Forum:Bring back Vigilance Week!

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Bring back Vigilance Week!

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6167 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Bring Back Vigilance Week!

Verily! Vicious vengeance versus voraciously vile vermin verifies V's vivacious vindicative.

It has been brought to my attention that Uncyclopedia has reached 23,000 articles for the 23,000th time. This is absurd. I may be completely off, but I invite you to push the randomize button a few times and tell me that you wouldn't like to see see some of this crap deleted. It is getting ridiculous!!. I know that VFD is there for a reason, but it just isn't up to the task — I feel that I could quite easily come up with 1,000 articles to delete just by myself. I also know that some of this stuff has potential, but that's potential. If you want to put the work into it, feel free. However, this crap is just clogging up the site and making the better articles look bad.

As such, I'd like to ask for the return of Vigilance Week(or a differently titled equivalent). Yes, it's drastic. I believe it to be necessary. I personally promise to find as many {{V}}-worthy articles as possible, should this measure be taken. Readers should not be afraid of their articles, articles should be afraid of the huff button.

Thank you for your time.
    EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)   21:46, Friday 18 January 2008  

Petition

Score: +3 Fed-up random page users

• Vigilance     EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)   21:46, Friday 18 January 2008  
•  Fuck this! - How about a vigilance week every two months? Lets do this on a regular basis! (Bonner) (Talk) Jan 18, 21:48
•  For. - great idea /methinks. We have too much garbage around Æ 21:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• For but give a new name, like Militant Week. --Dexter111344 21:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Extreme FOR!!! --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 21:53, Jan. 18, 2008 21:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• MOTHERFUCKIN' CONDITIONAL FOR! ...only if we have another Conservation Week before hand. --THINKER 22:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• No. And about doing V-week on a regular basis, also no. I'm fed up with this quality control shit. Go write something. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 22:35 Jan 18, 2008

Hence the Conservation Week...? --THINKER 22:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

For Conservation Week. For making Conservation Week a regular thing. Strongly and forever against another V-week. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 22:39 Jan 18, 2008

 Against. another V-week,  For. another UN:CW, and perhaps one on a regular basis. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 22:43, Jan 18

Changed my vote to against. Just yesterday VFD had only five articles on it. Clearly, we don't V-Week. At least, I don't think so. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 23:55, Jan 18

Well, contributing to VFD is tedious. I used to contribute there, but I no longer do because there's always the same voters, the same poor quality articles (do you ever get a laugh out of these unlike the VFH ones) and again, it's tedious. I think V-Week would be more exciting and it would generate more editors than VFD--Æ 18:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, sometimes the pages are so crappy I can't help but laugh. I also usually try to liven up the vote with a joke or a witty comment. -- Kippy the Elf Talk Works ☃ 18:25, Jan. 19, 2008

With me, that occurs once on a blue moon--Æ 18:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the time I can't even read the shit articles all the way through, especially the really long ones. Honestly, I don't know how some of the VFD regulars do it, and I have a great respect for them. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 18:31, Jan 19

• Straight up Uber For As a big anti-vandalism guy here, theres tons of stuff I wish i could just delete on sight, sadly, I dont have the power to huff yet, and would get pwnd in the ass if i abused it like that. But this workes just as well.--General And Min. THEDUDEMAN 23:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Against as per TLB. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 00:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
•  As per my personal thoughts and not based on others. Damn Liberal/Conservative Media bias. - Admiral Enzo Aquarius-Dial the Gate 03:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Against. Spend more time at VFD, you no-goodniks. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 06:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• For Another Conservation Week, another V-week, another whatever other weeks. Whether you guys are satisfied with the site's quality or not, it can always use improvement. I personally think V-week should be our standard mode of operations, but that's me. -RAHB 20:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
•  KILL IT WITH FIRE! —PongoV2(talk|cont) 10:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Discuss

I think a CW would be great, but is it possible to rewrite say 2,000 articles? No, we'll probably only rewrite 100 or so, and the rest will just have to die.--Æ 22:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is to rewrite articles with the potential to be good, not rewrite every single shitty one we come across. Thats my reasoning for being for both as a 1-2 quality attack. --THINKER 22:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? Why are we doing even more quality control shit? What's the rush? Honestly. I'm forever against all "quality control measures" (read: "drama-stirring schemes") that aren't VFD or QVFD. A lot of effort goes into an article. I think we can all respect that. I think we can all give an article a vote, not a sentence of death. Don't you think these authors' work deserves this? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 22:53 Jan 18, 2008

"A lot of effort goes into an article" - Correction. A lot of work goes into 10% of our articles. The rest are written by idiots and IPs (Bonner) (Talk) Jan 18, 22:55

Wow, that's a huge fucking generalization. Sure, some of the articles that fall victim to V-week are mere crap, but the point is, other stuff gets dragged down with the crap too. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 22:56 Jan 18, 2008

How about we have admins deciding what is and what V-worthy. The pure crap will simply be deleted, the ones that are okay will be sent to VFD, and good articles will be kept.--Æ 22:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No! That means the article's quality is determined by only two people. Plenty of articles have been deemed "unfunny" by administrators, who nominate them for VFD, and then are kept. Do we want these same administrators huffing articles on sight? Hell no! – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 23:00 Jan 18, 2008

How about we scratch V-Week and raise the VFD limit to 75 so crappy articles will be deleted quicker and with a consensus by several users--Æ 23:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, 75, that'll give all the articles a fair shot. By the time one finishes reading a quarter of the articles, half of 'em will be gone already. Honestly, people. Enough with the quality control. All it does is kill innocent articles and cause drama. I thought we'd all learned our lesson by now. Apparently not. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 23:03 Jan 18, 2008

Your correct about that. 30 is a more reasonable limit--Æ 23:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Call me thick, but I think we need more quality control. Tell you what. Screw Vigilance week. Let's have an EVERYTHING week. Rewrites, proofreading, crap cleaning, increased VFD limit, Everything you can think of. And let's extend it to a few weeks or maybe even a month. That covers everything then. AND gives everything a fair chance (Bonner) (Talk) Jan 18, 23:07

Um, isn't that basically what people should be doing on a regular basis anyway? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 23:08 Jan 18, 2008

True, but having a specialised week or two etc would draw more attention to that fact (Bonner) (Talk) Jan 18, 23:10

Sounds like a great idea in theory, but like whoring, or over-awarding, it can backfire. Label a time period as "X Week / Month" and people will assume that whenever it's not X Week / Month they shouldn't be doing anything. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 23:12 Jan 18, 2008

Shut up!-- Kaizer the Bjorn takkun (nya nya) (1961 model!) Check out T61! 15:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This conversation is spiraling into a quality quagmire for no reason. CW + VW = Perfectly fine. --THINKER 23:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

CW = perfectly fine. VW = not fine by me. I hate quality control with a passion. Explain why we're in such a rush to delete everything. Do we have some kind of deadline? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 23:16 Jan 18, 2008

Well, some stuff just can't be improved, so we need to get rid of them and they would take too long to get VFDeleted. Also, can't they be rewritten after deletion? Worst comes to worst, if they need the original copy, they can easily contact an admin--Æ 23:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What's this "too long" business? And you can't browse deleted articles, now can you? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 23:19 Jan 18, 2008

Admins can. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 23:23, Jan. 18, 2008

Actually regular users can view certain deleted pages if they're located at mirror.uncyc.org. -- Kippy the Elf Talk Works ☃ 14:37, Jan. 19, 2008

Actually, all people can...if you believe in the wonder of magik! /me claps hands twice, pants disappear. Wups. That ain't right. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 16:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Point being, do I look like an admin? And will someone please answer me about why we're in this rush? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 23:23 Jan 18, 2008

The point of deletion is to remove bad content from public view. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 23:26, Jan. 18, 2008

And the rush to remove bad content from public view is... What? To stop IPs from whining about sucky articles? We're doing it, slowly but surely, but we're doing it. There's a difference between steadily chipping away at it and smacking blocks off with a hammer. Quality control refers to the latter; VFD refers to the former. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 23:29 Jan 18, 2008

My personal opinion about V-week is that it's not a period of time used to rapidly remove content from public view, but rather a period of time to clean up the crap. It's intended purpose is to remove the irredeemable crap from the site since all it's doing is clogging up the page lists. Nobody's going to rewrite it because it's so bad it can't be rewritten. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 23:34, Jan. 18, 2008

Another point I should make, we have thousands of crap in the database. 3/4 of the time you click the random page button, a crap article comes up. This could damage people thoughts on Uncyc, seeing so many articles saying "Uncyclopedia: They're articles are supposed to be funny, well I clicked the randompage button and all of the articles were bullshit." That's why we're in a rush and are in need a V-Week, to get rid of the crap stat. Also, do you really think it's worth saving the occasional mediocre article just so we can keep thousands of crappy articles Dr. Skullthumper? I still think CW should be prior to V-Week so we could rewrite at least some of the crap--Æ 23:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I DON'T SEE WHAT'S WRONG WITH TAKING THE TIME TO VOTE ON ARTICLES. For Pete's sake, I'm not saying we keep the crap. I'm saying, don't fix what ain't broke. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 00:01 Jan 19, 2008

Why can't we just write satire...

...instead of focusing on this stupid unfunny shit. Earlier today before this crap started and yesterday, I was writing Fat Americans (It's not published yet as it is incomplete) but back on topic, write something instead of focusing on this--Æ 23:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

STRONG STRONG STRONG STRONG STRONG FOR – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 23:13 Jan 18, 2008

Reason why we can't all write satire: We can't all write as well as all you top featured writers. Some of use are better at maintenance (Bonner) (Talk) Jan 18, 23:17

So go do maintenance then. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 23:18 Jan 18, 2008

K (Bonner) (Talk) Jan 18, 23:19

Look, I'm never going to be a top featured writer, but I still enjoy writing, it's a hobby of mine, and it's certainly better than engaging in this shit. Who knows, I might write a high quality article one day.--Æ 23:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

These things take time. Most people didn't write at all before they came here. It takes time and experience to learn how to put the right words in the right order for maximum lack of badness. Relax. Chill. Chillax. By "most people", I mean "me". Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 06:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, I went the opposite way — came in writing and lost all talent soon afterward. But I blame that entirely on school. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 16:35 Jan 19, 2008

With me, prior to membership, I'd occasionally write short stories on MS Word, stuff that only I'd funny. I've written more now that I'm here--Æ 23:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have something very important to say.

But I forgot what it was. Oh well. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 23:30, Jan 18

Seems to me that something was missed

Vigilance Week is NOT Forest Fire Week. When articles are taged, they are NOT deleted as soon as an admin decides it sucks. The tag says that the article has one week to be rewriten or adopted. The adopter only has to tag the article with {{VA}} to save it from deletion and have it rewriten at the adopters pace. If we were voting for FFW these arguements would be regular, but we aren't, and they're not. --General And Min. THEDUDEMAN 00:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No, but the sheer amount of articles tagged (it's very easy to stick a V on a page you don't like) makes it very hard to rewrite a significant amount of them. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 00:25, Jan 19

This is why I was for V-Week last time. As it turns out, there's just too many V'd articles to keep track of. It really acted as more of a countdown than a cry for improvement, and articles got huffed by the dozens. So, that's why I'm against it. It seems like a FFW with a delay before deletion. And I see no voting process in V-Week, which bothers me. A piece of writing that's beyond QVFD quality deserves some respect, and V-Week doesn't give it to them. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 00:27 Jan 19, 2008

Also, If you feel the article needs a vote, it can be slaped on VFD, which has a limit double than normal.--General And Min. THEDUDEMAN 00:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

All articles that have been around for more than a week need votes. Is it fair that just because an article was spotted during some particular week, it has little to no chance of being reviewed by more than a single user and possibly an admin before getting huffed? I don't think so. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 00:30 Jan 19, 2008

So how about we just double the VFD limit for a week? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 00:32, Jan 19

I think we should remove the "No articles on QVFD older than a week" rule as some articles are just crap and don't require a vfd vote (Now I mean crap, i.e. vanity that somehow slipped through the cracks of deletion as well as one liners). With this proposal, crap would just be deleted stat.--Æ 00:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Before AE edit conflicted me this is what i came up with. My idea was to slap some kind of VFD template on the article, or all articles that would be for V week. From there, all articles would need a vote of at least x users to get deleted or saved like the current VFD. All articles are given y amount of days to reach the number of votes, and if it never reaches x, an admin makes the final decision to kill or keep. All voting is done on the article itself, and not VFD. VFD can be suspended during this week (or however long we keep it) due to lack of need. The QVFD rule of V week stays in effect for absolute shit. Articles with only one vote and no other reviews shall be kept instantly, and anyone who abuses the system for an article they just don't like can get baned at the admins descression. Call it "Fuck-me-up-the-ass Something Week" --General And Min. THEDUDEMAN 00:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like VFD, only with more articles. How about we just double the VFD limit for a week? Also, fix your sig. Additionally, fix your sig. And in conclusion, fix your sig. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 00:55 Jan 19, 2008

"How about ve just double the VFD limit for a week?" How about more people poke their heads in there and vote? At the moment, we're seeing the same few sigs, and maybe if someone finds an article they're keen to get rid of, they'll nom it and maybe vote on one or two others to look like they're taking an interest. Just a thought (and not directed at anyone in particular). --82.22.71.117 18:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That was me, by the way. Seems I'm getting logged out every few minutes again... Grr. --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 18:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the same thing happened to me, just now. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 18:35, Jan 19

That won't happen if you click the "Remember my login on this computer" button in your preferences. It's not happening to me--Æ 18:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on it. Also, The limit is Ahnialated and the voting takes place on the individual pages. With just a doubled VFD limit, theres only only 2x articles being deleted a day. With Something week, theres alot more being huffe because of an unlimited voting. Besides, it doesn't have to be as many people voting on it as VFD, maybe only a score of 3 or something else low like that, so that they get deleted faster. Also, my sig sucks. General And Min. THEDUDEMAN 01:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It all sounds a bit messy, and also, too many articles = not as many voters = these articles still aren't given the same amount of consideration as they would have gotten during non-Something week = meh. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 01:06 Jan 19, 2008

Additionally, fix your sig. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 01:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'M TRYING!!! Its not that easy. TheDudeMan

I'm with Thumper and TKF on that. Write more - delete less. Also, THEDUDEMAN FIX YOUR GOD DAMNED SIG! ~ Mordillo where is my DONKEY PUNCHER? 01:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Looked like trailing newlines. It should be fixed now, but it may take a few minutes for the new versions to be displayed. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 01:44, Jan. 19, 2008

TheDudeMan, YOU FIXED YOUR GOD DAMNED SIG! - Admiral Enzo Aquarius-Dial the Gate 03:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It got fixed, but now i miss all the people yelling at me for spewing boxes everywhere.

meh

much better. General And Min. THEDUDEMAN

06:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sign below if you think that quality control has an net negative force effect on the site

In particular, mass quality control that has no real way of monitoring it. We aren't running out of server space (and if we were, "deleting" the articles actually increases server load, not decreases), we're not trying "to chase off the bad writers" (at least I hope we aren't... writers are developed, not born), and the only good reason I've heard for removing bad articles entirely is that it makes the rest of the site looks bad, which could easily be fixed by a 5-star rating system, which doesn't involve destroying the work of some n00b (in their eyes, since many have no idea the articles can be restored and probably only about 10% complain. That's the business assumption, that only 10% of your unhappy visitors will complain about it to you.). I say we get a 5-star rating system and calm down on the nukular weapons.--<<>> 15:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• For eradicating all mass-huffing quality-control measures. I'm also for whatever you wanna do with a rating system ma-jigger. Also, about deletion and server load: Could someone please tell me why we're huffing unused images, if it increases server load? I don't get it. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 16:18 Jan 19, 2008
  • I was actually talking about articles. Deleting images actually IS worthwhile... expect that we still aren't running out of server space. The only issue there is bandwidth if, say, someone wants to post their porn on the site. Not that anyone has ever done that before. /me glares at Zombiebaron.--<<>> 16:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Quality control is like chemo-therapy. Kills the bad, but it kills the good, too. That's why I think we should only use it when completely necessary. I'd be for a VW if I thought we really needed it, but I don't think we do right now. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 18:50, Jan 19
• Well, if we're talking metaphors... I like to think of quality control like a garden. Sure, you could indiscriminately cut all the grass with a mower so it all looked perfect, but all the individual blades of grass would look samey. Leave it mostly to its own devices, pulling out bad plants one at a time, and you'll get lots of small weeds mixed in, but also lots of new plants you wouldn't have got before, because they've had time to grow. A jungle is much more interesting than a back garden. And as everyone else keeps saying, the bad articles aren't going anywhere. VFD isn't going anywhere. There's no rush. If you truly think an article needs to be started again from scratch, then it can be at any time - they don't need to be deleted first. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 19:58, 19 Jan 2008
  • Well, technically these are similes. Just sayin' - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 20:10, Jan 19
    • Well, the first sentence maybe... but I think technically they're technically analogies. Technically. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 20:28, 19 Jan 2008
      • You two, take your filthy mouths outside. We don't need that kind of language in here. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 21:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Old Man Modus is gettin' soft! He didn't even make us wash our mouths out with soap this time. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 21:50, Jan 19
          • Can't afferd no goldang soap, dagnabit, an' wudna waste it on you kids if I had it, no siree! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 21:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Also, for the 5-star thingy. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 10:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Yeah, what the raving madman above me said. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 17:22, Jan 20

Words of wisdomness

I've been wanting to say this forever, because it's a truth that must be said. A portion of articles on VFD have potential. It's just easier to slap a template on a page on link it for a vote than it is to actually fix it up and make it acceptable. -- Kippy the Elf Talk Works ☃ 18:52, Jan. 19, 2008

These articles can be rewritten after being deleted, and some are just so bad, they need to be started from scratch.--Æ 18:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can either do this the easy way, or the right way. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 21:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I can haz sugeshun?

How 'bout tis be done? First, we double the limit for VFD. If we give this week (or most likely longer) a lot of publicity and encouragement it should attract enough attention to take care of the extra articles. Then, we make another Poopsmith's Lounge-ish page for people to list their VFD articles, and make sure that everybody knows about it. We should not even link VFD in the inevitable front-page template and just tell people to list their articles on the new page. If everything goes right, this page will become loaded with articles and will be slowly voted away until all the articles are taken care of. This way people are still able to participate in the wholesale slaugher of defenseless articles, but the articles are still being voted upon. And, while I'm making crazy suggestions, we could even streamline the process if we had one or two dedicated programmers. If somebody locked the VFD page, set the entries to some pre-determined limit (probably 30), and found a way to make the entries in the Poopsmith's Loungy page automatically list themselves when admins archived old entries, it would almost run itself. Even better would be if there was a way to make any pages with a certain template slapped on it add themselves to the Poopy page. That's probably somewhat of a pipe dream, but if the Poopy was in the category namespace it could be done, and the articles would even be listed alphabetically, so that if the same article became listed twice it would be easy to spot on the page or in VFD. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 20:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)