy 19:32, 15 Apr 2005 (EDT)

The red link thang... that's what I mean, good, I haven't been linking just random stuff, but good like Pieces of eight Thanks P to tha biz-e (trying too hard to sound black) And thanks Murph I try to please, have I mentioned this is the best and most addicting thing since crack? (said too much) BTW is 2 FUCKTARDS pages too many, I tried to make mine something different --slack 20:04, 15 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Me again...um if I were to attempt to link to a page, do I have to use the EXACT word, or is there a way to link to content, or a different tense, or plural form with say I wanted to "link" some links--slack 20:56, 16 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Use [[exact page you want to link to|word or phrase you want the link to look like]]. Example: "I'm going to go [[Kitten huffing|snort some kitten]]" will appear as "I'm going to go snort some kitten" but will link to the Kitten huffing page. --Rcmurphy 21:43, 16 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Awesome, thanks again Murph!--slack 14:39, 17 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Quality of VFD

I go away for a couple of weeks, and suddenly everyone is posting crap quality VFDs? What is up people? Previously the VFDs were so devoid of quality that it was amusing to come up with a comment scathing enough to fill out a Delete vote. Now all but one VFDs are unanimous Keeps. So are the pages getting better on average, or are people VFDing stupidly? And is that a rhetorical question? Who can tell? --Gadgeophile 03:41, 26 Apr 2005 (EDT)

The really crappy ones all go to QuickVFD now.-- 04:44, 26 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Vote this page for deletion

This may be a stupid question but I'm curious has Vote this page for deletion actually been suggested for deletion (even to spite the author) ? 09:37, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)

That's sort of like the time I sent to the Guinness Book of World Records claiming to have the world record for the world records submission most likely to fail (They proved me right). Anyway, I sort of think the page should be deleted, just because that's the way of things. --Spintherism 17:34, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Gonna archive soon

I've gone through and actioned a load of the outstanding vfd's I'm gonna give it a day or so then archive the disscussions. --Sir Elvis KUN | Petition 21:10, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for alternate expansion of VFD

In keeping with the theme of uncyclopedia, how about "Votes for Firey Death".

I like it --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 02:47, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Who keeps deleting a lot of my articles without putting them on VFD or even QVFD first?

I'm getting awfuly pissed off about this. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 19:47, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Admins are empowered to delete QVFD-quality pages without a vote. I don't have the relevant new pages/deleted pages statistics on hand, but if you saw them, you would see why this is necessary. If you don't think a page should have been deleted, you can check Special:Log/delete and contact the responsible admin. --Spintherism 20:09, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
If we put everything on VFD or QVFD first, we'd have so much garbage the site would be useless. In October alone I believe we deleted over 6500 articles and yet we still ended up with a higher total than at the beginning of the month. I've always held that the main purpose of QVFD is for non-admin users to list pages that have no value, not necessarily so that there can be a vote. Many articles are also deleted via IRC vote among admins and other users, so just because there's no discussion on the site proper doesn't mean that there are admins wantonly deleting everything in site. --—rc (t) 20:17, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Probably myself, among others. I delete a lot of stuff. If you spent ages on it, and wish to complain, state your case on the deleter's talk page. If you spent less than 15 minutes on it, it probably deserved to die. If the articles you are complaing about are Eleventy and 31, you had better read this page before you edit any more pages. Because those were QVFD quality. Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 20:31, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
In specific, I was complaining about BBBBBBBBB! Besides, isn't it better to have a stub than no article at all? In my opinion, the admins are way too delete-happy.
In many cases, no, stubs are not better than no article at all, because many stubs are entirely stupid, and they will sit. And sit. And sit. And never be expanded. Or, if they are expanded, the expansion may be based on a lame stub premise that the expander doesn't feel that they can ignore. --—rc (t) 06:41, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Euroipods > Full VFHworthy article > chuckle-at-able article > good start to a chuckle-at-able article > red link > stub > undictionary entry > your mom > spam/vanity/slander. --Splaka 06:51, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Proposed name change

I move that we change the name of this page to "Uncyclopedia:I can't believe it's not Stupid!" following the precedent set by Uncyclopedia:RadicalX's Corner. This is because of the current flood of "I can't believe they're not Articles!" articles. --Nerd42 00:21, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I move that we change the name of this page to "Nerd42's Corner," following the precedent set by Uncyclopedia:RadicalX's Corner. --Spintherism 01:49, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

far as I know I've only had two or three of my articles deleted on VFD, which was after I first joined. I still think this page is too boring and ought to be made to look funny somehow.


The "Eye" logo of VFD

I've been reading A Series of Unfortunate Events by Lemony Snicket (both those articles currently suck by the way - not my fault! didn't write them but I'm working on it.) and I was thinking about writing an article on the secret organization in the books called VFD - but then realized that [VFD already stands for Vote For Deletion. I thought this was interesting and that we might have some fun with this, particularly because VFD is supposed to be an organization that fights fires or commits arson, depending on who you ask. (i.e. deletes articles or saves them) any ideas? (flammable already said (s)he didn't like it) --   Nerd42    chat  talk  h²g²  pedia  news  21:46, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Why the hell is it so hard for you to perceive that not every page on uncyc has to be funny? Besides, it's not that funny--ShroomsShroom!Gay2Sir Flammable KUN Prince%21.gif (Na Naaaaa...)Gay2Shroom!Shroomirror 21:50, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
In some cases utilitarianism is good. I think VFD is one of those cases. --—rc (t) 21:53, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
What about calling it the spanish inquisition vfd index? --Rataube 22:13, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
The name he proposed is fine too, but not the article, and the silly conspiration idea. --Rataube 22:16, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

"not every page has to be funny" -- Really!? Then why are unfunny pages deleted??? Now I'm really confused! --Nerd42Talk 23:13, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

hey! 2 of my pages got PWNED :(

Square-Enix (which wasn't deleted until after I adopted it - it used to suck) and V.F.D. (which was a parody of a major plot element in A Series of Unfortunate Events) both got deleted without due proccess of law. (or in other words, some admin deleted them without puttting them on QVFD or VFD or if they did I didn't know about it) Whats up wid dat?? --Nerd42Talk 22:45, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

How many times must it be splained, that admin don't have to add anything to the QVFD? That would be pointless. QVFD is for people without the power of huffination, to report things for insta-huffination. Due process for QVFD is clicking 'delete'. --Splaka 23:05, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
And looking at those two pages, I'd have to give an award to at least one of the guilty admins - both pages sucked ass. Instead of spending time complaining about your pages getting deleted, why don't you instead use that time to make them good so they don't get deleted? Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 23:13, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

question in all caps

Moved from main page:


Nationally Elected Gangsta Regulatory Organization gone!?!?

How did this happen!? That was the funniest article ever! --Nerd42Talk 21:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Because it wasn't an article. It was a single paragraph and a list of see-alsos. You really seem to be ignorant of what an article is - let me explain: An article is a page of information. It has like 5-6 solid, multi-sentence paragraphs of information, and generally has links to other pages, other pages link to it, and it has an image or two. With a witty caption. While I agree that the article in question was moderately amusing, it was not, by a long shot, the funniest article ever. Because it was not an article. Now that you know what an article is, why not try writing one. In fact, I highly recommend it. Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 23:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree but I think a merger with several of the other gangsta pages would have been a better solution than deleting the article, because this one was kind of the main article in the gangsta series and the basic idea was hillrious. If we were to include all teh gangsta pages in one article it would make a decent article, don't you think? --Nerd42Talk 04:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
No. Don't think so.--Gay4Gay5S P I N N I EGay5Gay4 18:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


Now I am upset! Page Strasbourg contained a Good Joke. Not with the best performance, but clearly worth keeping and developing. It got huffed since the majority of the voters (3 foo's) didn't get it. Probably because of a lack of education in quantum physics.

As a meritocrat I Now wonder about the best way to huff democracy. I could simply rewrite the entry my self, but since I am also a mystic I hope for a divine intervention. I just wait here for a while to see what happens.--Suresh 10:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll bring it back from the dead if you'll pinky-swear to expand it into something better. --Gay4Gay5S P I N N I EGay5Gay4 18:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I wanted to see if this worked - so now I better keep word. Bring it back and I'll try to expand the uncertainity theme...--Suresh 20:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

There --Gay4Gay5S P I N N I EGay5Gay4 18:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite Votes

I recently made a slight addenda to the policy for VFD votes that causes votes of rewrite to be considered meaningless. I have begun striking out such votes to discourage their use in the future. Some people have questioned my actions in these regards so I have decided to state my opinions on the matter and open things up for a more public discussion.

I consider rewrite votes to essentially be non-votes in that they basically say, I don't like this article but I do like this article. They also seem to be based on the false premise that people troll VFD looking for pages that need rewriting. When something is voted as rewrite, nothing special really happens to it but then we have to figure out whether they meant delete or keep when they said rewrite. The worst thing though, is that I've noticed a trend wherein most times when someone casts a vote of rewrite, all meaningful voting ceases and everyone else comes along and casts a rewrite vote as well.

Keep in mind that I have no qualms with dicussion on VFD and would rather like to encourage it; I just don't want people casting a meaningless vote as a means of duscussing things. In my opinion, votes should be cast on the article as is. If someone thinks that an article should be rewritten, then they can rewrite it themselves and put a note on VFD (the correct procedure is to rewrite the article, then surround the current votes in <s></s> and add a note that says the article has been rewritten). If people think the article has enough potential that it will inspire a rewrite eventually, they should add {{rewrite}} to the page and vote to keep it. Otherwise, it should receive a delete vote and when it becomes a red link, hopefully someone will eventually be inspired to write a new article.

It's a bit of a rant but that's my reasoning for trying to quell rewrite votes and I invite discussion from anyone as regards my reasoning or implementation. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 06:31, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Gwax on every word. Besides, too often, people vote rewrite for articles that are pure crap, only becouse their names are good and they could eventually be a good entry. I say, while waiting for the good entry, take the crap down!! It only disencourages future improvement!! A good name is not enough to consider an article as redeemable.--Rataube 11:08, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Ah, a re-write debate. I disagree with the idea that rewriting an article with a good name but bad content is somehow wrong - what makes "good name" is subjective. I was stoked to re-write Blue Meanies but stumped at how to make such articles as Adobe and Warhammer better. I enjoy trying to save articles, and I think VFD is a good place to find what's broken and fix it.
I do believe Gwax has a good point in terms of re-write messing up VFD function: if VFD serves as a clearing house for shitty articles that aren't shitty enough to be deleted immediately, then voting "rewrite" does gum up the works. Such a vote indicates the basic concept, but not the execution, is funny and worth pursuing, and makes things less clear.
I would advise against getting rid of the option for users to call for rewrites, but perhaps make it more clear what such a call demands. In my mind, if Unfunny Article A has four votes against and one for, then someone calls for a re-write, then the article should be re-written. Unless the re-write voter actually will commit to a re-write in a fixed time frame (i.e., a week?), then re-write shouldn't be a vote.
— — 2nd Lt. Sir Edward, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP 14:31, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
I'll make myself clear. Lets say there is an article called Homosexuality. Every one agrees that uncyclopedia must have such an entry (we are an encyclopedia after all). But the present article (hipotetically) contains nothing but pure and unredeemable crap. Don't vote rewrite, so to keep it only becouse of its name, commit yourself to rewriting it within a week as you said, or let it be huffed. --Rataube 19:06, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

re-write to me means keep and mark the article with a re-write tag . This means that any-one who feels for improving it are welcome to do so, and people who open the article knows that article maybe sucks without having to read through it. I see no problem issue in that.--


  • Rewrite xxxxxxxx means keep and RW-tag
  • Keep and rewrite means keep and RW-tag
  • Delete or rewrite means delete or keep that is: nothing

Suresh 14:46, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I have a perfect solution! I will create a new section for articles that are to be rewritten (Uncyclopedia:Pages to be rewritten or Uncyclopedia:rewrite or the like) and things that receive predominantly rewrite votes will be tagged and moved there. That list will be kept in chronological order, with the oldest at the bottom and if a page is rewritten it will be removed from the page but if no one rewrites it within a specified period (keep top 20/30/etc. entries, keep for 2 weeks, etc.) it will be summarily deleted. I will implement this tonight or tomorrow (as soon as I have time) and I'll even spearhead making it work. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 18:59, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. --Rataube 19:15, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

In case, you're wondering, my "perfect" solution is not so easily implemented as I had hoped and has a whole lot of other implications than I've considered so far. As such, betwen being busy and lazy, I'm not bothering yet. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 01:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually it would be much easier to just NRV all articles voted for rewrite. That's the perfect answer to all those who write "rewrite or nuke", couse that's exactly what the NRV tag does, nukes what don't get expanded. The only problem is that someone should check that the tags are removed with no reason, but I guess that's the same with regular NRVs. We can also consider asking Algorithm to make us a longer NRV for this cases.--Rataube 17:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Brilliant; especially considering I'd reconsidered my perfect solution to be very imperfect. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 20:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Re: "We can also consider asking Algorithm to make us a longer NRV for this cases." ... Check Category:Timestamped_maintenance. There is a category we've been using since January called Category:Rewrite tagged. It is like NRV but only rotates monthly instead of weekly. For a list of templates using timestamped maintenence, see: Template_talk:Mod6. There are about 8 that timestamp into 'rewrite tagged' I think. I forget whick, go check yourself. Although, as it hasn't yet been two months since implementation, we haven't made any policy on what happens after 30-60 days of being rewrite tagged. --Splaka 04:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Personal tools