Forum:New rule for nominations on VFD

Forums: Index > Village Dump > New rule for nominations on VFD

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5701 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

OK guys, I have added the following to the VFD rules for making a nomination:

“ Check the revision history of the page. It may have been vandalised, or just badly edited over a long period of time. If so, find a better version and revert the article. It may not be suitable for deletion. ”

Obviously I don't expect people to spend the entire day searching the history for the single best version there is, what I am asking is that people make a reasonable effort to try to find something better before they nominate. It only takes a minute or two to have a look. Just look at a few diffs at various times and it should soon become obvious if the article has deteriorated. If you do find something better and still want to nominate you should revert to the "better" page, and nominate that. What I don't want is people just looking at the article as it is now, and nominating based only on that.

Yes this makes nominating on VFD more effort, but it's better than throwing away stuff which we might otherwise keep. Many people do this already I know, the difference is that now it's a requirement. If it becomes obvious that people are not bothering to do this, I will deal with it then. Cheers. MrN 14:51, Apr 3

FU MrN You Fascist Bastard

That's a good idea. As such, your name will be chiseled off the UnMonument and you will be erased from the pages of UnHistory. Ideas have no place here, Mister Smartypants. Take crap like that to Wikipedia! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 15:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What does FU mean? --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 16:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It's an abbreviated kinda Kung Fu. All the normal fun of Kung Fu but but without the Kung which is usually associated with the subject. MrN 16:42, Apr 3

Fundamentally Unusual. When applied to a person, it's used as a term of praise or even endearment round here. Rabbi Techno kvetch Contribs FOXES 16:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm more of a Fundamentalist Usually as in if it all gets to be too much work, I'm probably not going to bother. MrN 16:47, Apr 3

Foreign Undesirables? Frightening Underwear? Rabbi Techno kvetch Contribs FOXES 16:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Fucking Ubermensch? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 13:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't make the header. That was here when I got here. Some jerk made it. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I checked the history of this page and I couldn't find a better version. Am I ok to nom it for deletion now? -OptyC Sucks! CUN16:55, 3 Apr

Well, as everyone knows you are one of my sockpuppets, so you could use QVFD with the comment "Optimuschris sucks donkey willies" or something similar. MrN 17:09, Apr 3

I always thought that already was a rule... I mean I've never read them (rules aren't my style), but I just kinda assumed that was on there. Maybe it's in the maintenance tagging rules. Which I've never read either. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 18:37, 03 Apr 2009

Well on {{VFDRules2}} it does say "Please remember to check an article's history, in case of recent or long term vandalism, before nominating an article. Also, check the article's talk page and 'What links here' for prior nominations. If the article has been nominated before there will be a link from a VFD archive page." (Some of which I wrote btw)... The point is that up until now people generally don't bother. Now it's not something which we hope people will remember to do. It is a requirement which must be done during the nomination process. MrN 22:30, Apr 3

I VFDing this.

--MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 20:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't fuck around with VFD. You are a poopsmith. You are supposed to set an example for other users to follow regarding how VFD should be used. This kinda shit is not cool Dexter. Stop it. MrN 22:30, Apr 3

Hmmmm

It's not exactly a bad rule, but in the couple cases where you've "reverted it to a better version in the history" recently, to be quite honest, I thought those "better versions" were still awful and merited deletion. pillow talk 20:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe... So? MrN 22:30, Apr 3

So buttons on your pants. -OptyC Sucks! CUN22:31, 3 Apr

And some socks to go with those pants. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 13:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Besides, what is the definition for "better version"? And who or what is there to give the relevant indications? You? Me? Magical fairies? Jimbo Wales? God? The idea is fine as a guideline, but when you make it into a rule, it just becomes another unworkable idea. -- The Colonel (talk) 07:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

What constitutes a "better version" is a matter of opinion, as you say, but I think MrN means the obvious cases in which a page has been hacked to buggery by crap edits. We've all come across articles that are little more than a list or vanity but, when we look at the history, we find a previous version that has more content which the majority of people would consider to be "better." No doubt most of us have VFD'd stuff without checking - I know I've certainly been guilty of this, and if you do revert to a version that you think is better but others disagree on, they can always change to yet another older version (and so on ad nauseum until we reach what is, by common consensus, the best version). In situations like that, it's obvious. If there aren't any better old versions, then it remains VFD time. Rabbi Techno kvetch Contribs FOXES 07:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Magical fairies. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 13:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)