Forum:Deleting All "Approval" & "Written By" Templates

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Deleting All "Approval" & "Written By" Templates

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5528 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Note: I'm not trying to do a massive QVFD or delete these via a private hit list. I intend on nominating on VFD. However, I want to try to get a consensus on deleting these before I post the "not horrible" ones on VFD. Otherwise, people might vote "keep" because "we kept that last few templates that were on here." If a nominate these and the don't get deleted, then the next time they are nominated, somebody might vote keep "because it survived its last VFD nomination".

I went through the advisory templates and separated some into sub categories. Anyway, we have:

• 30 Approves Templates, templates that tell you that somebody approves or disapproves of a given article, and

• 13 Written by templates, templates that tell you who the article was written by. Plus, there are probably some more of these templates that I haven't found yet.

Would anybody object to any of these being deleted? --S'r Mnbvcxz 17:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• No. That is you are again bypassing VFD. There's two possible outcomes of this forum: one - you'll some for votes and then push them forward to a new VFD vote, thereby voting twice on the same issue or two - get some for votes and copy paste them in VFD thereby creating a private VFD process. Either way, I urge people to stop finding original ways to bypass VFD. VFD is what we got. ~ 17:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Poopy. I was all set to go vote 'n' stuff. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 17:12, Feb 2

  I don't think we're supposed to vote on it now, so he's not bypassing VFD. He's just asking for some comment before he starts nominating them all on VFD. He's insecure like that. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 17:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't understand the reason for this forums which keep coming back every few months. VFD has loads of space in it, it didn't go up to the 20 article limit for months. Just post the damn things on VFD. If people don't like them, they're deleted. If people like them, they don't get deleted - why do we need to discuss everything for weeks? ~ 17:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Because we're idiots. ;) • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 17:18, Feb 2

Please read the note at the top. I an not trying to by pass VFD. However, I do want to have some discussion before I nominate these so I don't suffer knee-jerk keeps. If I nominate these, and knee-jerk "keep" voting starts, then I will just making it harder to delete these the next time.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't want to keep some of these, I'm only asking to think before you vote keep. Additionally, if alot of people want to keep all of these, or certain ones, I'll know not to bother nominating them on VFD. As a final note, I'd be happy if some or all these where "dammed from mainspace" in lieu of outright deletion. --S'r Mnbvcxz 17:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Dude. You are not the first to go on such a crusade, and I do totally understand where you are coming from. However, consider the following when you make your noms on VFD:

• How many articles is the template on? (use what links here) It's actually kinda a vote for the popularity of a given template really. If enough people think it's funny enough to use it a lot, you are likely to meet resistance on VFD.
• Is it funny? Be honest. I know what you are trying to do, but sometimes going on a VFD bender can blind you to the funny.
• Don't get too keyed up on VFD. Many users before you have had a very frustrating time on VFD, and some have left the site as a result.
• Is the template something which is likely to spammed around all over the place (in a bad way), or is it something which would be suitable for particular types of articles.

The trouble is that templates which are on lots of pages are difficult to get deleted at VFD, and those which are on few pages are not really creating much of a mess in the mainspace, so you are not really cleaning the wiki up much by deleting them. Don't forget that as a user you are allowed to remove templates from articles, so that may well be a better idea in many cases. If you find a non-funny template which is spammed all over the place, prune it back a bit. Don't go crazy, but just hack it out in the places where its use is really not suitable. In conclusion... VFD ;) MrN 18:22, Feb 2

I don't think it matters so much if a template is funny, the real question is if its funny or useful on several articles. If its funny on one or two articles, and clutter everywhere else, then it shouldn't exist as a template.

Also, I think having so many "joke templates" confuses noob editors, who might get the idea that each article is supposed to have an "approves", "written by", and/or other useless comment templates. Also, much of the template spam doesn't come from original authors thinking, "oh, this template is funny here." But rather, it comes from template spammers or people who got the mistaken idea that every Pokemon article is supposed to have a {{Pokemonwarning}}. --S'r Mnbvcxz 18:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think most people basically agree with a lot of what you are saying. The real trick with VFD is to not get too emotionally involved with it. Just make your noms, and move on... or so articles? Baa My final tip... Leave the Grues alone. Last time I tried to mess with them, well... Just... AAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! MrN 18:47, Feb 2

I really don't care if some or even most of these pass VFD.

That being said, my main concern is knee-jerk anti-deletionism. I don't have a problem with people wanting to keep this templates. However, I don't want people to vote "keep" these because they mistakenly think we have a policy against deleting templates that are on userspace, or because someone fouled up the last couple delete attempts of that template. Likewise, I don't want to be one who inadvertently responsible for establishing a "we don't delete "Written by" or "Approves" templates" by nominating all of them on VFD (gradually, one or two per day, per the rules). --S'r Mnbvcxz 19:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally

I think VFD is inadequate for our needs and that at some point in the near future we'll need some system to supplement it. The shitty articles just keep piling up and piling up, and as it is, it takes ten times as much work to get rid of them as for a hapless new user to create them.

I personally think the bureaucracy involved in VFD'ing an article is a primary reason that so many people wander into Uncyclopedia, type something random into the search bar, and think "Bleah, this website fucking sucks."

Of course, with these templates, it's almost a moot point, because there's no bureaucracy involved in simply removing them from every page where they aren't funny, a project I've been working on for a while, but not in a very organized way. I just find an unfunny template, click to every page on "what links here," confirm that the template looks fucking stupid at the top, and remove it. pillow talk 19:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hyperbole. Maybe he's not that bad after all. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 19:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

So between ICU, VFD, maintenance tags, QVFD and that lst you need another mechanism of deletion? Did you notice that the site's article count did not pass the 23,000 marker for, I think over a year? That's because the admins delete masses and masses of shit each and every day and good writers don't write enough. Things will always slip between the holes unless you have 150 active admins from each time zone on the planet. Going back to my original idea - how about we write good stuff rather then endlessly debating the deletion of bad stuff. Writing=good. Debating deletion and removal of templates in bizarre and original ways every two months=boring and does not contribute. The maintenance system works as well as it would, so unless anyone has a completely original idea which doesn't include variations of ICU, personal deletions crusades and mass removal of templates afterwards claiming that they're not being used, let's drop the issue. Again. ~ 20:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Uncyc is set-up in such a manor that it sometimes takes more effort on the part of the community to delete pants older articles than ever went into creating them in the first place. I tried to suggest a way of fixing this problem here with a completely original idea? ... What happened when I suggested this, as always happens when someone brings this issue up is that people who don't vote on VFD did not support it. If you can't be arsed to read my old forum it's simple... We have a page which people can list articles on, if any user, even just one person wants the article kept, they can kept it. The nominator would then have to use VFD as per normal. It would not be a replacement for VFD, but a supplement to it. Check the forum for more details of how it would work if you are interested. /me runs for the door MrN 21:04, Feb 2

That might be a good idea. I also had an idea for a "I'm going to VFD this, does anyone object template." Unfortunately, it died of instruction bloat. --S'r Mnbvcxz 05:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The point of VFD is that it takes a while to delete an article. That time span allows as many users as possible to vote on whether or not it's kept. Two or three people can't decide on what's funny and what's not by themselves--some kind of consensus is necessary, or else we wind up deleting things some people think are funny. A kept bad page can always be rewritten or re-nom'd--a deleted good page is usually gone forever. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 00:47, Feb 3

The problem with deleting, as I see it, is that it takes a few minutes for a couple of people to decide something is bad and delete it. The time it takes to write said bad article is often an hour, at least. I've had an article deleted before that took several hours of writing (not counting the agonizing over it here, just the actual writing work). This is disproportionate. It should take a LONG FREAKING TIME to delete an article, because it takes so long to write them. I have always believed this. If something took a long time to write and its crap, should it stay? No, of course not, but it should take at least as long to delete as it took to write. That's my stand.--<<>> 01:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Check it out... MrN 02:17, Feb 3

On the plus side, Brad, having that article deleted gave you valuable emotional baggage that you can carry with you where ever you go. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 04:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Guaranteed to increase in value! - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 04:54, Feb 3

So I asked this guy and

Template:Picard Approves IronLung 04:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Approved by Oogle.

This page has met the criteria of The Oogle Company. Be careful, though. Oogle is evil...

---

--S'r Mnbvcxz 05:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Back to my original question

Does anyone care about said templates, and if so, which ones? --S'r Mnbvcxz 06:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Dude!!!!! If/when we set this up, you can use it to get your answers... You can put the template onto each page and if anyone cares, they can remove it. If you then still decide to take the ones which are left to VFD, that's up to you... MrN 06:21, Feb 3

I am kind of hesitant on "waiting around for something which may or may not be created" before going ahead with something else, mainly due to my experience with that one template and its death by instruction bloat. If several people are of the opinion that some or all of the "Approves" or "Written By" should be kept, then I won't bother making the nominations on VFD. (Either through VFD or the pants template.) --S'r Mnbvcxz 07:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question... Some people will like some of them. MrN 07:09, Feb 3

Even though it is barely used, that Picard disapproval template is awesome. Also the Cthulhu template is probably worthwhile. IronLung 07:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of those templates have the potential to be funny if they were only used once or twice as code in an article. I don't want send to the code to hell, so much as "de-templatify" it (and maybe sub code in a couple mainspace pages if its funny.) --S'r Mnbvcxz 07:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 11:51, Feb 3

From my view this has gotten way out of hand – users spending a lot of time working out how to delete a lot of content is a worrying trend. I think yet again, Mordillo has got a point about writing articles instead of trying to secure deletions – I dislike the way so many are no so geared towards detracting – I support the idea that some control is very needed on an open wiki, and I would say I contribute to this, however the deletionism ethic has a limit – I think it makes us very off-putting to new contributors and that perhaps we’re creating a very hostile environment. Personally I always remove these novelty templates when I come across them and try and improve the articles to some extent; a gradual toning down of them has worked pretty well (if you think of the total content).--Sycamore (Talk) 10:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Here here! /me kisses Sycamore in an entirely manly, heterosexual way.--<<>> 13:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Also here here! This is how Hitler got started, man. Hitler. I rest my case. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 14:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think of lot of the problem is the bad templates, particularly the perverse instruction templates and nonsense succession templates. Fortunately, most of the worst templates have either been toned down or removed. But the "canned joke" templates also set a bad example for new users. Another problem is that we try to be funny on policy pages, but it often ends up just coming across as arcane or confusing. (For example, the term "ignorable policy"). --S'r Mnbvcxz 15:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, I think of alot of this anti-deletionism is the reason the the obsession over deleting stuff. (And for the record, I am not trying to bi pass VFD in anyway whatsoever.) If this stuff had been deleted back when hyperbole tried it, this forum post wouldn't exist. I'd grant that hyperbole solution of a "private hitlist" wasn't the best idea, but still, if two templates had been put on VFD a day, they'd have already gone through VFD by now. The harder you make article deletion and quality control on existing articles, the more time people are going to spend deleting stuff when they could be writing articles, doing pee reviews, or other useful tasks. --S'r Mnbvcxz 19:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

On a Related note

Does deleting an article on notable topic really help or not? I am of the opinion that any article about a notable topic should not be deleted for unfunniness. (Now, if it describes the sexual escapades of a pre-teen actress or something, that's different.) The majority opinion is that its harder to rewrite a bad article than it is to start from scratch. I would object to that for two reasons. First, even the worst articles do contain some ideas that might be useful. And second, a horrible article might inspire someone to write a better version, more so than seeing that article doesn't exist. When I was noob, I found it quite annoying that this wiki didn't have anything on certain notable subjects, chiefly children's shows and video game characters. Yes, I am quite aware that those articles tended to rival E.D. in vulgarity and illogopedia in coherence, but even a quickly made protected rewrite would be better than nothing, but I digress.

Anyway, on article deletion, I am quite anti-deletionist compared to the other VFD regulars. I would compare my template jihad to Sycamore's category control. Mainspace is where the humor and satire are supposed to be, not in categories, templates, or regular forum posts. I am not saying that we can't make jokes there, but those things exist to make the site function, not be humorous in themselves.--S'r Mnbvcxz 16:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Makes ya feel all warm inside when people thank you for all the effort you put into the site eh? Bad articles can scare away n00bs, and some people enjoy tidying up the place. My personal crusade a while back was fixing short pages. When I joined we were deleting via QVFD or ICU a lot of stuff which was better than what we already had. That was sending a really bad message to new users, and helping to reduce that problem gave me a lot of satisfaction. If someone wants to do this kinda thing they will. If they want to write they will. Suggesting that people should not do what they want to do appears daft to me. Suggesting that we should not delete bad old articles is also daft. It makes a lot more sense to delete the old crap and keep more of the new. At least that encourages n00bs to stick around a bit longer, maybe even long enough to create something really good. If anyone does not think that having really poor articles on the wiki is a problem, I invite them to go take a look at ?pedia. Although I love our friends at ?pedia, when I go there I think, oh I don't really want to edit here, I want my articles to sit along side other good articles. I want to feel like I am contributing to something which is good, and I want to feel like it's a challenge to write something which is good enough for the site. ?pedia has a number of very good articles some of which would make it as FA articles here, but because they keep so much the good is lost amongst all the noise. People get a general impression from browsing around, and may decide to stay or leave based on that impression.

On the question you ask here... My view is that a totally pants page is worse than no page at all. If someone finds a bad page they might think... "Na, I don't want to get involved with that", whereas a blank canvas can make someone think. "Hea, there is not even an article on XXX. Now I could be the person who creates and writes that article!" People like creating pages, and feel more ownership of them when they do. Especially when you are new to a wiki I think it's a big step to wade in and totally rewrite a page, you feel that you need to keep something of the original, and worry about upsetting the other users who have worked on it before. Personally, when I vote on VFD I am more inclined to vote keep on the more notable pages, but still if it's bad enough I think a fresh start is a good idea. I have seen a few times that when a notable page is deleted, it is often quickly recreated in a better form. Especially as pages which have lots of links around the place will generate red links when deleted. This highlights to our users that the page needs doing. If it's not deleted, it will likely sit there for years, and never get the attention it needs. Obviously where you draw the line is up to your own judgement, and everyone will have a different view. MrN 17:46, Feb 3

"Mainspace is where the humour and satire are supposed to be"? You can't put humour in a box, man! (Except when it's in a template, which is at least box-like). Learn to colour outside the lines. Sometimes, you will fall off the edge of comedy. It's awesome. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 17:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

WARNING: Partial Bullshit

This article is based on the truth, but contains a fair amount of bullshit as well. The author felt that the truth about Deleting All "Approval" & "Written By" Templates was funny, but not quite funny enough to stand by itself. If you feel that there isn't enough bullshit here, feel free to shovel some in.  (And by bullshit, we mean funny stuff, not incoherent babbling.)

---

I'm still whoring this template trying to save its sorry arse. It made me laugh you see... MrN 17:57, Feb 3

I wonder if there is way to measure the effectiveness of article deletion and recreation versus hard rewrite tagging? I know of a few bad articles that were saved by a rewrite after they were placed on VFD. And back in my reader stage, I'd see a random crap article then nothing at all. Finally, if an article doesn't exist for a while, it will eventually be de-linked to, especially on the good, maintained articles.

Of course, I could see the problem with letting crap just pile up for whatever reason. Too many weak articles takes down the of the wiki. And, some users might find a blank slate more motivating and less depressing than a incoherent stub or 75 kb of incoherent rabbling.--S'r Mnbvcxz 18:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

75 kb of rambling? I don't think this page is up to that yet, but it's getting close... Look, just go and vote keep on the Bullshit template dammit! :P MrN 18:16, Feb 3

I tried to shrink the template a bit. I personally don't like the "wall to wall" advisory templates as a rule, they just look too big. Anyway, while you're there voting keep on this one, be sure to vote delete on the other templates :). --S'r Mnbvcxz 18:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, you don't understand how this works. What happens is some new user breaks into the Uncyc world, notices that we have piles of crap stinking up the place and decides to go on a crusade to fix it all... Then... They come up against a huge wall of opposition. Usually from people who seldom vote on VFD, but that's not really the point. The point is anyway, that we grind the new user down into the ground by telling them that they are not appreciated, and that they should stop trying to change our wiki, cos we like our crap. You appear to be totally missing the point. You are supposed to react badly to all the negative criticism, go one a bit of a mad one, probably get a ban or two as a result, and then leave the site in a huff thinking that we are all a bunch of assholes. You sir appear to be totally failing to perform the last action. I would ask that you refrain from such and please play this game as it intended to be played. Also, listen to Modus. He does know a thing or two about this place, and more that just a thing or two about humour. Well I think he's better with humor, but either way he is right. You can't put humour in a box, unless it's a template. It's best not to try, as if you draw too many straight lines you end up with a page full of boxes. Now, you could play tick tac toe, but that's not really the point. The point is... Um. Oh, It's dinner time. :_) MrN 18:43, Feb 3

No offense MrN (and I'm sure I will offend, because I have a talent for it), but I'm not as worried about chasing off a user who spends an afternoon tagging three dozen articles as being deletable as I am running off one user who spends the same amount of time writing the deletable article. Sure, the article is no good, and gets deleted, but if they have a lot invested in that article, they may be willing to stay around and help get it fixed up. Or not. I don't know. Also, the argument that "anti-deletionism causes deletionism" makes me go "huh?" Trust me, deletionism will always be around. It was rampaging early in Uncyclopedia's history, and is only down to the levels it is now due to the users that asked "Um, why are we deleting everything that's not feature-worthy?" (Incidentally, I believe many of the articles deleted around that time would have a decent chance at VFH Today.) I'm definitely of the mindset that it's certainly better than it was. I guess my point is that approval and written by templates do suck. As a rule, all templates suck. Don't we already delete new ones on sight unless they have a good reason to exist?--<<>> 01:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hea Brad. You know me, I'm always up for a good argument, but I'm struggling to see one here! I'm feeling a little bit ripped off actually... :( I'm sure both you and Mnbvcxz know I was bullshitting/joking above. Mnbvcxz rocks. How many Pee Reviews? I do think that we delete in a more sensible way these days, and are more accepting to new users than we used to be since my records began (Nov 07). I do think we still have a tenancy to want to hang onto old crap, when some new fresher crap (with accompanying N00b) might be better, but hea... I think we are doing a lot better... As for VFH, I totally agree. Maybe my perception has changed, but when I first got here, I wrote Pointless Paradox come on, that's not a bad bit of whoring right there and I remember being proud of it, but also being happy that it was just not up to the standard of the other stuff which was fighting for the front page. I did not even think about VFH for it. I remember Mhaille actually said that he thought it was the weaker of my first 3 articles. Right now it's on VFH, and it appears to stand a fair chance... You know... It's almost like people just don't want to edit here as much as they used to. I have a few ideas why... I think Wikipedia changing BJAODN and then removing virtually all their links to us made a difference. I guess the novelty of Uncyc also wore off a bit. It's not so much fun to edit someone else's article as to create a new one and I guess back in the day, there were a lot more articles which did not exist. I also think the slow gradual process which Wikia have been putting us though must have had an impact. I know when I joined I thought that Uncyc was a truly non-profit organisation. That was one of the key things which attracted me. It was a while until I realised this was not the case. With the domain name change it's just not possible to pretend any more... That probably also has an impact... MrN 02:18, Feb 4

Basically, what MrN9000 said. I consider myself an anti-deletionist, compared to other VFD regulars, I'm almost a fanatical anti-deletionist. However, this issue has to do with template deletion, not article deletion. When a noob sees these various useless templates, he often gets the idea that creating equally useless templates is a good idea. Then, when his templates, which are as good (or possibly even better) than some of the established templates get deleted, he gets angry and leaves. I really think it might be better and easier on everyone if we just clear out these templates now; none of them need to exist as templates. (I'm not opposed having any or all of these templates remain as sub'd code on articles in mainspace.) We don't want noobs creating new "worthless comment" templates and don't want noobs spamming the existent templates around either.

In an nut shell, if we don't want noobs creating crap (and conflict from deleting said crap), the best way to do that is to remove the old crap. Or rather, old, irredeemable crap. We can all agree that we don't want "approves" or "written by" templates spammed over the whole wiki, and we don't want new templates of that type. For the few articles were such a thing is funny, a code sub'd is always possible.--S'r Mnbvcxz 06:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to butt in here and say rather pointlessly that these templates are, by far, the worst thing about Uncyclopedia (content-wise, anyway - don't get me started about non-content issues). None of them are the least bit funny really, and I've never seen one used in a way that improved an article, ever. Getting rid of them (whole-hog or otherwise) would be a huge step towards qualitatively improving things around here.  c • > • cunwapquc? 07:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Why are we all agreeing on the "these templates suck" issue? This is the worst flamewar I've ever been involved in.--<<>> 12:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't! You sir are mistaken. Also, I paid for a full 10 minute argument, and I demand my money back. MrN 19:28, Feb 4

I have nothing to contribute to this discussion

Odin Loves This Article

The Allfather, the Hanged God, the Lord of Men, is the supreme judge of heroic things. He has personally reviewed this article and determined that it is up to Valhalla's quality standards. The author is permitted to enter the heroic realm of Asgard upon death. In the meantime, the author will be given a cask of Odin's favorite mead.

---

Hyperbole fucking hates this article.

Hyperbole thinks this article is bullshit. If he were an admin, he would delete it, and then ban the author, and then revert all the author's contributions, and then locate the author's grocery store and urinate into all the boxes of Hot Pockets. Hyperbole intends to pester an admin to do precisely these things.

---

Puff the Magic Dragon Has Nothing to do with This Article

Puff, the magic dragon lived by the sea, And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called Honah Lee. Which is why he doesn't appear in this article.

Well, except here in this template telling you that he doesn't appear in the article, but other than that, he's too busy frolicking in the autumn mist in Honah Lee to make an appearance in this article.

---

As a relative newbie - i think you should have a few templates that are very clear but can have some variations on them . Also I do like the idea of adding positive templates to encourage new writers here. At the moment this site looks like a frat house on bad acid ( not that I know anything about acid except one shouldn't drink it).--Romartus 14:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)