Forum:A new rewrite tag

Forums: Index > Village Dump > A new rewrite tag

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5551 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

I decided to make a new rewrite tag, as that Mr. T one was getting kind of old. Template:Simon Rewrite is the new tag, just add {{Simon Rewrite}} to the article that needs to be rewritten. Simon Cowell has gotten a lot of fame with the American Idol show and making contestants cry or get upset over his comments. I tried to be more tame in the template. Maybe instead of VFD we can use the Simon Rewrite tag instead to improve articles? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't deleted this tag yet, but if past events are any indication I will soon. These alternate rewrite tags tend to accumulate and eventually cause problems, so the next time that happens, I will likely be huffing this tag. That said, I think Mr. T could stand a rest, and I call on all uncyclopedians to try to figure out some new text for the standard Rewrite tag. Keep in mind, however, that the purpose of the rewrite tag is to motivate writers to come in and take a page with some general interest and some potential and make it good. The less insulting and offensive, the better. Genuinely being funny might be a way of dulling the offensiveness, but so far I 've not seen that be successful. Also, I suggest that Orion should read our deletion policy, which details several already existing things we do to signal pages we would like to improve, rather than send to VFD. And remember everyone, {{rewrite}} is only for pages that have enough potential and a well-known enough subject that other people can help with them, because they are listed in Category:Rewrite. Other stuff gets a maintenance tag like fix or expand or ugly.---Rev. Isra (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I haven't seen those tags getting any use. What I have seen are either QVFD or VFD for the articles. I figured that maybe the Mr. T rewrite tag was not funny enough or maybe nobody wanted to use it anymore, so I thought I'd write a new one. I wrote some funny text on it, but someone else rewrote the text on the Simon Rewrite tag that was insulting instead of funny. I have never in my time on Uncyclopedia seen the maintenance tags like fix, expand, or ugly. The pages I wrote that got deleted, never had that chance, even though they had potential. Other pages I noticed had potential never got that chance either. Maybe I am not the only one that needs to reread the deletion policy? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia:Maintenance: Seems from the dates that it is getting used. At least when it isn't forest Fire Week. And if you want to go fix up some of those articles, do it. In fact, even if you don't want to, do it anyway. And that goes for everyone. It is pretty common for maintenance to be a 2 or 3 month limbo in which a page waits unedited to be deleted, and that is not why we have it there. Category:Rewrite lists the pages with {{rewrite}} on them. And yes, every one needs to read the Deletion Policy before participating in deletions. It isn't hard, since it hasn't changed much in the last half a year or more.---Rev. Isra (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well it may be getting used, but I noticed a lot of articles that had potential ending up at VFD that shouldn't have in my opinion. I do admit that at least some of the articles in VFD deserved it, but not all of them. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

VFD is ultimately our one democratic option for deletion. Whenever it gets overloaded we try to discourage it, but as long as it is working we tend to believe in letting democracy take its course. Ultimately you'll have to make your arguments there much of the time. But whenever you have a desire to rewrite something that is getting deleted, you can always have it restored to your userspace even if it isn't yours.---Rev. Isra (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Any reason not to just put a <choose> in the rewrite template, so there's some variety? More templates are hardly ever the answer... Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 01/20 19:54

The only reason to avoid choose is if we don't check up on all the options, and then let counter-productive ones in. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well the Mr. T rewrite tag is getting long in the tooth, and I hope Mr. T does not throw me on a roof for saying that. The whole idea around this Simon rewrite tag was to create a fresher one, more hip to the new trends, in hope that it would be used. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

So at some point, at some time, when I've got more coffee in me and a substantially larger bit of ambition, I'll set up this template to work like NRV where you can choose one of two or three rewrite tags. The default can be Mr. T., and some options can be simon and donald. If you're ambitious, creative and can code a bit, feel free to do this yourself. It's not likely to get done by me today or tomorrow. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 01/21 15:17

I just wrote a Donald Trump rewrite tag that you can place a date on. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

		"Donald Trump does not like this article!"
	I've seen funny articles, and this article is not funny. Many people have worked harder on funnier articles. You can fix this article by rewriting it by 30 days from 03/25/2007 (Admins: Check time stamp) or else you're fired and the article will be deleted!

A humble shameless non-abusive proposal

While I love the {{Simon Rewrite}}, I'm afraid it still has the same problem I brought up on the talkpage for the current {{rewrite}}: Namely, that it still says nothing but insults about the article. I suggest a more balanced approach which points out that the article still, by definition, has potential (because otherwise its proper place is VFD). Here's my alternative:

	All this article needs is a little love
	Please give it a little love by rewriting it.

Now available as {{Rewrite tree}}.

For a harsher version, try this:

	This article is pathetic, but it has a good heart
	All this article needs is a little love. Please give it a little love by rewriting it.

Lenoxus 21:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objections to me replacing Rewrite with Rewrite_tree ? -- -Rev. Isra (talk) 07:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Not me. Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 10:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I like it - it's definitely time to replace Mr T with something else. If anything this seems slightly over-gentle though - perhaps it needs one of them red hands or something else to make sure we know it's a serious template with the potential to get things deleted eventually? -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 11:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I figured the "gentle" accusation would be made, which is why I made the second version. I'll try thinking of a way to incorporate the hand into them both… Lenoxus 03:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm not saying it should be ruder - just maybe it should have a warning like the one on Template:Fix (which doesn't even have a time-ordered category like rewrite does). "If this page is not edited in 30 days..." I can't think of a good one right now though. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 14:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This version is a bit crazy: the "Hold it right there" doesn't fit with the rest. Alksub - VFH CM WA RV {talk} 19:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Kinda like a man with a gun telling you to hug him. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 23:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A Possibility

Since we seem to be getting more memy rewrite templates perhaps we should have say a proper {{rewrite}} and another like {{meme rewrite}} or something like that. We would just have to choose a meme rewrite tag that could go there. --Advertising Rights for this space is available.(Terms} Wildy I'm jumping on the bandwagon @You have something to say? 12:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well we already have the {{Simon Rewrite}} and {{Ermey Rewrite}} templates for those who don't like Charlie Brown and want a certain meme type rewrite tag. Perhaps these tags can be chosen with an option in the {{meme rewrite}} template? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I periodically do a purge of meme tags. I've been lazy as of late. The point is that the proliferation of tags that do nothing special, just have different text, gunks things up. It is also the case that if you really need to show that damn page how sucky it is with a custom tag, maybe Rewrite isn't the thing for it. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 04:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

But there is a demand for the different rewrite tags. We keep getting requests for them. I am sorry but the Charlie Brown rewrite tag is seen as pathetic, and users want to see a different tag. I might write different tags later, if you delete them, please place them into my user space so I can make non-rewrite versions of them. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

By who? There's nothing on the discussion page, and there were no objections on this page when we were making the change. We had one request from "Cool and sexy admin" IP guy for a rewrite template basically to promote an article he'd written. We had KWild above commenting on how we now had various memey rewrite tags. Apart from that it seems to me it's just you who thinks poor Charlie Brown is pathetic. Which is not very nice, because he tries his best to be the hero, and it's not his fault if Lucy keeps pulling the ball away. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 16:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

By many, I get emails on the subject and people begging me to write new rewrite tags. I seem to be the only one with the "Andy Kaufman" type sense of humor and balls the size of Jupiter that is able to write these tags. Besides Charlie Brown never learns his lesson, he just cannot trust Lucy Van Pelt to hold that football, and he never tried to keep his kite away from that Kite Eating Tree. I mean if Charlie Brown cannot learn from his past mistakes, then he really is a blockhead which just shows how pathetic he is in life. The pathetic Christmas Tree is a meme as much as the Simon and Ermey rewrite tags are. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Shit is isn't the answer!

It may be immature, but, err, anyway...

		This article has some shit that needs moving
	You can help by giving it a colonic.

Do you like Template:Turd Rewrite? —Another Pongo ^{Flame Sandbox ☭} 17:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ugg, no, this damn place has too many pictures of turds as it is -- sannse (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Poo is so kindergarten. --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 10:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There aren't that many pictures of shit. Anyway, I recognise it's still stupid. —A. N. Otherpongo ^{(Parp!/SB/Grueslayer/VFD/☭/»Free iPod!)} 13:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, when I see it I want to go to a different page rather than fix the page I'm on. That's not what we want. Also, it's poo. --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 14:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's simply poo. —Pongo (talk) (gs) 16:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That's how I see a rewrite

When you place a rewrite tag, you are signaling everyone to ignore all of the current content of an article. You are saying that the subject worths existing, but the article itself is a ruin. So....

		THIS ARTICLE NEEDS A STEAMROLLER!!!
	Sometimes the foundations are so rotten that the only constructive action is demolishing everything so to start it again from the scratch. In other words, rewrite this article. Ignore its current contents if you feel like. But be bold! DO IT!!!

What about? -- herr doktor needsAbrain  [scream!] 11:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Not so much. If there was really nothing at all to salvage it's almost better VFDed and truly restarted. We already get enough people assuming that "rewrite" means a single badly-written paragraph or two will be better than what's there (and they're damned tricky to spot and revert sometimes). Nicely pimped steamroller though! -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 12:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with the deletion part, but seems like people generally choose to mantain bad articles when the subject "justifies" this. I've placed Ann Coulter's article on VFD, but seems like people dismissed its deletion on the grounds we need an article about her. I think "rewrite", for its own name, is quite a radical measure. If an article have less problems, the almost forgotten cleanup templates should be placed instead.-- herr doktor needsAbrain  [scream!] 13:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... wasn't paying attention on that particular example, but we've deleted others on subjects that are well linked-to. I think when people give that as a reason they probably mean "I kind of like bits of it, but I can't say why so I'll say this". You're right, rewrite is quite an iffy subject - hence all the rewrites of its template that people do! -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 20:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well to be honest so many articles from 2005 are being put on VFD and were funny in 2005 before the rules got changed. I suggested an ICU, but they said articles that old do not get ICU'ed but VFDed. So why aren't we putting rewrite tags on them instead? I think people forgot to use the rewrite tag and that is why VFD keeps getting 15 or more articles submitted. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I sort of agree actually. Some of the so-called "2005cruft" could do with a chance, as I've said on VFD more than once. It's not very often we delete anything from this era that isn't crap, but I think very occasionally people get a little too swept up in deleting old stuff. (/me stops just short of calling it our "Uncyc National Heritage") But yes, very off-topic. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 22:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, returning to the topic, shall I move this to the main space? -- herr doktor needsAbrain  [scream!] 21:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I vote nah, but put a proper vote section below if you like. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 22:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Main Space?

Score: 0 steamrollers

• For. -- herr doktor needsAbrain  [scream!] 22:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Against. (pasted from comment). -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 22:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

An all-encompassing idea

What if we use a conditional "if" parameter, as in ICU, and give different weights to a rewrite? It could start with the soft Charlie Brown stuff and go through the Steamroller as a last level. With 3 (or more) levels of rewrite we would take it easy with articles that need just some cleanup and push it hard with pieces of crap that need a complete restart. I'll try to implement the idea later, but I think it's very feasible. What about you? -- herr doktor needsAbrain  [scream!] 15:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Or, even better, we have one rewrite tag that randomly switches between all of those tags. Or maybe a category based rewrite tag like the {{catstub}} template. -- Kaizer the Bjorn takkun (nya nya) (1961 model!) Check out T61! 02:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! There it is:

• Default - without parameters:

	This article needs love
	This article is currently in a bad state, but all it needs is a little love. Please give some love by rewriting it.

• 1 - weak rewrite:

	This article needs love
	This article is currently in a bad state, but all it needs is a little love. Please give some love by rewriting it.

• 2 - medium rewrite:

	This article needs liposuction!
	This poor old lady is not in her better fitness, but we entrust your swift hands to bring her back to former glory. We meant rewrite it!

• 3 - hard rewrite:

		THIS ARTICLE NEEDS A STEAMROLLER!!!
	Sometimes the foundations are so rotten that the only constructive action is demolishing everything so to start it again from the scratch. In other words, rewrite this article. Ignore its current contents if you feel like. But be bold! DO IT!!!

Ready for use. -- herr doktor needsAbrain  [scream!] 19:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Implemented!

Braydie gave me authorization so I implemented it to our official rewrite template. As no article with that template currently use the parameter, it didn't change a thing yet, but you can try adding rewrite weights now - and editing captions, creating new options, as you wish. -- herr doktor needsAbrain  [scream!] 20:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: by suggestion of Orion Blastar, there's also a "character" parameter for thematic use. See the template page. -- herr doktor needsAbrain  [scream!] 22:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Or we could create a single template page with numerous versions (and a regular one) and you can then pick the one you one to use as a command arg, or if you're a noob, simply just include the regular one via a number of switches... sound good? -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 23:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You came late, Oli. That's exactly what I've done. Take a look. -- herr doktor needsAbrain  [scream!] 23:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what she said. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 00:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks great, one rewrite tag, but several options in variations. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)