Forum:A Pants Template?

Forums: Index > Village Dump > A Pants Template?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5371 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Well, there has been a bit of talk around the place recently about the dreaded issue of deletion of articles and templates. Most people agree that VFD is the best method to use, but those who actually take the time to vote at VFD are often of the opinion that deleting an article at VFD takes more effort on the part of the community than went into creating it in the first place. There is clearly something wrong with that.

A while ago, I suggested an alternative here. There were no actual against votes, but (in my view) not enough people chose to support it, so I decided to withdraw the suggestion.

Since then, I have learnt the joys of DPL, and have realised that my previous proposal was a tad complex, and would have required a fair amount of effort to run. Using DLP, I have created the proposal below which would have the following stages:

• A user finds a page which they think is total pants.
• They check the edit history and talk page as per normal, and add a template like this to the article. They must include an edit summary saying "Added Pants Template" so that if kept subsequent users would know to use VFD if they want to delete it.

Articles including the template would then appear in a DPL generated table (which would be on the VFD page itself) such as the one below:

|- |MrN9000/Stoat Molesting |Stoat humour is so old school. |width="20%"|2009-06-13 22:05:25 |- |401px-Jeans.jpg | |width="20%"|2011-02-02 18:35:01 |- |The Brotherhood of the Traveling Pants | |width="20%"|2021-07-03 00:43:03 |- |Greece Boogieing Precautions Lowered | |width="20%"|2022-11-29 04:38:10

• Any user who wishes the article to be kept may then remove the template at any time.

• or...

• After X days (to be defined) an admin may then delete the page, or obviously remove the template if they want to keep the article.

That's it.

THIS IS NOT A WAY OF BYPASSING VFD, and THIS IS NOT A MASS DELETION SYSTEM.

Hopefully the community will agree that this would be a useful supplement to VFD. The point is that any user can remove the template at any time (keeping the article), so this would save the normal VFD voting process for more controversial nominations. If you added the template to a page and someone removes it then you still have the option of using VFD as per normal.

I suggest that the DPL code could be added to the VFD page itself, so there would be no need to create any new pages. MrN 02:20, Feb 3

Kick MrN in the Balls

*KICK* There, I kicked you in the balls. Happy now? -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 02:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, just to say it before anyone else does, what's supposed to be wrong with VFD the way it is right now? -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 02:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"those who actually take the time to vote at VFD are often of the opinion that deleting an article at VFD takes more effort on the part of the community than went into creating it in the first place. There is clearly something wrong with that" Also, if it's a good article, it only takes one user to remove the template, and then everyone else will not need to vote. If the nominator still wants to have the page deleted, they can use the normal VFD process as usual. MrN 02:26, Feb 3

I have some doubts about that. Some people actually like adding comments like "Delete. This crap is utter shit." or whatever, and don't really mind putting more effort in deleting it than the original author put in creating it. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 02:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is a good idea. Whether it's actually a good idea is another matter entirely, but I'm standing behind my opinion until convinced otherwise. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 04:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly not against it, but I do have some doubts about its effectiveness and practicality. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 04:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Which are? MrN 04:26, Feb 3

The only issue that I can see, and I say this having not looked at all, is that it's one more thing to be forgotten about...like the Modusoperandi of the Month page. There's only one vote there, and it's been there forever. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 04:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This is my only real concern as well. The idea of it is actually quite sound, and I have no problems with it as far as I can tell. I'm just worried that we're overcomplicating things. And also MrN is blatantly trying to make pants an official policy. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 04:49, Feb 3

Me? Pants? A scandals accusation Mr Balloon. Well, we could call it the trousers template if you want... No seriously, I don't give a monkeys what it's called. If someone has a better suggestion for the name, or wants to tart the template up go for it. All this needs is the template, the accompanying category, and the DPL adding onto the VFD page. I'm obviously happy to sort all that. Oh, we would need to decide on how long to wait before an admin could delete. I'm thinking something like 7 days, but I'm not sure. MrN 05:02, Feb 3

The other painful thing about VFD, besides the effort that goes into deleting articles, is the effort that goes into saving articles from deletion. In my mind this solves the problem fairly perfectly if, as Modus says, it isn't forgotten about. IronLung 04:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

 For. however, what is there going to be any limit on the size of said list? I could see a "rush" on it right away, with everyone's VFD list coming out of the woodwork. --S'r Mnbvcxz 05:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep. There will probably be an initial flood. It takes less effort to remove the template than it does to add it (you have to give a reason when you use this template) so I don't think it will be a problem. Also, don't forget that the DPL will update itself. It's simply a case of adding or removing the template from the article, there are no edits anywhere else. MrN 06:13, Feb 3

Why it shouldn't be on the VFD page

Firstly, I like the idea and I am all for it but, secondly, I don't think that it should be on the VFD page. VFD or, more formally, Vote For Deletion should be reserved for articles where the quality is unclear and a vote is necessary. This type of system would serve much better as an adjunct to/replacement for QVFD. In fact, thinking on the matter a little, this seems to be almost the same as ICU/NRV but with a much sleeker implementation. --Sir gwax (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

VFD does not need more clutter. --Sir gwax (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's even more exactly like PROD, but with DPL added. Ironically, {{PROD}} was VFD'd. Take that as you will. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 22:48, 03 Feb 2009

It was the prod VFD which inspired this. The DPL makes a difference as (assuming it is on a very prominent page) all pages with the template are clearly visible until the X time period expires, or any user decides to remove the template. I suggested the VFD page (probably the bottom of it) as that's a place which people concerned with deletion tend to go anyway. You would not vote there, just find the list of articles, and remove the template if you wish. It takes more effort to add the template than remove it, so I'm hoping it might work well... I am obviously volunteering to monitor and run this system if we decide to use it. MrN 23:12, Feb 3

Why am I against (as always) this idea

1. The generalization - but those who actually take the time to vote at VFD are often of the opinion that deleting an article at VFD takes more effort on the part of the community than went into creating it in the first place. There is clearly something wrong with that. That's basically based on your opinion, perhaps a couple people more. I think that's hardly representing a majority opinion. Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with VFD at this current state. As mentioned before, VFD didn't reach it's limit for months, so as far as I can see it works fine. If you get consensus, it gets deleted in a jiffy. If it doesn't, it hangs around for a bit. All in all, VFD is there to prevent articles being deleted based on the opinion of a selected few. Granted, it's not perfect, but it's not bad at all. In fact, I think it's the most efficient it's been in a long time - a lot due to yours and UU's ongoing work.
2. The proposal - and don't jump on my head. Despite what you're saying this is exactly what it is, a VFD bypassing thingy. This whole process will be based, in the end of the day on two people (in the worst case scenario). The user who places the template and the deleting admin. Now let's say that yourself who have a different taste to myself places a template on a whole set of articles and then an admin who is pro deletion comes along and delete the whole stuff without putting a lot of attention to it (or because he's more keen on strict quality control) we'll have dozens of articles removed at a time - based on the opinion of two people, that's hardly making me feel comfortable. Other than that - add to the fact that those who wish to keep articles need to track the steps of those who place the templates all the time or watch the queue all the time? And then you'll have potential edit wars over templates. Who to say the one who removed the template has more weight than the one who put it? And if people who are more "keepers" won't track the pants process, you'll have tens of articles deleted for day? That's worse than FFW. And then, will admins have the authority to restore articles they feel were deleted in error?

And effectively, VFD will die with this process. People would say, why bother placing on vote when I can just place the template on the article? Granted, some articles will go to VFD because the template will be removed, but essentially - it will be a last deletion resort rather than the main one. It would no longer be VFD - the vote for deletion which I personally value.

And last but not least, admins will now have another maintenance track to watch on top of VFD, VFH, VFP, QVFD, ICU, WIP, Ugly, Deadend, Fix, Expand and so on and so forth. Speaking from a site maintenance point of view - we don't need another one. We got enough (too many even) controls in place.

I appreciate your angle, I don't think it's good for Uncyclopedia. I have two suggestions here - I haven't seen VFD being clogged for months. But if it does, we can expand the limit, no issue at all. Second, if you feel that this process is mature enough - ask people for a formal vote, as is acceptable with any serious change of policy. I will be looking for positive majority rather than a simple "no against votes". Try to get people off their lazy assess for this one.

I hope I made sense here. ~ 23:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's just my opinion, but my reasons for wanting this are not just to delete articles. I want to reduce the amount of time which it takes to keep a good article. With this, if anyone cares, the article is kept. No need for 5 voters to have to read the article and vote keep as per VFD. If the nominator sill wants the article deleted, they can still use VFD as per normal. They probably will not. Is that not a good thing? If the DPL was on the VFD page then it would be looked at by as many people as go to VFD now. There is also a serious problem with VFD... Sometimes we delete articles in less than a few hours. This system would have a fixed time period (in days), therefore allowing much more time for the article to be potentially saved. What you said about not trusting the judgement of admins to do a proper job of checking the articles before deletion makes no sense to me. We trust our admins to do exactly this now with ICU, FIX, UGLY and such... I think this is a softer deletion system than VFD. I really do not think it is a VFD bypass... Why would some repeatedly keep adding the template if it was removed once? They would just go to normal VFD. Maybe you could pop into IRC, and we can arm wrestle over this? MrN 23:38, Feb 3

I'll be happy to, but let's try to do it tomorrow evening or maybe Thu, got to hit the sack, got an early plane to catch. That is of course, if the bloody UK transportation system would not collapse again. ~ 23:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Hea! It snowed man! It's snow joke. We have no idea what to do with that funny white stuff which falls from the sky... MrN 00:01, Feb 4

Oh, there is another problem with VFD I did not mention... It tends to be frequented by the more deletion orientated users. That gives a bias which we probably don't want. This proposal puts more power into the hands of the keepers... Catch you tomorrow or Thursday... MrN 00:07, Feb 4

Uncyclopedia made me deletion orientated, Uncyclopedia made me not care anymore about the crappy articles. If you blame anybody of deletion orientation, blame it on Uncyclopedia! -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 06:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

So, you're saying that the fundamental flaw with democracy is the voters? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 07:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Obviously. --S'r Mnbvcxz 07:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

“The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter”

~ Winston Churchill

- T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 13:31, Feb 4

Theory Behind This

This template works on the theory that "Somebody Cares = Keep (Most of the Time)". Basically, its based on the assumption that we should work on finding that stuff that nobody cares about first, then delete that, leaving most of the stuff somebody cares about alone. Its in effect asking, "does anyone care if I get rid if this article?" and defaults to allowing one objector stop the deletion process. VFD is actually more prone to deleting an article that one person really cares about but 5 people think is slightly annoying clutter. I (and I assume MrN9000) would rather keep almost all VFD-worthy articles than annoy one person by deleting it. (I would make an exception for what I call "cancerous articles", i.e. articles that have the potential to ruin other articles, but I digress.) Additionally, we often delete articles on VFD in a matter of hours, which is not enough time for someone to object. --S'r Mnbvcxz 06:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I see a fundamental flaw in the theory behind this... -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 06:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the problem? --S'r Mnbvcxz 06:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Anybody can just come along and "knee-jerk keep" all of them. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 10:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That's the point. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 13:30, Feb 4

Thanks Led. Wow, Mnbvcxz just read my mind. Sockpuppet: Fine. If they care enough to remove the template, let them. There is always normal VFD if the nominator is bothered. Oh, in-case I did not mention... THIS IS NOT A DELETIONISTS SYSTEM. Not sure if other VFD regulars would agree, but I fancy that I'm one of the least deletionist users at VFD. I think Mnbvcxz is anti deletionist, as is Hyper (who tried recently to remove a load of bad templates but was hammered back by the system). It's guys like Hyper and Mnbvcxz who are the first to vote keep at VFD (5 or so keep votes per article are normally required). This system allows a nominator to ask a quick "does anyone care?" question, and them move on if they do. I only want to delete total crap. If the author is still around, I personally actually want to keep it, even if it is total crap. MrN 13:34, Feb 4

I don't think knee-jerk keeping would be a problem. We really don't have any knee-jerk "keep" voters active on VFD. I don't see why we'd have one on the other system. --S'r Mnbvcxz 15:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need this as the VFD is hardly ever full, in fact it is only just over half full most of the time. Also besides the fact the template is borderline NSFW. Also I do think they need to look at making a Snowball rule on VFD where articles wont get deleted within hours of nomination with just 3 delete votes, I am suggesting more like 5-6 Deletion votes before auto snowball removal. (this is not a VFH or VFP where -3 is auto remove anyway and those articles don't get deleted there) --Pleb- Sawblade5 ^{( yell | FAQ | I did this )} 18:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sir, you miss-understand. This will allow people to quickly ask "does anyone care?" if they do many people will be happy to let the article stand. If they are not, they can use VFD. When I nominate on VFD it's because I think an article is total crap. If 1 other person does not agree, I see no point in fighting them in a long drawn out process which requires loads of other users to have to read the article and vote. I would rather that effort went into VFH. MrN 19:11, Feb 4

Basically, we follow the "Somebody Cares = Keep" theory for two reasons:

• First, because there is lots of stuff nobody cares about that can be deleted more quickly. It is not worth battling over one article when you can delete several that are just as bad with the same effort.
• Second, it isn't worth scaring off a user to remove a marginal amount of clutter. – Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnbvcxz (talk • contribs)

Whoa. Wait.

You can't just go and stick me on a page... I feel dirty now. *sadface* --PantsMacKenzie 13:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

PAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!! On a serious note, reading some of Pant's stuff was one of the reasons why I joined Uncyc. So you can blame him. MrN 13:34, Feb 4

Wait, for serious? I haven't written anything since that page of mismatched songs. And before that, Jeremaiah Einstein. Cool! --PantsMacKenzie 08:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)