Forum:FFW 2011

Forums: Index > Village Dump > FFW 2011

Note: This topic has been unedited for 1937 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Looking for crappy articles? Try here. A better version of Special:LonelyPages is being built here. Also please consider Special:DeadendPages, Special:UncategorizedPages, and other Special pages.

You came, you debated, you voted, some other people scheduled, and now Forest Fire Week 2011 is on! For those of you who weren't around the last time the citizens of Uncyclopedia switched on their flamethrowers in the name of crap removal - well, I wasn't either. But no matter! It's simple enough: tag an article, it's dead in seven days - unless someone swoops in and saves it from the flames in time. Here are a few guidelines for the next week's festivities:

Team deletionist

1. Press Special:Random until you find a page that disgusts you.
2. Check the page history to make sure it wasn't vandalized.
3. Tag it with {{FFW|~~~~~}}.
4. (optional) Add it to your watchlist to make sure nobody removes the template.

Team inclusionist

1. Peruse Category:Articles tagged for burnination for articles worth saving.
2. Either:
   1. Fix up the article before the 7-day time limit, or
   2. Move the page to your userspace. If you pick the latter, please list the redirect (if any) on QVFD.
3. If you think the article was tagged in error and should stay in mainspace, contact the tagger to see if you can't work it out. If not, VFD is always open.
4. If you've fixed up an article and would like the tag removed, ask the tagger to do so. If you can't work that out there is no hope for you move it to your userspace and ask for some piss.

Referees

• QA patrollers: We'll need people to keep their eyes on the QA log to revert any illegitimate template removals (through vandalism or people just plain being sneaky). Protip: For those of you who like IRC, Fnoodle is also in #cvn-wikia-uncyc making QA log announcements. Most IRC clients have an option to stalk particular words or phrases, so I recommend adding the appropriate ones to your alert list.
• Admins: You'll find a new maintenance page just for FFW. But if you've participated in FFW yourself, please refrain from using it! Every day after the end of FFW you will receive an automatically generated list of articles with expired {{FFW}} tags that you have not placed on the article yourself. That way we can cut down on the margin of error when huffing. So yes, that does mean to actually look at the articles before huffing them!

A final note for historical purposes: as of this writing, Uncyclopedia has 32,756 articles. For comparison, we had 20,843 articles at the start of the last FFW. Our ancestors would not be proud of us. Let's see how far down we can get that number by the end of the week, shall we?

Go team! – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 04:44 Jul 22, 2011

High scores ()

Username	Tags
Zombiebaron	506
TheHumbucker	505
Dr. Skullthumper	503
Thekillerfroggy	307
Lollipop	142
Electrified mocha chinchilla	141
Mnbvcxz	121
Gamma287	70
Frosty	68
Xamralco	59
TheSlyFox	56
THEDUDEMAN	54
Mr-ex777	43
Colin "All your base" Heaney	42
MeepStarLives	33
Scofield	29
Bizzeebeever	19
Aimsplode	17
Oliphaunte	15
Nameable	13
EpicAwesomeness	6
Olipro	5
Rcmurphy	5
Coronium the Marstronaut	4
173.67.21.8	4
DeathBySnowman	3
69.19.14.42	2
Magic man	2
12.73.189.199	2
78.100.242.156	2
Smuff	2
75.72.244.164	2
Sockpuppet of an unregistered user	2
124.131.73.233	2
Simsilikesims	1
JackOfSpades	1
Oldtron	1
71.126.132.32	1
76.186.13.212	1
Schamschi	1
PuppyOnTheRadio	1
Indyhan	1
12.73.189.81	1
24.181.180.64	1
Platypush	1
Skizzerz	1
108.17.19.200	1
Yoyoddd	1
SirBobo	1
99.231.123.72	1
114.77.133.223	1
Mattsnow	1

Total tagged: 2,702 (8.23% of 32,815 articles)
18.23% of 20,843 articles were tagged last FFW

Most Saved Articles (edit)

Username	Articles saved
Shabidoo	4
Simsilikesims	3
Thekillerfroggy	1.5
Hindleyite	1
Sockpuppet of an unregistered user	.5

Talky talky talk

As soon as I turn my back you decide to burn the place down. Sheesh! Pup 07:00 22 Jul '11

Hey Pup, good to see ya. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 19:10 Jul 22, 2011

No, we're not burning the place down. We're burning your house down. And your kangaroo eloped with a fish. -- Lollipop - CONTRIBS - WRITINGS - SHOP - Now adopting! - 20:23, 22 July 2011

I'm in. Lets burn. ^{→ (Der_Führerbunker--Wehrmacht Factories)} 13:15, July 23, 2011 (UTC)

WINNING!!! – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 19:25 Jul 23, 2011

Lulnot...^{→ (Der_Führerbunker--Wehrmacht Factories)} 20:51, July 23, 2011 (UTC)

Not right now perhaps... – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 06:09 Jul 24, 2011

Is there a FFW button that I can use, cause I'm lazy. Lieutenant THEDUDEMAN Dude ... Totally UOTM KUN GotA F@H 04:16, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

There is... go to Special:Preferences, then Gadgets, then enable the "Auto Tag" gadget. FFW is available in the dropdown. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 06:09 Jul 24, 2011

Autotag doesn't fully quite work for me all the time, as I've indicated once or twice in several edit summaries/logs. So, uh, yeah. Doesn't quite work. -- 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 06:21, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know a damn thing about autotag, but I'd guess it might have something to do with your browser?? Anyway it's worth a shot no matter what. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 06:35 Jul 24, 2011

Found the problem, but not the solution: tagging fails on pages where a header is the first thing on the page (instead of like an introduction). Maybe someone with JS skills can fix that. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 21:03 Jul 24, 2011

Did the 20,843 articles at the start of the last FFW include UnNews? Schamschi, 18:49, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no, which happily makes me far less depressed. Sans UnNews, we're only about six or seven thousand articles above the prior count. It's still not great, though, seeing it's an increase. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 18:53 Jul 26, 2011

Updating slow

I've done 34 or something articles, it's stuck at 27. -- Lollipop - CONTRIBS - WRITINGS - SHOP - Now adopting! - 06:53, 24 July 2011

is the magical button you're looking for. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 07:06 Jul 24, 2011

Saved Articles

If just worked on one article. Its not an amazing job but good enough to save it. What do I do now? Do I remove the tag? Im not sure what the rules are. --ShabiDOO 14:06, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Ask the tagger to remove it. If you don't get a response after a few days, just remove it. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 15:37 Jul 24, 2011

Why are My Sojourn articles being tagged?

That time I nearly had an eargasm during my sojourn to a Sunn O))) concert and That time I wasn't raped by anything during my sojourn to a soda machine was tagged for this. WTF? They're My Sojourn articles. They don't need improvement. --Wilytank can be a pain in the ass. 11:20, July 25, 2011 (UTC)

But they don't necessarily need to exist either. Especially if, for example (and this is just for example), they suck. -- 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 11:36, July 25, 2011 (UTC)

They don't look like particularly bad articles, but you should probably discuss this with Zombiebaron, him being the tagger and all. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 11:39, 25 July 2011

Don't expect me to believe

That a guy who FFWs 10 articles in 2 minutes on Recent Changes read them all lol. "I can't write but I sure as hell can burn the shit out of the wiki! LOL. That's silly in my view, at least read the article a bit! Mattsnow 02:29, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Most of them are very short. In fact, I read more than those 10 articles - I just don't tag all of them. I've even found an amusing one or two that I've copied to my userspace by, you know, reading them. Speed-reading entire books is how one survives in college, a few articles don't present a problem to me. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 02:32 Jul 26, 2011

I guess that's why I work construction. I read slowly and I write slowly. I guess I think slowly too lol. Mattsnow 02:52, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Some people might (and I certainly do) load several articles all at once, read them and then either do VfH (or other voting pages) in one go or in the case of last week publish more than one pee review at a time. Its practical when you have a bad internet connection, or these days when this wikia server works 20% of the time. --ShabiDOO 02:54, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

A problem

I see users tagging ICU'd articles. A bit unfair to do that... -- Lollipop - CONTRIBS - WRITINGS - SHOP - Now adopting! - 02:34, 26 July 2011

I wouldn't say "unfair" so much as "redundant". Here's a list though. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 02:37 Jul 26, 2011

Why would it be "unfair", Lollipop? Is there a score to beat? You're doing it for the glory of the Motherland, not for some petty individual award! Mattsnow 03:47, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Tag overlap in any case is a bad idea. Don't do it. -- 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 04:12, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

This is useless

Same thing with VFD. My opinion. --Mimo&maxus 05:55, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 05:57 Jul 26, 2011

No cause I can't understand what you're saying :p --Mimo&maxus 06:00, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean you can't understand FFW, or you can't understand what "care to elaborate" means? (For the record, it means "explain your meaning"). – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 06:01 Jul 26, 2011

Ugh, just forget about it. --Mimo&maxus 06:04, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I was just curious why you thought this was useless. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 06:06 Jul 26, 2011

because we have VFD for this job. --Mimo&maxus 06:13, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

The reason why we have FFW is because VFD, by itself, is too slow to clean out the wiki. We have many, many crappy articles, and if we had to vote on each one, we would never get the wiki cleaned up. VFD is still used during FFW to settle disputes though. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 06:18 Jul 26, 2011

I agree. I say we should delete VFD. This is definetly doing a better job. --Mimo&maxus 06:21, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

lol no. --Wilytank can be a pain in the ass. 11:27, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

VFD is the permanent-camp-fire version of Forest Fire Week. Schamschi, 12:24, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

I love the danger bar...

As it slowly fills up, leading the the tagged article to its DOOM! MWAHAHAHAHA! --Scofield & The Machine 13:00, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Blind Deletion

So basically Humbucker's tagged 505 aritcles for deletion at a rate of about 4-5 a minute (and each of these had to be found hitting random or what ever technique he was using). He obviously hasn't read them fully and checked previous versions. So most of these 505 will just be deleted then? mAttlobster. (hello) 16:03, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, I think so....^{→ (Der_Führerbunker--Wehrmacht Factories)} 16:35, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

More like virtually all of them, but you got the right idea. He probably used some of the somewhat less random thingies linked in that light blue box at the top of this page to find them, though. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 16:41, 26 July 2011

-Sigh- Stupid Humbuck'a and stupid Socky for EDITING WHILE I EDITIED!! ^{→ (Der_Führerbunker--Wehrmacht Factories)} 16:49, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

As explained a few headers ago, reading a lot of short articles in a small space of time isn't impossible. But more so than that, the majority of TheHumbucker's tagging was done after I generated this list right here: User:Fnoodle/LonelyPages/UnNews. Go ahead and give the pages highlighted in gray a quick look and see how long it takes for you to determine whether they're crap or not. The first two to three hundred are nothing more than 2-3 lines. That means if he's tagged 4-5 a minute, and assuming he only tagged half of what he read (which, again, if you check the list, you'll find most of them are tagged - and with good reason) that would mean he'd only have to read about 20-30 sentences per minute. (For those of you a bit more math challenged, because he tagged more than half of what he read, that's closer to 10-15 sentences per minute.) I do a lot faster than that with speed-reading. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 17:00 Jul 26, 2011

Also, I can speed read. When I'm focused I read at about 800 words per minute. I'm actually significantly slower on a computer screen - I can only clock about 650 wpm. ~  Talk 17:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so at that speed you would be able to read the article, check previous versions, think about whether someone's hard work really did deserve deleting and then add the tag using this auto-sponge. mAttlobster. (hello) 20:10, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, okay, now you're not making arguments anymore and turning to guilt in lieu of logic. Bye. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 20:11 Jul 26, 2011

I'm saying that deleting 500 articles without a vote, when you have not looked at them properly is wrong. My argument is clear and your dismissive attitude is expected, but completely unfair. mAttlobster. (hello) 20:23, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Humbucka can't speedread on a screen because he's head-banging to talk radio. ^{→ (Der_Führerbunker--Wehrmacht Factories)} 20:28, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

And I'm saying they have been looked at properly. I even proved it to you. With math. I'm telling you, go look at the list I linked and see how long it takes you to go through a handful of them. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 20:35 Jul 26, 2011

But Matt lobster has got a point. I myself would have tagged an article, had I not discovered two lines buried somewhere in the article's history that I considered worthy of preservation. However, I don't think it really makes a difference, because who else is going to dig through a crappy article's history in the hope of finding some non-crappy material there? My guess is either someone who considers cleaning up/rewriting an article, and this issue has already been discussed at length (literally) by Dr. Skullthumper; or someone who is really bored and really interested in an article's history. The latter applied a few times to me, but these were exceptions. Therefore, I think that even if there is some non-crappy material in an article's history, it makes sense to deal with the article the same as with an article that was always crap-only. Thus, I must have a reason not to have tagged that particular article, and this reason is that I intend to decrappify it and make it somewhat acceptable. Schamschi, 20:40, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

P.S: Admittedly, the history of that article wasn't very long, so it's not like I spent much time on it. Schamschi, 20:44, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth I'm not saying people aren't likely to be checking the history tab. It takes maybe a total of five seconds to click the tab and scan the history. With those UnNews articles they were mostly a single contributor and thus not vandalized. With multiple contributors, there's a byte count you can pay attention to. But yes, your logic also has some appeal - just wanted to clarify. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 20:45 Jul 26, 2011

I'm sorry, but I disagree that there's enough time to read, check the history, and decide if it should be deleted. If you're nominating something for VFD, then it doesn't really matter about rushing in, as people are going to vote. I'm not keen on the whole FFW thing, but if it has to be done, then people should employ a lot more consideration for what they nominate for burning that what they would do for VFD. mAttlobster. (hello) 20:48, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked at the list and timed yourself? Do 25 articles as if you were deciding whether to tag them or not. It should take you about five minutes. (Excluding the first three on the list; those took some thought.) – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 20:51 Jul 26, 2011

I did the last 25 Humbucker did. It took me 20 minutes. I admit I'm slower than most. I would vote 'keep' for the following 7 of those 25:

• UnNews:Middle East threatens to destroy Israel
• UnNews:Czech Government Gives Up
• UnNews:War-Weary Iraq Apathetic to US Troop Surge: “Are- are they in yet...?”
• UnNews:Pelosi's 100-Hour Plan Drags on at Wikipedia
• UnNews:William Styron, inventor of styronfoam cup, dead at 81
• UnNews:Government Sacks Drugs Advisor for Giving Advice
• UnNews:History will look kindly upon me

mAttlobster. (hello) 21:18, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

And out of the next five:

• UnNews:Abortion Laws Reassessed
• UnNews:Scientists invent a giant donut mAttlobster. (hello) 21:35, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

  And out of the nine you mention, I only found two that were worth keeping. -- 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 21:38, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

  Therefore you would expect 34 out of the 500 nominated if you spooned up the maths. mAttlobster. (hello) 21:43, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

  I mean, sure, if you want to ignore the fact that the tiny, non-random sample you picked would have virtually no significant extrapolativeness, especially in an environment so heavily varied as Uncyclopedia articles. Namespaces, contributors, number of edits, creation dates, who's tagging, all this shit has to be considered if you want to make so bold a generalization. -- 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 21:54, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

  Was sort of random. Last 30 tagged by Humbucker. Does extrapolate - with admittedly scope for wild error. mAttlobster. (hello) 22:03, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Mattlobster, if you care so much, you can always go back and userpage the one's you want to keep. Also, it really is too bad you didn't vote. If there was a time to make your point on this issue, I hate to say it, but that was it. ~  Talk 00:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no, that wasn't the time, because you hadn't tagged several hundred articles with the FFW tag by then. Don't misunderstand me, I don't contest your tagging, I'm just pointing out that the second part of your answer didn't really make sense. Schamschi, 00:35, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

The point he was making was that nobody really voiced their opposition when we were holding the vote to hold FFW and *poof* now they're doin it! -- 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 03:59, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

I'm voicing my opposition to not properly reading the articles that are nominated. I'm not going through clearing up Humbucker's mess either. This whole conversation is pointless, and as I started it, I take full responsibility. I'm going to concentrate on my singing career from now on. mAttlobster. (hello) 08:43, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

Silly Whining

While I'm up for vaporizing memey Oprah, Chuck Norris, Your Mom, and Michael Jackson-cruft, football-club-cruft, and local-politics-and-school cruft as much as the next patriot with a juiced-up flamethrower and wanderlust in his eyes, I think the bar is set far too high for someone who realizes an article is worthy of preservation or was all too hastily tagged. Far enough that it's patently silly to cast this in terms of any sort of competition. Now I don't want to sound like some sort of new agey new-hire sensitive female kindergarten teacher arguing with a group of balding, middle-aged, divorced public high school athletic coaches, but for one thing, even for an event like Forest Fire Week, we too much incentivize destruction by making the score so prominent, encouraging the speedy deletion of articles in a way that I think probably least benefits those that are "on the brink" in terms of formatting or only guilty of violating the Codeine's mum rule. With the auto-tag feature in use now, the typical period of consideration and (well, let's come out right now and say it) charity fairly well goes out the window. Generally, this wouldn't be a problem, as we all enjoy an opportunity to play admin and gleefully dispose of real crap in service to the glorious Motherland. But, what's the standard for bona-fide caca, you say? Well, I think we all know the task of identifying shit is as easy and nearly as instant as identifying porn. "There it is", you say cheerfully, and dutifully mark the article. But suppose the article you marked would have otherwise been somebody's entry to regularly contributing to the site, or might have earned Uncyc some ire in another country and made news in the real world (provided the satire in the article was to our editorial credit, and tasteful, rather than just stupid). Suppose someone was an idiot and included us in their research paper, now that citing a source online has become practically as easy as adding an FFW tag. Would you deny some stuffy professor some of the heartiest vindictive laughs he will probably ever enjoy in his life? Suppose deleting some kid's mediocre page on a boring school subject drives him away. And what's this about listing the previous year's kill count? That's just asking to up the ante, and assumes that the excrement level of articles has stayed constant as participation in the wiki has changed. Say we had FFW functionality enabled all of the time. Pretty soon we'd mostly be left with a mixture of feature-quality stuff written by us old farts and a bit of fresh blood every month, interspersed with vandal edits and vanity pages. Look at the percentage for a minute. Currently, 7% of Uncyclopedia will die an ignoble death. Gone. It will be as if a million prepubescent voices cried out into the cold void of the universe and were suddenly silenced. Now, considering this is the wiki we all know and love, it stands to reason that there is far more than 7% of the wiki we can stand to lose. A lot of it sucks, what with Uncyclopedia being the wurst and all.

Actually, this is all an overly-sentimental and deeply-exaggerated scenario that really isn't that likely or even what I and others are trying to get across. The problem is really this. To save an article, you have to either adopt it or risk getting into a pissing match with its tagger, confronting him or her directly. Instead, there should be a system in place that allows someone to put a counter template on, effectively controlling the engulfing flames until such time as someone can add more fuel in terms of a counter to that. I suppose this could be abused as much as burnination itself, with some bratty ne'er-do-well audaciously saving swathes of shit articles from destruction. I imagine this could be handled on a case-by-case (read: awesome exercise of arbitrary admin sanctions) basis, but the ideal would be to implement a more intelligent system of some sort were that feasible. A counter-counter vote could put the article back on the chopping block, but that too would probably devolve into an argument that could only be handled by having a process that would send the article to VFD. Which could then get more backed up than an old lady that avoids Metamucil. We could do the hippie thing and deputize a team of Park Rangers hellbent on conservation and khaki uniforms, able to put out the flames. Enrollment could be limited to trusted users. Or, since the death clock progress bar exists on every tagged article, you could implement a system where after most of the cleansing fires have stopped scorching the landscape, the few shitpiles that survive can either have water put on them (delaying the clock, stopping it with enough votes of confidence) or lighter fluid (accelerating their richly deserved demise in holy fire). Food for thought.

Myself, I think I'm going to get back to lighting shit on fire at a good clip. There's something really primal about pyromania. It's like caveman and shit.

The More you Know, KUN VFH POTM VFP(IMAGES⇔TALK) 17:24, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

The problem I have with this argument is largely the what if scenario. What if an article we delete is good, or as you say, has the potential to be good? To the first, plenty of articles that have been tagged have been untagged by other editors, or brought to VFD (which, contrary to what you predict, is not buckling under the weight). To the second, there isn't any difference between an article being bad and an article having the potential to be good. All articles, even the shittiest ones we've tagged, have the potential to be rewritten into something funny if it inspires just the right person with the right sense of humor at the right time.

The difficulty is, creativity is fickle. The odds of a crap stub becoming an article of keepable quality are low. Now, you might ask where I'm getting that idea from. After all, it's not like I'm some sort of statistics collector that can just whip out the numbers and tell you how many articles have risen to glory versus how many have died a violent death. But in this case, the evidence is all around us. Thousands upon thousands of shit articles, all of them having up to six years to improve, to be rewritten, to walk through the golden gates into Qualityland... haven't. The ones that have had a full year have not, the ones that have had a half-decade have not. It isn't happening.

That isn't to say I'm calling it impossible. But I am working to make it more possible. So are the rest of the people participating in FFW, for that matter. How, you ask? Here's how.

Before this Lyrithya and I worked together to change the article tagging system to put a thirty day timer on all articles requiring a fix-up. This had the uncomfortable side effect that about a thousand articles were immediately suitable for deletion. Let me tell you, that isn't something the admins take lightly. If this were years ago they would have probably been fed into a batch deleter and been done with. Instead, myself and the other admins who took weeks to slog through that queue looking at every single article, individually, removing the tag on some, fixing some up, and deleting those that didn't look like they had a chance. Yes, it was messy, and arbitrary, but there was no other way. To put each of those articles up on VFD would have taken forever and clogged it straight up. The only thing that remained to be viable was to take several hours a day out of our lives and read every single thing.

So, did I want a thousand articles deleted? Not really. It meant more work for me and everyone else. Not fun work, either. Sure, there's something satisfying about a wiki well cleaned out, but the process of getting there means reading more shit than you can imagine.

But with it there was reasoning, good reasoning. It had to be good reasoning for me to go through with that. As I mentioned before, the chances of an article being matched up with just the right writer in just the right circumstances is pretty low. Now that the maintenance categories are organized, manageable, and have a great deal fewer articles, the odds of any one article getting noticed has increased. In the future, I hope that people will be more encouraged to rewrite and fix up articles, exactly because there are fewer of them. If you look at a category and see six hundred articles needing a rewrite, you'll probably just close the tab. But if you look at it and see, say, twelve, and you pick out an article out of those twelve and fix it up, and you do this once every month or once every few months, you're already saving more articles than you would have saved if all this mess hadn't happened in the first place.

This doesn't just apply to categories, of course. It applies to the rest of the wiki as well. Thirty two thousand articles? I assume everyone remembers when I asked that Wikia change our article count to be more accurate, just to get an idea how bloated we really are. Thirty two thousand articles on a humor wiki. How many of those have you read? Moreover, how many of those have you read and enjoyed reading?

More to the topic at hand, how many of those have you read and then decided "hey, that's a good idea, maybe I'll continue that?" Probably a small number. Probably a very small number. In fact, I'm willing to bet it'd be less than a percentage. Again, no one can be blamed for shying away from such an enormous number of articles. There are just so many. It's impossible for any one contributor to know even half of the wiki, and that's a problem when you're trying to create a wiki that's a cohesive whole of some sort. A good article links to other good articles, to encourage readers to find and read those articles, and you can't link to other articles you don't know. Unlike Wikipedia (or any other half-decent wiki; go find your favorite subject on Wikia), where you can spend hours fascinated clicking on links from the featured article alone, Uncyclopedia doesn't have anywhere for a reader to go because we lack a web of decent links to decent articles. Each article is disconnected from the next. That's because we're so huge.

So we're disjointed and full of articles no one wants to fix up. The obvious solution to this is to decrease our size. VFD can't handle the task, certainly not with the amount of junk that we have now. The solution, much like the tags, is going to have to be an intrinsically messy one. That solution happens to be Forest Fire Week. Is it entirely possible that stubs with inspirational potential will get deleted? Absolutely. But will it matter? No, because with the size of the wiki being what it is, the chances of a contributor finding and being inspired to write that article to its fullest potential are nil. In fact, the very idea of an article having "potential" is defeated by the sheer number of articles with "potential" we have.

It's a bit like - have you ever seen the show Hoarders? We've kept thousands and thousands of articles lying around telling ourselves to keep them just in case someone might want to rewrite it one day. And do you know what happens to people who think that way, surrounding themselves with so much shit they can no longer move? They die, alone and surrounded by shit, having suffered through the final years of their life because of an innavigable household and the lack of social interaction because no one wants to come to a house that looks like a dumping ground. That's Uncyclopedia, and I'm the psychologist no one wants to hear barging into the house and saying "alright, that's enough, this shit has to get cleaned up". It's a painful process, a stressful process, and a time-consuming process, and it's a process that is going to take a lot of people outside of their comfort zones. But it has to be done and it has to be done soon before it becomes even more impossible to do than it is now.

As for the high score list, it's there for two reasons. One of them is because I knew it would be controversial and I love controversy. Controversy keeps people from stagnating, it keeps people interested - though it has to be handled with care lest it spiral out of control and backfire. It's a bit like tension in a plot. It has to be there to keep people interested, but if the main character's just a bumbling idiot or a douchebag or everything terrible seems to be happening to him for no reason at all, people will give up on story because they feel it's not going anywhere. But that tension has to be there in the first place for the story to have any momentum at all. Similarly, without tension this wiki wouldn't be anything. What would be the point of contributing if you didn't know what was going to happen next?

The second reason, the more real reason, is that tagging articles is a tedious process. Feedback is vital in a situation where it's you, a single tagger, against thirty thousand potential articles. If you don't have any idea how much progress you've made, or how much progress others have made, chances are you're going to get bored very, very quickly. I know I would. I'd probably have tagged a hundred articles by now, assumed everyone else had done far less than me, get frustrated at how little impact I was making, and give the heck up. But the feedback is what makes me keep going. I need to see progress to want to continue with something. Otherwise it's like fighting a final boss battle without a health bar. You've been smacking the guy for ten minutes now without seeming to make a dent, what makes you want to keep going? There's no feedback. But with a score list, I can see exactly the sort of dent I've made, how much I've done in relation to other people, and how much I know it is possible to do. I wouldn't have known it was possible to make 500 articles in a week without TheHumbucker doing it first, and because I knew it was possible, it made me want to reach for that goal.

When I came here back in 2007 I wanted to see the articles we have be improved. Now it's 2011 and my goal is the same. But the only way we're going to save the valuable stuff is by cleaning out the rest of it first. When I remember FFW, I can tell you, I'm not going to remember 95% of the articles I tagged for deletion. I will, though, remember most of the ones I passed by, the ones I looked at and thought "hey, this is good! Maybe I'll fix it someday" and added to my watchlist or my userspace. I wouldn't have found those articles if I hadn't been on a tagging spree, and I wouldn't have been inspired if not for FFW. Some of you might think that sounds a bit backwards. But that's because you're seated in a mound of crap that used to be a beautiful living room and you really, really need to let the cleaning team get through to you so we can improve your lives. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 18:11 Jul 26, 2011

WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS

WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS

But on the other hand, WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS. Now clearly this means WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS.

So, since I read none of what you said, I think there should be some sort of discretion when deleting these thousands of articles. Like some page where admins can list the "borderline" articles to be looked at with a second pair of eyes, to determine an undeserved tagging. Then the admins can all fight about it and eventually keep it because no one wants to bother anymore. And to add to that, WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS. -- 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 19:51, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, you meant "WORD", not "WORDS"? Schamschi, 21:17, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

No, no, he definitely meant "WORDS". Additionally, I agree with everything TKF just said. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 22:17, 26 July 2011

I am surprised TKF hasn't put forward his reply to Doctor Skullthumper as a future feature. Unless someone has beaten him to it...--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 06:27, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!ITS TOO LONG!--FcukmanLOOS3R!!! 06:30, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

I suppose my point as originally intentioned was more on the order of, "At Uncyclopedia, did we ever even have "a beautiful living room?"" I'm not saying it wouldn't be blissful, refreshing, and potentially lifesaving to be able someday to enjoy one (if only!), I just always wonder what sort of an impact, noble as our efforts are, we hope to make on the "mound of crap". I get the impression that a good number of casual visitors for the moment are, well... here for the mound. That is, since we are becoming, via our efforts at generating quality, as well as the fact of the demise of our traditional competitors, one of the only juggernaut English-language satirical wikis around, do we want the site to be this well-manicured ecosystem of quality writing and beacon of well-conceived humor (articles that stand alone on their own merit, art for art's sake), or could it be that the lay simply come here as one might to a Google search box, wanting to query it to sift through others' insights about a topic that popped into their head, to see what truths, known by everyone but articulated by few, that those who have come before them have hidden in plain sight (true, once you get to the damned article!), and perhaps to, by contributing themselves, help to (tastefully and with proper command of reality, of course) undermine the seriousness and facade of decorum that the subject typically projects (these being your garden-variety wacky distortions of real world institutions harboring grains of truth)? Are we after the humor or are we after the encyclopedia? Thoughtful, pointed comedy or broad natural parody? That's really a larger, even vaguer question for another day, and one that's even more of a liability in a formal argument. Which this wasn't intended to be. Primarily, my admittedly hypothetical suggestion was an attempt to get the natural complaint out in the open about what is, if you look at it in aggregate and practice, an actually very efficient system that enjoys smooth operation under the watchful eye of thankless sentinels like yourself, good sir. I wholeheartedly support FFW and the great job everyone's doing with it; in fact, I am entirely in favor of foisting the janitorial work on the wider set of community volunteers on a more regular and extended basis (I hear the private sector has taken to calling this phenomenon "crowdsourcing"), perhaps creating more numerous seasonal events or enduring programs whose potential for long-term harm can be eliminated with tighter implementations of the sort of checks and schemes I was vaguely alluding to above, or by limiting their scope to a specific page condition or subject area. Now that what I believe is the gist of the foremost most-likely irrational fear on the token skeptics' side has (albeit with some undue measure of verbose, hypotaxic prose on my part) been duly voiced, and that your couldn't-be-more-true response has added an American-television-pseudo-psychologist's-size dose of reality to viscerally allay these concerns and, indeed, many others about our mission here, I think we've saved everyone else the trouble of doing so for a long while. May the spectre of the righteous mass deletion of largely crap never again in the space of a thousand years sow reservations and discontent amongst the masses who inhabit this land. Nay, let it be known that WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS... --KUN VFH POTM VFP(IMAGES⇔TALK) 08:09, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

You realize that if you look anywhere else on the Internet, right, you'll find that people call us unfunny? And we are rapidly losing readers at an alarming pace. I don't think that's coincidence. Something we're doing is wrong, and that something is having too much shit, I would wager. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 18:15 Jul 27, 2011

I dont know why you guys just don't admit that Mattlobster and Meepstarlives both have a point but that...you guys are going to go ahead and do what you are doing anyways. Nothing will change, but atleast you wont waste time coming up with more elaborate excuses and just do the FFW like its a tournament. Just admit that there will be some articles that will be deleted but shouldnt be if you are doing it a lightening speed. And then we also wont have to see one of Killer Forggies extra delightful mass copy of words to show his total joy at any one who doesnt like what someone is saying. Thats definately the hilight when there are differences of opinion here. Ignore the argument and copy and paste words --ShabiDOO 13:05, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

Aww, don't be hating on the huge blocks of text, Shabidoo. Also, TKF actually had sentences hidden in his "WORDS" exposition. Also, Skully has never denied that some good articles will be lost, but it's his opinion that the portion would be an insignificant one. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 13:41, 27 July 2011

The reason why I wrote that huge block of text was to answer the questions/objections of many, including those you wrote here. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 18:10 Jul 27, 2011

Yikes, I don't have time to read all of this, but...

...why was my page That time I nearly drowned during my sojourn on the Titanic included in this list? It seems to be a fine addition to the My Sojourn series. Me confused and saddened, and close to the edge of sanity, and now this! You have pushed me over the edge, and it's not pretty on this side. What's that, a moth?????? No, it....oh God....does it have toenails!!?????? Aleister 17:18 27-7-'11

I missed the vote and discussion on this. Close to 3,000 pages are on the list, and this seems like people are just throwing tags on many pages. Are they being read? Can't this be stopped until sanity takes hold? How in monkey hell did this pass????? I'll read this forum someday, no time now. Sadness, profound sadness at the destruction I sense surrounding this. Sigh. Cry. Sad. Suicid........

Mn-Z put up a category page just because he doesn't like it, even after it was saved by a large vote on VFD. This was a horrible idea, and things like this spiteful action by Mn-z prove that it was not well thought out. Who has the final say about huffing? I do not think FFW was ever meant for pages which were saved on VFD, just because people like Mn-z can sneak in a few low blows. Aleister 18:01 27-7-'11

Yes, they're being read. Yes, it passed with a vote (of +10, no less). No, tagging 3,000 pages is not an easy task, and a lot of us put work into reading and checking the history of every one of them - don't let a few instances of abuse overshadow that. Admins will be checking over each page before it is deleted and a list will be generated to ensure an administrator doesn't huff the same page he/she tagged, so that way at least two people will have confirmed it's deletion material. And of course, after this is all over, we'll unhuff (to userspace) any page that anyone requests. That's the cliffs notes anyway. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 18:08 Jul 27, 2011

Thanks, that relieves my mind and my bladder a little bit. Please assign admins like Socky who will be kinder to some pages, and double or triple check folks like Humdinger or whatever his name is who read and tag several a minute. People put in work on each of these pages, wrote them, thought of things, and illustrated them. Then things like that Mn-z bit occurs. Please check all of his pages with triplechecks too. I'll probably be away and miss the final solution, ah, final tally, so please err on the side of kindness and kissass. Thanks! Aleister 18:14 27-7-'11

Dude, I am about as middle ground when it comes to this issue as you will find. Yeah, I want the wiki cleaned out, but yeah, I've come across some golden stubs too. There are more questionable taggers the admins will pay attention to, but it's not TheHumbucker - he was already disproven to be a bad tagger; when put to the test, the accuser took less time to read pages than he did. However, I can think of one or two other users whose tags will be looked at very critically. So never you fear, I'm running the show here. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 18:21 Jul 27, 2011

If you're talking about me, then I was proved right about the Humbucker. I haven't checked anyone else's nomination so I guess I can't say he's the worst offender. mAttlobster. (hello) 18:32, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

No. If Humbucker was going at the rate you claimed he was going you would have checked those articles in 25 minutes. You took 20. You picked out nine you thought were savable. Only two were deemed savable. So, point to you. When it comes time for huffing, an admin is going to look at the articles anyway, just as Thekillerfroggy did. Those two articles he untagged would've been untagged regardless. So, point deducted. Point to me for having anti-abuse systems. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 18:37 Jul 27, 2011

Your maths is flapjack. Anyway the anti-abuse system, I guess, solves the problem. It makes me glad I'm not an Admin or work in a bakery. mAttlobster. (hello) 18:51, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

Socky...you are right about TKF thing, missed the hidden passage as I saw it on my phone, so, my remarks were totally un-called for. I love you TKF! MattLobster, I think youll just have to take it as it is that Skullthumper very mildly admitted deep deep deep in the thousand lines of rhetoric and mathematic "proof" that some articles will be deleted even though they shouldnt. Its really just a disagreement about wether losing some good articles is worth having the wiki purged of tons and tons of crap. Those of us who stand on the neigh side will lose this discussion as it seems most users and admins prefer it that way and that whole deletion counter is making one heck of a jolly good race to the finish. Oh who oh who will win? --ShabiDOO 19:43, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

Aleister, you're doing mnxbhjkjht..., or whatever the hell his name is, wrong. Due to your absence, you have apparently missed this. There, he addresses exactly the same issue that you have addressed. Nobody contradicted him, so you can't complain that he tagged that category, whatever its name is. Schamschi, 20:36, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

If it was kept previously with a huge amount of keep voters, the FFW can generally be expected to be contested, though. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 23:56, 27 July 2011

Yes, which is why mnsqrvtu... whatever, probably thought it wouldn't be a big deal. The irony is that it took 5 days for the tagging to be contested. Schamschi, 00:34, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

The link to what I said is here. Basically, I pointed out that FFW will be used to delete articles that probably would survive VFD. Since no-one responded to the issues that I raised, I assumed that deleting crappy stuff that would survive on VFD was sort of that point. --Mn-z 01:54, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

FFWs are going to continue to happen on the site, as they should, we've got a lot of crap articles, but the point you make is a totally valid one - a substantial number of articles that appear to be getting scanned for a matter of seconds and added to the the FFW list would survive VFD. Maybe adding a period of reflection, say a nice long list of everything from the week to which anyone who might disagree can vote to keep the article? I don't think that VFD is the answer but a cutdown version which sits between FFW and VFD? Any thoughts? -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

The problem isn't that good or even decent articles are being added to FFW. The problem is that there a difference between VFD-bad and FFW-bad. This is due to the tendency of VFD voters to keep articles for stupid reasons. Unfortunately, if VFD gets more delete heavy, it might start generating rage-quits and the like. --Mn-z 21:00, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of a better way to delete stuff, do you remember MrN9000's pants template idea? Basically, it is like a ICU or fix tag, except it can be removed by anyone for any reason. (He suggested it have a 14 day time-limit.) Basically, it is a "does anyone care if we delete this" template. The theory behind it was to delete stuff that literally no-one cared about, while VFD would be used for disputed nominations. --Mn-z 02:35, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Here are a list of articles that I intend removing from the FFW, haven't time to contact whoever has tagged them en masse so if you disagree let me know.

1. Cauliflower_ear

   {{ICU|sub=random}} – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 23:22 Jul 28, 2011

   Keep--ShabiDOO 01:02, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

2. 2_Girls_1_Calculus_Equation

   2 Girls 1 Calculus is a classic! —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 23:18, 28 July 2011

   If someone's going to fix this up, at the very least, the six or seven YouTube reaction videos to 2girls1cup have to go. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 23:19 Jul 28, 2011

   They're kinda part of the humour, you know. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 23:29, 28 July 2011

   They don't fit on account of their very titles referring to that which is not the article's subject. Also, imported humor. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 23:34 Jul 28, 2011

3. Bloodbath_World_Cup_2006

   Not tagged. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 23:21 Jul 28, 2011

   Because TKF already removed the tag. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 23:35, 28 July 2011

4. ALIVE!

   Hey hey, cannibalism! Wish someone would cannibalize those lists. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 23:22 Jul 28, 2011

5. UnBooks:The_Macintosh_User's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy

   This is, in fact, a summary of the H2G2 series (shame everything after the third book sucked, am I right?) with Apple and Microsoft-related words thrown haphazardly into it. Find-and-replace (this isn't literal find and replace, I know) is not a concept. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 23:25 Jul 28, 2011

   Keep--ShabiDOO 01:02, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

   Mixing two subjects can have some unexpected and at times hilarious consequences, though. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 23:29, 28 July 2011

   Yes, they can. If mixed. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 23:38 Jul 28, 2011

6. Heliocentrism

   "Commonly accepted scientific fact is a lie." There, I saved you a click. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 23:27 Jul 28, 2011

7. William_Blake

   Untagged as per Zombiebaron's universal "remove my tags" rule. For those of you just joining in, before you rapidly insert your opinion, admins will not be allowed to huff the articles they tagged, thus forcing a secondary review, which is what I just gave here. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 23:33 Jul 28, 2011

8. Michael_Crawford

   {{ICU|sub=random}} Highlights include: The subject being a "small angry smurf", originally named "Dumbell-Smith", random facts put in with no humorous payoff. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 23:33 Jul 28, 2011

   Keep --ShabiDOO 01:02, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

9. UnTunes:Never_Gonna_Like_This_Song

   "Never Gonna Give You Up" meets forced rhyming. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 23:37 Jul 28, 2011

10. Intelligent_Geography

    "Commonly accepted scientific fact is a lie," except this time in the context of evolution vs. creationism. Oh, okay, it's poorly executed enough, but maybe it should stay because its concept is original... oh wait. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 23:37 Jul 28, 2011

    Keep --ShabiDOO 01:02, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

11. Magazine

    {{ICU|sub=short}}

    {{ICU|sub=random}}

    {{ICU|sub=notfunny}} – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 23:40 Jul 28, 2011

    keep --ShabiDOO 01:02, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

12. Gary_Barlow

    I remember this one, I actually counted all of the name drops. Let's see who makes a special guest appearance in this article.

    1. God (as Gary himself)
    2. Oscar Wilde
    3. Oprah Winfrey
    4. Liberace
    5. Freddie Mercury
    6. etc...

    And let's count how many of those are amusing. Answer: -1. It's actually so unfunny it made me had to go read another article just to prevent damage to my humor gland. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 23:46 Jul 28, 2011

13. Bruce_Forsythe

    "Bruce Forsythe was born at approximately 14:25 AM on Christmas Day (Saturnalia at the time) 1813 BC, making him blood brother to Satan." Holy god... You know, I could go on, I really could, and possibly I will, but I need to go make that FFW anti-cheat script, you know, the one I'm making because I do actually care about good articles not getting deleted? Yeah, that one. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 23:51 Jul 28, 2011

14. Valhalla
15. UnNews:Czech_Government_Gives_Up
16. UnClassic_Film_Review:Faster,_Pussycat!_Kill!_Kill!
17. Ralph_Waldo_Emerson
18. That_time_I_nearly_drowned_during_my_sojourn_on_the_Titanic
19. Ralph_Waldo_Emerson
20. Captain_Picard
21. MMORPG
22. Blake%27s_Seven
23. SQL_Insertion_Attack
24. UnNews:Bjorn_Ulvaeus_admits_to_being_a_monkey
25. UnClassic_Film_Review:The_Southerner
26. Falling_Off_Of_A_Roof_Anonymous
27. Traditional_Welsh_Songs
28. T._E._Lawrence
29. Gifted_Legs_Federation
30. Completeness_Theorem
31. New_Bj%C3%B6rk_City
32. Mike_Oldfield
33. Albrecht_Durer

    Someone tagged Albrecht Durer??? I mean, it wasn't completely finished yet, but what's there should definitely be enough to save it. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 23:13, 28 July 2011

    WTF!?!?!?! This kind of nomination makes me scared that the tagging was a little overzealous. --ShabiDOO 01:04, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

34. Helena_Bonham-Carter
35. Susan_B._Anthony
36. UnTunes:The_Fools_on_the_Hill
37. Celebrity_Body_Scans
38. We_Don%27t_Like_Fat_People
39. UnBooks:Psychology
40. The_Lion,_the_Witch_and_the_Wardrobe
41. The_Mod_Wolves
42. UnTunes:Godot
43. Queens_of_the_Stone_Age
44. Comfortably_Numb_%28Song%29
45. Michelle_Pfeiffer
46. Hellboy

I'll be going through more of the UnNews articles tagged for FFW so this list may grow. Apologies to anyones FFW Score that may diminish due to this... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Just curious but are articles that have survived one or more VFDs exempt from FFW? MadMax 11:46, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

Who the fuck are you and what have you done with MadMax? -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

The old MadMax went mellow. He's the new MadMax. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 22:55, 28 July 2011

Sorry, why exactly are you exempt from the rules that govern this event, the ones everyone else has been sticking to? Even the ones who don't necessarily agree with the process, mind. A lot of good dispute resolution has gotten done by people playing nice. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 23:03 Jul 28, 2011

Well, the ones tagged by Zombiebaron can be safely deFFWed, seeing as he has this "if someone finds this funny, they're free to remove the tag" policy. The other ones are more controversial. Then again, I've seen various generally respected users remove tags without much discussion. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 23:08, 28 July 2011

Zombiebaron's may be exempt, and while other users have removed tags either through mutual understanding, reverting an obvious case of vandalism, or other reasons that could likely be considered on a case-by-case-basis, you still can't list a bunch of articles you're going to remove the tag from and then do so en masse. If someone tagged it, chances are good they had a reason for tagging it. Untagging it without asking is entirely disrepectful of their opinion. It doesn't take that long to inform someone that you're undoing something they've done, but apparently certain users assume they are free to undermine everyone else left and right. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 23:13 Jul 28, 2011

I've been untagging stuff I found amusing and moved to my userspace, I hope this isn't an issue. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 01:20, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not! The tag itself even encourages you to do so. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 01:50 Jul 29, 2011

Well, I guess the vote below perfectly answers Mhaille's statement "[...] so if you disagree let me know." Schamschi, 01:49, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't mean to sound sarcastic. I only asked because there doesn't seem to be a way to check if any VFD survivors are being tagged without going through each article in the Deletion Survivors category individually. Checking through "Related changes" doesn't work because they are linked through the talk page rather than the article itself. Of course, if there aren't any articles off limits during FFW than I guess really isn't an issue. (I was sad to see a few articles being tagged myself.) MadMax 02:46, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

It's a tough call to make. I think whether an article survived VFD should be taken into account, but obviously if it was kept in like, 2007 or something, that isn't necessarily an indication of the current article's quality nor our current standards. Obviously if it was kept on VFD a short while ago you probably shouldn't tag it, but there's no official rule. Also, by all means, save some of those articles to userspace! Or ask to remove tags. A FFW tag isn't necessarily a kiss of death. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 02:50 Jul 29, 2011

BTW, I can't really find I'm coming to get you worth keeping, but if you'd care to dispute it I would happily VFD it. As for the monkey/typewriters one, let me tell you, the infinite monkeys with typewriters thing is probably my favorite concept in all of ... all of ... probability theory? ... and I scoured that article, let me tell you, scoured it, for anything that wasn't unfunny random namedroppy junk... but you know what? I think I'm gonna adopt it. Because it is my favorite concept ever. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 02:59 Jul 29, 2011

Exempt Mhaille from the rules of this year's FFW

Score: -3

• How about no. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 23:15 Jul 28, 2011
• Yeah, that doesn't seem very fair. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 23:24, 28 July 2011
• Nope. -- The Zombiebaron 23:35, July 28, 2011 (UTC)
• Sucks. ^{→ (Der_Führerbunker--Wehrmacht Factories)} 01:24, July 29, 2011 (UTC)
• Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand now it's a consensus -- 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 01:30, July 29, 2011 (UTC)
•  For. because admins are above the law or something. --Mn-z 02:29, July 29, 2011 (UTC)
• For...because Mhaille is haille with an M attached to it! --ShabiDOO 02:39, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

Did I miss the bit were I was attempting to bypass anyone? I made the statement on the forum yesterday stating what I intended doing and the reasons why. There's even a "nice" comment stating that if anyone has any issue with it let me know. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Let other users have their say on the articles listed and for God's sake turn all of the stuff listed into links

Score: +2

• Well, I don't object to a more speedy/easy process of deFFWing an article than contacting a load of people on talkpages or nominating stuff on VFD instead, but obviously more than one person should have their say. If we can have a list of articles that people can comment on and say 3 people want it kept, the tag can be removed? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 23:23, 28 July 2011
  • I think this is a fantastic idea, but a bit late for this go-round. The week is up and the first tag expires in a matter of a few hours or less. But yes, I think that would be a great way to make FFW more keep-friendly, and eliminate the two-step "talk to the tagger, then nom" process, while keeping everything out of VFD. Yeah, actually, that's brilliant. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 23:42 Jul 28, 2011
• For. And I can't see why its too late for this round? If its what people want to see happen? -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

You're still not winning.....

....Skully. ^{→ (Der_Führerbunker--Wehrmacht Factories)} 01:39, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

From 48,000 to 33,000

That's sad. If we had not deleted 13,000 articles we'd be a lot funnier. It's sad that everything is getting deleted by QVFD, NRV, VFD, and the admins. One by one article are on fire being deleted. DJ Mixerr 22:29, August 4, 2011 (UTC) User:DJ Mixerr/sig

We never had anything near 48,000 articles ever. -- 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 22:33, August 4, 2011 (UTC)

"If we had not deleted 13,000 articles we'd be a lot funnier." Hm, that sounds logical. Hey, wait – not! The reason articles are being deleted during FFW is that they are considered not funny, or, to put it in other, still subjective, but less fleeting, words, crap. Schamschi, 22:44, August 4, 2011 (UTC)

I thought we did. (Including the mirror site.) Most articles are crap. DJ Mixerr 01:43, August 8, 2011 (UTC) User:DJ Mixerr/sig

Yeah, but some are crappier than others. Schamschi, 02:11, August 8, 2011 (UTC)