Forum:Good god.
This is no different from deleting the entire wiki. Any article that is not featured is considered bad and will be deleted. should we conserve this to other, really bad articles? --WELCOME TO UNCYCLOPEDIA HELL!!!! 
06:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- If you have an issue with a specific tag the rules of Forest Fire Week say you should take it up with the person who tagged the page on their talkpage. -- The Zombiebaron 06:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- no, but this is no different from destroying the entire wiki. why won't we place the tags on articles that are actually bad instead of on every single non-featured article?--WELCOME TO UNCYCLOPEDIA HELL!!!!
06:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- Only 318 have been tagged. That is not "every single non-featured article." IFYMB! Talk to me baby! 06:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- At least 2 out of 3 are vital subjects. most of them are pretty average uncyclopedia articles, and in my opinion you do not need all articles to go in the expert humor format. and when vital subjects are getting deleted, you know something is wrong.--WELCOME TO UNCYCLOPEDIA HELL!!!! 06:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- At least 2 out of 3 are vital subjects. most of them are pretty average uncyclopedia articles, and in my opinion you do not need all articles to go in the expert humor format. and when vital subjects are getting deleted, you know something is wrong.--WELCOME TO UNCYCLOPEDIA HELL!!!!
- Only 318 have been tagged. That is not "every single non-featured article." IFYMB! Talk to me baby! 06:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- no, but this is no different from destroying the entire wiki. why won't we place the tags on articles that are actually bad instead of on every single non-featured article?--WELCOME TO UNCYCLOPEDIA HELL!!!!
He might have a point. Normally, I wouldn't care about deleting mediocre-yet-vital articles, since that leaves room for rewrite. However, Uncyclopedia has gone waaaaaaay down in activity since we were in our prime. In fact, when we're not tagging crap, the site is never this active. Perhaps we are going a little overboard? -- Kip the Egg 
Talk Works 13:46, Aug. 30, 2013
- What Kip said. --EMC [TALK] 14:47 Aug 30 2013
- Exactly what Kip said. There's always room for creating a rewrite, just blank it all and recreate it, my 4 rewrites were done like that, hardly 2-3 'original' jokes left. I'd rather have a weak article about John Lennon than none at all.
Mattsnow 21:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- On the other hand, FFW is motivating people to rewrite articles because we spend most of the year making new ones. (Speaking of rewriting, where is Imperial Colonization when you need them?) ｡◕‿◕｡ 21:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly what Kip said. There's always room for creating a rewrite, just blank it all and recreate it, my 4 rewrites were done like that, hardly 2-3 'original' jokes left. I'd rather have a weak article about John Lennon than none at all.
Just take it up with the tagger???? These taggers are working sometimes three or four a minute in total violation of the simplistic rules, because they are supposedly supposed to look at the pages history, seek out a better copy, and actually analyze what they're doing. This is the worst thing that could happen to this site, and you would not believe the number of red links this week causes (takes over a year to fix the red links). There are so so so many good articles being tagged, which is the equiv. of being huffed because who the fuck is going to "take it up with the tagger" and spend hours in detailed argument just to have the guy remove the template. I've taken two templates off myelf in the past few minutes, and it took less than 10 seconds to find two pages which are totally inappropriate for this "contest" or whatever it is. God help us. And just to be clearer, I will not tag one page during this week, it's already gone off the rails. Aleister 00"22 3-13
- I've just been noticing how many "mediocre-at-worst" articles have been flagged - I mean absolutely, many of these need fixing up - but right out DELETION? - With this and the ongoingness of VFD, I just am left wondering why we are culling our own site so heartily - with inactivity where it is (I know I'm not much help on that front) it is unlikely that the articles will be re-written from scratch anytime soon and what we will be left with are a heap of red-links and many empty pages on topical subjects. It just all seems really really sad.
I'm not going to have the time to fix these articles up, so i won't move them into my userspace, but I don't want to see articles like >this< disappear completely..... So what do I do? Strainj 1 . . . . TALK 08:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)- The biggest joke is that lots of people complain about activity dwindling here, and instead of creating articles, people are deleting them. It's pathetic, and smacks of juvenile delinquency. Bear in mind that if an article is one of the 300 odd on the deletion list, you are suggesting it is in the worst 1% of articles on uncyclopedia, which should give you an idea of how bad an article is before you tag it. Leverage (talk) 11:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- As I proposed on the FFW talk page, the articles we're tagging contain ideas that could be developed into decent articles. ｡◕‿◕｡ 12:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Start IC up again? IFYMB! Talk to me baby! 12:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm all for it! ｡◕‿◕｡ 13:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- You should probably start a new forum, and you'll probably won't get a lot of people signing up because of the low writing activity here. That last time I suggested it to Frosty he dismissed it becasue he said people got in a lot of arguments, so keep that in mind. IFYMB! Talk to me baby! 13:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- IC? What is that?
- You should probably start a new forum, and you'll probably won't get a lot of people signing up because of the low writing activity here. That last time I suggested it to Frosty he dismissed it becasue he said people got in a lot of arguments, so keep that in mind. IFYMB! Talk to me baby! 13:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Start IC up again? IFYMB! Talk to me baby! 12:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- As I proposed on the FFW talk page, the articles we're tagging contain ideas that could be developed into decent articles. ｡◕‿◕｡ 12:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- The biggest joke is that lots of people complain about activity dwindling here, and instead of creating articles, people are deleting them. It's pathetic, and smacks of juvenile delinquency. Bear in mind that if an article is one of the 300 odd on the deletion list, you are suggesting it is in the worst 1% of articles on uncyclopedia, which should give you an idea of how bad an article is before you tag it. Leverage (talk) 11:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm all for it! How Forest Fire Week Works
Over the past few days I have been reading a lot of misunderstandings on what FFW is and how it is meant to function. FFW has happened nearly-bi-annually since the wiki was created. The purpose is to delete the worst pages on the site. This creates redlinks. Redlinks promote writing new articles. In a time when we are at a record low in writers and new users, we need redlinks. Statistics prove that the site was most active before we reached 15,000 articles, after that activity started to drop. People do not seem to understand the benefits of FFW. Less articles = more people writing articles. More people writing articles = we have an active community of writers for the first time in years. -- The Zombiebaron 18:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- (Redlinks look ugly, though.) I was wondering about the inactivity myself. We may as well trust you since you've been around the longest. ｡◕‿◕｡ 18:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- How about promoting our website? MagicBus 18:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Forum:We can no longer neglect Google+ ｡◕‿◕｡ 18:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- FFW is not an alternative to promoting the site, it's just a way of making sure people stay here once they get here. -- The Zombiebaron 18:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, ok Zombiebaron.
- Unless you delete new articles. WP:BITE. As has been mentioned earlier. Also this. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 18:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Forest Fire Week is for deleting old articles so that's not really a concern here. -- The Zombiebaron 18:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Are articles from May old yet? – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 18:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. -- The Zombiebaron 19:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- I still say "God Help Us!" and ask everyone to protect the pages they care about and many pages that others who won't be looking at the list care about. You guys voted this in, but I stand by thinking that this is likely the worst idea this new site has had. Burn no books. Aleister 31-8-'13
- p.s. Are you blowing me? I just now read over the list that was copypasted at the top of this page, and almost all of those articles are good at least, and many are really good. That's just that one list alone, likely to be repeated hundredsfold. (few minutes after above post) – Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleister (talk • contribs) 14:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- You could message whoever is slapping these tags on those decent articles. I would personally create template to indicate that someone contests tagging the articles, along with a category of improperly tagged articles. ｡◕‿◕｡ 19:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Like wikipedia:Template:Hangon. I'm happy to copy it from Wikipedia though you may want to modify it a bit to suit Uncyclopedian sensibilities and that. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 19:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- So far everybody that has been asked to reconsider a tag has been happy to remove it. I don't really see the problem here. -- The Zombiebaron 19:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Like wikipedia:Template:Hangon. I'm happy to copy it from Wikipedia though you may want to modify it a bit to suit Uncyclopedian sensibilities and that. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 19:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- You could message whoever is slapping these tags on those decent articles. I would personally create template to indicate that someone contests tagging the articles, along with a category of improperly tagged articles. ｡◕‿◕｡ 19:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- p.s. Are you blowing me? I just now read over the list that was copypasted at the top of this page, and almost all of those articles are good at least, and many are really good. That's just that one list alone, likely to be repeated hundredsfold. (few minutes after above post) – Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleister (talk • contribs) 14:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Are articles from May old yet? – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 18:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Forest Fire Week is for deleting old articles so that's not really a concern here. -- The Zombiebaron 18:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- FFW is not an alternative to promoting the site, it's just a way of making sure people stay here once they get here. -- The Zombiebaron 18:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- If so many decent articles are going to get deleted, then an imperial colonization might be a better option.--WELCOME TO UNCYCLOPEDIA HELL!!!! 03:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Forum:We can no longer neglect Google+ ｡◕‿◕｡ 18:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- How about promoting our website? MagicBus 18:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Wasting peoples time
If you want to rewrite a bad article or borrow the only good line from a deleted article or find inspiration from the trash...use the fork as a library. It's all there even if deleted here. These articles are a waste of precious visitors time to read. It's a disservice to them to have sort of not bad articles with a slightly okay moment or mediochre cruft. Better nothing than trash. This fork should set itself apart by having a high average quality of articles. These 300 articles tagged is the tiny tip of a giant iceburg of meh. --ShabiDOO 17:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- I fought the Giant Iceberg of Meh, back in my D&D days. But a shadow gnome stole my Firesword of Fire, and I died. /me tips out glass of dice on to ground, for the fallen Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 22:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- hey modus, that reminds me, do you still have my +2 codpiece? 01:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- no, just rewrite them with an imperial colonization. if this deletionism continues, we just lose more visitors. (and some of these articles are decent. There are articles out there which need more tagging than our decent articles.--WELCOME TO UNCYCLOPEDIA HELL!!!! 05:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- I thought this was the Fork..and the Wikia site the Spoon. --
RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 21:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- I thought this was the Fork..and the Wikia site the Spoon. --
- no, just rewrite them with an imperial colonization. if this deletionism continues, we just lose more visitors. (and some of these articles are decent. There are articles out there which need more tagging than our decent articles.--WELCOME TO UNCYCLOPEDIA HELL!!!!
- hey modus, that reminds me, do you still have my +2 codpiece? 01:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Can I respond to something above?
Zombiebaron, we do need some red links to motivate others but why do we try to delete articles that have a good humour strategy but probably not the best prose and jokes? French, Belgium, for instance. Anton (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Put it on your user space and improve it. Great way to not waste readers time and a good strategy to eventualy make articles main-space-able. --ShabiDOO 16:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- What Shabidoo said. -- The Zombiebaron 18:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)