Forum:A new concept for VFD

Forums: Index > Village Dump > A new concept for VFD

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4018 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

A forum with this title was created on Wikia, proposing a new format and some things for VFD, and I can't be bothered to restate what it says so you'll just have to read the link. I for one think it's an improvement and looks pretty. I thought I would bring this to the attention of the community here and we could think about whether we like the ideas or not.

If we do decide to implement some sort of new VFD scheme, I'd like to change it a bit from what they did on Wikia, as follows:

Have subpages (instead of sections) of VFD and transclude them onto the main vfd page like we do with vfh. This header template has a 'delete' link that preloads a link to the vfd subpage for the deletion reason; my thinking is that it's more helpful to give a link to the deletion discussion in the delete summary and this would allow us to do that. Since {{oldvfd}} doesn't allow for this system I suppose we would have to make a new template for that, as the old one is on a lot of stuff and changing every transclusion to use something else doesn't seem worth it.
Maybe have the template for encasing closed discussions say at the top and bottom that the discussion is closed, like this and this, and not use a different header ({{VFDc}}).
Spike raised a valid, if small, point about keep votes coming before delete votes but the score counting delete votes as positive, and it ended up being decided to put the delete votes before the keeps. I have yet another idea, which is not to separate the keeps and deletes at all but to just vote one after the other like on Wikipedia and use {{s}} for the score.
Not change the rules to remove the 'jokey bits' but only to describe how the process is different. Speaking of which I'm not sure what we'd do if we wanted the input box to work correctly. I didn't say 'still work' because at the moment it doesn't.

You may also want to look at http://tidypedia.wikinet.org/wiki/Tidypedia:Votes_for_deletion, where you can see what my ideas would look like put together.

What does everyone think so far? – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 01:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, if we did subpages, I suppose we would remove transclusions of votes after they had been closed and maybe have some sort of list of which pages were kept and which deleted. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 01:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I've brought the templates here and put example stuff in my sandbox. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 20:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

*bump* – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 01:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any comments, it is a good idea but it will be good if an admin takes a look at this forum. Anton (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, because this would involve changing the rules template, which is fully protected, for one. Puppy, who made the original proposal, is also an admin on wikia if I recall correctly, so...something. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 16:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. This seems interesting. Someone should do something about it. I know! Let's hold a vote. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Fri, Nov 15 '13 5:12 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. How about something like this? – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 12:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Support adopting Llwy-ar-lawr's system

Score: 2

For. Of course. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 12:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
For. It's prettier. Nominally Humane! 10:45 26 Nov
Against -- The Zombiebaron 23:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
If you're against this system, you must be in support of one of the other section headers below. I purposely added options to be inclusive of everything, I think. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 01:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok -- The Zombiebaron 02:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Support adopting Puppy's system

Score: 0

Don't change anything

Score: 2

Boner. -- The Zombiebaron 02:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Boner. Maybe if we got 10 times the site activity that we currently do, this would be worth it. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 22:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Has a better idea, and will tell us what it is

Score: 0

Coupla comments, now that I have some free time to read forum topics instead of just bumping 'em

Putting delete votes first seems fine. Doesn't matter to me, one way or the other, but then my ass isn't as tight as a virgin's hooch on her wedding night.
Having sub-pages does make sense in that all you have to do is add a template to archive/lock it, and does make it easier to add a link to the old vote. We could probably still use {{oldvfd}}, just add a new parameter to it and use that, instead of the old one. I'll have to think about this, though, before I vote.
I "fixed" the input box on VFD. Should work now. (Thanks for your half-assery, HotAdmin; I know we can always count on you.)
There are five comments here, not two.
Uh, I'll have to think about the rest and get back to you. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Sat, Nov 16 '13 13:08 (UTC)

And some replies:

I decided that placing of deletes vs. keeps doesn't matter to me either.
{{oldvfd}} actually allows for the subpage system; the page linked from the text 'the discussion' defaults to Uncyclopedia:Votes for deletion/Article name here, and there's probably already an easy way to link to, say, Uncyclopedia:Votes for deletion/Article name here (2nd nomination). {{VFD}} could probably be adapted to this system as well if it isn't already. Something like Please see [[{{#ifexist:Uncyclopedia:Votes for deletion/{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Uncyclopedia:Votes for deletion/{{FULLPAGENAME}}|{{{1|Uncyclopedia:Votes for deletion#{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}}}|this article's entry]].
Thank you for your comments and for fixing the input box. I may check if it works. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 14:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Alternatively we could do [[{{{1|Uncyclopedia:Votes for deletion/{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|this article's entry]], which is a bit simpler. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 14:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Cool, cool. My main objection to having subpages (which I just thought of) is that people wouldn't be able to vote on four or five crappy articles at once anymore (y'know, unless somebody goes and writes a VFD gadget. >_<). ~ BB ~ (T)

~ Sat, Nov 16 '13 14:09 (UTC)

True. If we can set it up like vfh somehow, though, there could be a link at the bottom saying 'back to main vfd page' or whatever, which makes it easier to go back and vote on more articles. VFH, and for that matter wikipedia's !votes for deletion pages, also seem to work ok without being able to edit the same page to vote on multiple articles. Having a vfd gadget sounds interesting, though I will have to leave you the task of writing it.

I also made a version of the vfd template where the link is set up like in {{vfh}}, for what it's worth. It seems better than what I said above. You are welcome to change it around if you like. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 14:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm gonna wait for MadMax and Frosty and some of them crackas to weigh in on this, since they know more about VFD archiving than me. ~ BB ~ (T)

~ Sat, Nov 16 '13 14:24 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that Delete votes used to be first on VFD but the community voted to switch it around the same time that the 24 hour timer was introduced. I don't think it really matters either way. -- The Zombiebaron 02:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Subpages vs sections

The advantage in sections is:

Being able to edit numerous sections at once
Keeping the number of pages low
Keeping it more in line with what has been done previously

The advantage of subpages:

More robust coding, as {{SUBPAGENAME}} can be used to pre-populate templates
Having an in-page “vote here” thingy, like on VFH noms
Easier archiving, like with PEE review
Potential to reduce the number of archives, like the DPL at village dump
Reduction in edits to a single page
Being able to list in chronological or reverse chronological order

Some of these advantages are so minor they are barely worth mentioning, but that's what I looked at when putting this together over there. Beyond that, I rarely nominate or vote over here, so whatever the decision I'm not fussed. And spoony-floor, thanks for my elevation to admin status, but that's not quite accurate. Nominally Humane! 01:53 17 Nov

Thanks for the input. I thought sure you were an admin on wikia but I just looked at your rights and it seems you're only a rollback, though if you look here you appear to have been a temporary admin for one month in 2011. Too bad - you'd make a fine admin, if you ask me. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 02:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Spam from IPs

I wonder if this should be semi protected. Maybe all old forums too as soon as they get old (whenever that is!), since we've had a lot of spammy IPs hitting those over the last few months, if not longer. Or maybe even change something in the user rights file so ips can't edit any forum page, though there's a slight chance that might lock out a real person or two. If I'm not mistaken, Socky started off here as an IP posting comments on a forum. We need more people like that - IPs who say cool, intelligent stuff, sign up and then get to be admins...but I digress. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 03:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Bizzeebeever. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 15:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Bump

This discussion never ended up anywhere and now it's archived. Foo. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 22:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Well at least IPs can't vandalize it anymore! :D ~ BB ~ (T)

~ Tue, Nov 26 '13 22:22 (UTC)

I HAVE A HUGE DONG 123.45.67.89 22:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

U vandal bro? Chaoarren Chaohead (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

He is a puppy. Anton (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Frosty's opinion

We often aren't amounting 100 edits in one day. This is of little concern to anybody left. Write pages instead. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 22:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Other site can get 100 edits in well under 12 hours. That's a bit depressing yo. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!)

22:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is a concern to me and probably something we should try to get fixed, but there's nothing wrong with discussing ways to improve the site, and if we discuss stuff it's still editing activity. Not all activity has to be writing. If you would like to tell us which vfd layout you prefer it would only take a few minutes and would make me happy, but of course you don't have to. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 23:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

When "Count To A Million" was open, I think that there were more than a hundred edits a day. Just saying. Anton (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

When "Count To A Million" was open, I think that there were less articles done per a day. Just saying. Cat the Colourful (Feed me!) Zzz

18:12, 6 December, 2013 (UTC)

But more edits. We should choose: more articles or more edits. Just saying. Anton (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah but all those edits were in forumspace. -- The Zombiebaron 19:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Someone once said that fewer articles were better because people stop contributing if there are too many articles. I don't know how that ties into this. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 21:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Less articles promotes the writing of new articles. Everybody who edits forumspace is neither helping to delete the old articles nor helping to write the new ones. -- The Zombiebaron 22:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Oprah, Norway, Cheese, New Zealand, Paris (redirect) (delete) are all major topics that need to have their own article. Why don't we have them? ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!)

22:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

All burned in ffw this year, except the last one which was apparently killed by a maintenance tag in 2011. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 22:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't mean they shouldn't exist. It means we should start to be aiming to build them up again. Only this time into something really good. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!)

22:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. I didn't say they shouldn't exist, just why they don't at the moment. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 22:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Forum:A new concept for VFD

Contents

Support adopting Llwy-ar-lawr's system

Support adopting Puppy's system

Don't change anything

Has a better idea, and will tell us what it is

Coupla comments, now that I have some free time to read forum topics instead of just bumping 'em

Subpages vs sections

Spam from IPs

Bump

Frosty's opinion

Navigation menu

Forum:A new concept for VFD

Support adopting Llwy-ar-lawr's system

Support adopting Puppy's system

Don't change anything

Has a better idea, and will tell us what it is

Coupla comments, now that I have some free time to read forum topics instead of just bumping 'em

Subpages vs sections

Spam from IPs

Bump

Frosty's opinion

Navigation menu

Search