Forum:I just had this great idea

Forums: Index > Village Dump > I just had this great idea

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4776 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Remember how people were complaining about VFD being empty? I just had this great idea. How about instead of letting admins read through articles with expired tags, letting admins (or a bot perhaps?) automatically nom the expired stuff on VFD? This relieves the admins of tedious work and satisfies the VFD voters. Everybody wins! Whaddya think? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 13:00, 3 November 2011

That is a good idea. And not just admins, there are other people that nominates articles, not just admins. But how could a bot nominate an article? That would be messy, I think. I mean, think of a bot that noms every article it founds. (Don't blame, I don't know how bots work.) I've thought also about those Welcoming-things. We need a button that does all those long words. I mean, I'm just too lazy to write {{SUBST:User:Cat the Colourful/Welcome}} and then ~~~ and then that smily and optimistic Welcome!-text. I just... can't... do it... uhh... OMG!!! It`s Cat the Colourful, Jesus Christ!!! 15:22 3 November 2011

Which tags? Do we really need to vote on an expired ICU that's juuuuust north of QVFD quality? I'm envisioning six horribly low-quality articles a day on which everyone will robotically vote delete, which is just a waste of time. pillow talk 21:55, November 3, 2011 (UTC)

ICU? No, no. I was talking about the monthly ones. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 22:37, 3 November 2011

Oh. Actually, that's a very good idea, since those tags right now basically... clutter up articles, and that's about it. pillow talk 03:31, November 4, 2011 (UTC)

This is a fun idea. Someone make a bot. Though, also, it raises the question about what to do when VFD hits the 20 cap. I say it should automatically send it to the Poopsmith's lounge, or something. -- 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 07:04, November 4, 2011 (UTC)

• Against. Maintenance tags and the VFD system are two totally different channels for deleting pages. VFD is for pages that slipped by QVFD and ICU and have somehow lived to a ripe old age, but now need to die. Maintenance tags are for pages that aren't very good, but could conceivably be fixed if somebody cared enough. I don't see the point in letting a page sit unedited with a maintenance tag on it for a month and then putting it up for a vote. -- The Zombiebaron 07:45, November 6, 2011 (UTC)

  You're basically saying what the current way things work is and how you don't think my idea is a good one. And there's nothing wrong with that, but it's not a very compelling argument against my idea in and of itself. It's a bit ironic, as you and Chief were the first admins I thought of that pull through to do the tedious work of checking the articles with expired tags to determine which are good enough to keep and which are bad enough to delete. My suggestion is just an attempt to lighten the load. Anyway, VFD seems to have picked up where it left off, so it's too full now to deal with all of the expired monthly tags. But when you're checking the pages with expired tags and find something promising that needs more work but might be easily savable, VFD may bring it to the attention of the right people for the job. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 16:57, 8 November 2011

• I have to agree with Zombiebaron. If you aren't happy with the way the pages with expired tags are dealt with then yes, by all means that can and should be discussed. That said I don't think that adding articles with expired tags to VFD is such a good idea. --ChiefjusticeWii 17:37, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
• Agree With Chiefy and Zomby---   TALK What's it like to be a heretic? 20:54, November 6, 2011 (UTC)

It seems like there's a really good idea here that I'm just missing.

It just seems like an excuse to put off the deletion of articles. It'd be like if you said to a child, "Alright, I want you to clean your room by the end of this month, and if you don't, I'll be forced to give you an extra twenty-four or more hours to clean it." I mean, why does it matter if it's deleted today or tomorrow? You're gonna have to do it anyway. Actually, come to think of it, it actually seems like more work. You'd have to go to the trouble of designing a bot, getting bot flags, and all that other shit that goes along with it. And God forbid one malfunctions, then you have to fix it and all. So why delete it tomorrow if it's just gonna be more work in the long run? I really wanna like your idea, but there are to many holes. Please explain. -- 18:08, November 8, 2011 (UTC)

I think you're looking a bit too deep into things. It was just an idea I had when people were complaining about VFD being empty. It would've provided less work for admins and more things to vote on for the VFD voters. Obviously my overall preference for democratic decisions also played a role, but seeing as VFD isn't empty anymore, the whole idea has become pretty irrelevant. Hyperbole does have a point on these fix tags usually failing to draw any attention from people that might be interested in rewriting them, though. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 00:21, 9 November 2011

I don't understand - how would that provide less work for admins? When deleting things off VFD, admins should check things same as they would when deleting things with expired maintenance tags; could turn out something really shouldn't be deleted after all either way (say, everyone's voting on a vandalised version of a page, or something). 1234 ~ 01:20, 10 November 2011

Aren't the users voting on it expected to check that rather than the admins? Didn't Mordillo say something about how it should be easy to tell for the closing admin what the result of the voting is so the admin in question can easily and swiftly do whatever the voters decided on once? Not that I'm trying to discourage you from checking the history of stuff before deleting it, but I seriously doubt it's ever been expected or required of admins closing nominations to check the history and read the whole article and whatnot before doing whatever the votes compel him to. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 01:50, 10 November 2011

When it comes to deleting pages and banning users it is the job of everyone involved to check to make sure an error is not being made. However, as admins, it is our duty to make one final check before taking any action, because ultimately it is us who will be held responsible for our actions. -- The Zombiebaron 02:32, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

Well, yeah, some checking is probably in order. You wouldn't want to delete something some other guy has just completely rewritten to save it from deletion, for example. But still, I imagine checking articles on VFD usually requires less checking than when an admin needs to make up his mind all by himself. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 02:47, 10 November 2011

Mon, that's not so, which is what we've been trying to tell you all along. Now please stop arguing until you've tried deleting some articles yourself; perhaps then you might understand somewhat what it actually involves. 1234 ~ 03:10, 10 November 2011

Yeah, yeah, you can cut out the patronizing now. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 12:35, 10 November 2011

No wait, instead of complaining about the condescending way you address me, I'll accept your challenge. You tell me that checking articles voted for deletion takes more effort than checking expired {{fix}}/{{expand}}-tagged articles? Well, it shouldn't. There's so many things you need to consider when deleting something with an expired tag. Has it been appropriately tagged? Has it been vandalized? Has it already been fixed without the tag being removed? Is this really bad enough to delete outright? That requires checking the history and reading the article. With an article that's been voted for deletion, only two of those questions remain relevant, the two in the middle, which only require a mere glance at the article and its history. Of course, if what you're talking about is that {{fix}}/{{expand}}-tagged articles tend to be more obviously deleteworthy, that's a different issue. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 16:24, 10 November 2011

I just had a completely different great idea

Delete Uncyclopedia. -OptyC Sucks! CUN00:59, 10 Nov

Tried that. Didn't work. 1234 ~ 01:22, 10 November 2011

What if we tried it again...with more anger! -RAHB 02:48, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

Could we just, like, delete half of Uncyclopedia? An anonymous source tells me the site would be better off if we just deleted 15,000 articles anyways!  

That's what I would do if I were God for a day. Well, that and make everybody stop wearing clothes. -RAHB 00:25, November 11, 2011 (UTC)