Forum:Deletion policy, again
I hate to do this, but I have an issue.
Recently, I was looking over the recent changes, and noticed "swiss navy." I thought this was funny, so I decided to try editing it. I was surprised to find that when my edit was done, the only content in the article was my edit, and not the material already there. I thought I'd accidentally overwritten the previous material, but in fact what had happened was another user (probably an admin) had summarily deleted the article while I was editing it. And then, predictably, they deleted my edit as well.
So, no NRV, no VFD, no QVFD, just into the memory hole. Last time I checked, it's not Forest Fire Week. I'd like to have a serious policy discussion on this, because it's one thing to tag and later delete abandoned stubs, it's quite another to wipe them out summarily seconds after their creation, while other people are trying to edit them into articles.
--RudolfRadna 21:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Content was:
(Deleted revision as of 27 April 2006)
Not surprisingly for an island nation, Switzerland has a long and proud maritime tradition.
==Ships== *the S. S. Crouton, which patrols the Sea of Fondue
{{stub}}
(Deleted revision as of 27 April 2006)
==Knife==
The Swiss navy knife is just a handle with no knives since Switzerland is a landlocked country.
t o m p k i n s blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 22:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Right. Is it site policy to delete stubs like this that clearly have comedic value, instead of using NRV? I thought Wikis were supposed to be based on consensus, not anarchy, which is what a lot of users running around deleting things is.
--RudolfRadna 22:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- There aren't a lot of users running around deleting things, theres a lot of admins doing it. :) To be honest I would have probably deleted it too. The idea behind Uncyclopedia is to make spoof encyclopedic style articles rather than oneliners. If something has promise, and it can only come down to a judgement call, then we'll NRV it. We have so many new entries like this every minute of every hour of every day that if we didn't just huff mercilessly the site would be full of cruft and we'd all need big wellies..... -- Sir Mhaille
(talk to me)
- Were I an admin, I too would have deleted those articles. Why? Because they are so short, that even if the author got a fantastic idea and came back to add it, rewriting what was deleted would be really easy for them to do. And aswell, niether of the revisions above are funny. --The Zombiebaron 22:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- It is, however, not your issue to judge the fun factor of a particular article. Every article has been written by somebody investing their time and ideas into it. Even if in Uncyclopedia the standards are slightly different and writings ofter hastier, the articles that seem lacking in content should be rather enhanced than deleted. This should be clear to a (wiki-)thinking person. --Sigmundur
- Actually, it is the job of admins to ultimately determine whether the quality of an article is acceptable. As for clear wikithinking, it is generally not possible to enhance a stub on Uncyclopedia; Wikipedia stubs are easily enhanced because there is one right answer but here there isn't. On Uncyclopedia, to expand an article, one must expand on the existing joke so when a mediocre one-liner exists, the article has effectively been monopolized and drained of potential. Think of it like a forest fire that destroys old-growth trees and underbrush creating potential for fresh foliage. --Sir gwax (talk)
15:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, it is the job of admins to ultimately determine whether the quality of an article is acceptable. As for clear wikithinking, it is generally not possible to enhance a stub on Uncyclopedia; Wikipedia stubs are easily enhanced because there is one right answer but here there isn't. On Uncyclopedia, to expand an article, one must expand on the existing joke so when a mediocre one-liner exists, the article has effectively been monopolized and drained of potential. Think of it like a forest fire that destroys old-growth trees and underbrush creating potential for fresh foliage. --Sir gwax (talk)
I'm going to add some advise to the how to page on this (if I can find one), because what's happening here is n00bs are falling into a trap where they create a page not knowing any better what will happen, and it tends to be short, because we're not all the most creative fertile literary minds, and it's all getting zapped to oblivion and obviously this isn't working.
--RudolfRadna 22:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- If you want to try to save it I've put a copy at User:RudolfRadna/Swiss Navy Knife for your viewing pleasure. If you can expand it into a decent article feel free to move it back once you have finished.... -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me)
- Yah, thats the best thing to do...I do it...yah...--The Zombiebaron 22:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I wrote a n00b how to pretty much advocating that: Uncyclopedia:How To Get Started Editing. Any comments? I think that this is a good outcome in terms of policy, just try to educate the n00bs more about the facts of uncyclopedia life . . . .
--RudolfRadna 22:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
And thanks for the sub-page, I'd actually already put it under my NRV rescue page. Subdividing it is a good idea, but I was refraining from doing that because I was concerned I'd eat up server space by making multiple subpages or something. --RudolfRadna 22:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Nah, screw it.....fill yer boots! -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me)
- Ok, thanks for the advice. About the howto page, I'm going to see if I can link to the howto page in such a way that people who want to can find it, but I don't know enough about the site structure to realize the best way to do it immediately, so I'll think it over and work it out when I figure out what to do. --RudolfRadna 23:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'd just like to take a second and let you know I fully support a page telling n00bs how to keep their content alive at Uncyclopedia. It's very true that
adminspeople will kill a sick, weak article on sight regardless of it's potential humor content, 9 times out of 10. The main problem you'll run into is that no n00bs will read a "how to" get started policy, 9 times out of 10, but I think we should have a clear path to show them, just the same. That said, if this is your first article, read the Beginner's Guide first. Be funny and not just stupid. Thank you.--<<
>> 23:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'd just like to take a second and let you know I fully support a page telling n00bs how to keep their content alive at Uncyclopedia. It's very true that
- I'm glad you think the page is a worthy addition, and I'd appreciate any advice on how to try to give n00bs an easy way to find it. Maybe where this belongs is in the beginner's guide (the HowTo page), but that page is protected. Any thoughts on how to approach this? Should I create a new VD forum about changing the beginner's guide to include the content of the HowTo page somewhere? Or just link to the HowTo page from somplace else? --RudolfRadna 23:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
And it's not my first article, but it may be my first article that won't eventually be deleted, lol. I think some aspects are funny in a weird way, some of the similes, maybe. --RudolfRadna 23:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I was referring to the link that is between the edit space and the "save page" link, but I didn't realize those pages were protected. That would make sense. Those are the most visible places on the site, and highlighting that no one looks at them. That's all I was saying with that sentence. Sorry, I meant no offense.--<<>> 23:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- None taken. I make a deliberate effort to take nothing anyone says here personally, even if it is deliberately directed against me in an offensive way. It's just not worth getting angry at a person you don't even really know. Of course the site basics are still vital, but they're about how to write contentwise. This is more about how to develop ideas without having your work deleted every step of the way by using your userpage instead of just going into the main space. Different issue, and I think the way this has emerged, its an important one. --RudolfRadna 03:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I found a way, I linked it from [[1]]. That should be good enough so at least people who want to read it can find it. --RudolfRadna 03:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I was able to do this because the 'broken up' version of the beginner's guide was unprotected for some reason. The one big page version of the guide was protected, so I couldn't link from there. This will have to do, at least for now. Anyone here who wants to mess around with this if they think they can make it work better is free to try.
Btw, the text I added was "For some unofficial, but useful, advice on how to develop ideas on uncyclopedia without having to worry about your work in progress being deleted, check out Uncyclopedia:How To Get Started Editing"
--RudolfRadna 03:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've also been trying to give some advice to people who are having problems, so now that this "how to" page is up, I'm just going to refer them there, so even if people don't browse to it en masse, it has a reason to exist as a time-saving device. --RudolfRadna 13:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Made some improvements, mainly adding the HowTo template and doing a better job explaining how to register and how to create a user page. I know that stretched the subject of the how to a little bit, but it seemed important because the message of the page was to register and create a user page to compose articles on, and I realized that a lot of n00bs probably don't know how to do those things, and the easiest way to deal with it was to just add it to the page. Besides, since registering and having a user page is part of the article creation process as recommended by this page, registering and creating a user page is properly part of this particular "how to" piece, since they're steps in the process. --RudolfRadna 14:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
How about we start a conversation on UnMeta about possibly starting a separate wiki for one-liners. Those can be funny sometimes. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 14:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know what UnMeta is, but you can start one on the forum by creating an article called "Forum:Let's start a seperate wiki for one-liners. Those can be funny sometimes" or something to that effect, and then putting the template
{{Forumheader|Village Dump}}at the top of the page so it shows up in the village dump index. --RudolfRadna 14:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Also, I'm not sure, but wouldn't that overlap with undictionary a bit? --RudolfRadna 14:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah....thats essentially what UNDictionary was..... -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me)
- Yeah....thats essentially what UNDictionary was..... -- Sir Mhaille
- Does UNDictionary still exist? I never really tried looking for it. --RudolfRadna 14:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
And Nerd42, did you mean this: UnMeta Village Dump ? Or is it this one: Other UnMeta Village Dump (confusing) --RudolfRadna 16:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Alright, sorry to come in so late, but our policy is that if something has close to one line, it's huffed on sight. Granted, some admins believe in Undictionary... and some will NRV. One line is not an encyclopedia entry, as Brad or so said. We are "Uncyclopedia" like in "encyclopedia." Encyclopedia Brittannica does not have any entries that are one line. That's just not good form. And trust me, stubs do not get expanded. Ever. Cause nobody cares. --KATIE!! 07:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but at least now there's a HowTo article that gets that message across to n00bs in an quick, easy to find, and clear way. That didn't exist before, to my knowledge. I'm referring to Uncyclopedia:How To Get Started Editing of course. --RudolfRadna 12:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yep, perhaps letting newer users know how to create articles in their own namespace would make them take a bit more time over them before moving them to the 'main' Uncyc. May also help cut down on NRV'd articles, perhaps? --Hindleyite
Talk 18:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- That's the idea in a nutshell :D --RudolfRadna 22:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- This is another situation where having a new user log would be useful (hint, hint, wikia) so we could place {{welcome}} on new users talk pages (BTW I'd add your howto it if it hasn't already).--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 18:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yep, perhaps letting newer users know how to create articles in their own namespace would make them take a bit more time over them before moving them to the 'main' Uncyc. May also help cut down on NRV'd articles, perhaps? --Hindleyite
- I would encourage people to make whatever use of the HowTo article they see best. It's there to be useful. I was going to just mention it to people who might be interested in reading it on their talk pages, but that won't reach the ips who havn't registered. It's going to probably take more than this to communicate meaningfully with the ips that aren't vandals and really want to be involved. --Hrodulf 22:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that the content of Uncyclopedia:How To Get Started Editing would be best improved by replacing it with, "Read and perform minor edits on existing articles for a while. After you're confident that you understand what passes for quality on Uncyclopedia, start making more substantial contributions. Eventually, if you feel you have the understanding and wit to compose a feature-worthy article, feel free to start a new article." --Sir gwax (talk) 
19:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- That would probably work better as another paragraph in the Beginner's Guide, rather than its own page. If as a policy issue, you don't want people to work on drafts on userpage subpages, which is the main thrust of the piece, feel free to take it down. The piece was just a response to what seems to be an ongoing problem with new users believing they can just drop an idea into the main space without developing it on the first try, which obviously isn't working. --Hrodulf 09:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- I totally and utterly agree with rampant deletionism. I would much rather have admins who, instead of deleting an article and yell at you for "giving them a hard time" when you ask about it (tm)jtaylor1, would actually attempt to improve upon an article or at least put NRV on it. We must remember that all good articles were crappy one-liners and ideas at first. Swiss Navy Knife is a very promising-sounding atricle. If the joke of the landlocked country's navy was expanded upon, then it could even get featured. However, some rampant BURNiNATORs seem to think that if it isn't perfect the first five seconds it exists, then it will never be any good. Have you no patience? Flameviper12 20:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- At the risk of getting caught in this discussion (which I haven't really followed up to now), I'd like to clarify something related to what Flameviper said. Uncyclopedia is not Wikipedia. The concept of gradually accumulating facts for an article, beginning with a stub and adding content until it's a fully fleshed-out article, is not always applicable here as it is at WP, because many of our articles are standalone comedy pieces from the get-go. Look at an article like an older version of George W. Bush - popular subjects often get terribly uneven and scattershot articles because people add sections irrelevant to the "idea" of the article, which isn't an issue on Wikipedia because their pages are not based on themes as ours often are. That is not to say that collaboration is discouraged - there have been excellent group articles in the past and there are benefits to collaboration even aside from article quality - but the fact is that many of our best articles were never bad one-liners. It's much harder to take a short article that someone else created and expand it into a hilarious page while staying true to the original idea than it is to build up a factual encyclopedia article. —rc (t) 00:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- The version RC is referring to can be found at George Dubya Bush, though it has been fixed up from its ugliest stages.--<<>> 00:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- The version RC is referring to can be found at George Dubya Bush, though it has been fixed up from its ugliest stages.--<<
- At the risk of getting caught in this discussion (which I haven't really followed up to now), I'd like to clarify something related to what Flameviper said. Uncyclopedia is not Wikipedia. The concept of gradually accumulating facts for an article, beginning with a stub and adding content until it's a fully fleshed-out article, is not always applicable here as it is at WP, because many of our articles are standalone comedy pieces from the get-go. Look at an article like an older version of George W. Bush - popular subjects often get terribly uneven and scattershot articles because people add sections irrelevant to the "idea" of the article, which isn't an issue on Wikipedia because their pages are not based on themes as ours often are. That is not to say that collaboration is discouraged - there have been excellent group articles in the past and there are benefits to collaboration even aside from article quality - but the fact is that many of our best articles were never bad one-liners. It's much harder to take a short article that someone else created and expand it into a hilarious page while staying true to the original idea than it is to build up a factual encyclopedia article. —rc (t) 00:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I realized awhile ago after the fact that jtaylor1 wasn't an admin. I personally think the issue has been more or less resolved to my satisfaction via the HowTo page. This way if people follow the plan, they can develop articles, and the main space isn't cluttered with hundreds of stubs. Everybody wins. Except the donuts. --Hrodulf 02:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)