Forum:Put the VFD limit up to 20?

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Put the VFD limit up to 20?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6152 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Hi all. I'm sure I'm not the only person to notice that we have not had a vote for at least 10 minutes and I don't think I'm the only person to have noticed that activity on VFD has increased lately. Perhaps all the talk of vigilance week has inspired people into voting more on VFD, but the fact is that many VFD votes are now passing through in a matter of hours. There is currently only one active article on the list which was not added today.

It's obviously great that people are voting more but if my understanding of VFD is correct, we would generally like articles to sit on VFD for slightly longer than a few hours thereby allowing people to fix them up before huffing if they wish. The last thing I'm suggesting is that people vote less of course, but I wonder if we could now handle increasing the page limit a little. Perhaps 20 would be a good number? I think VFD can handle this, and it might actually allow us to delete more articles in the long run.

If people would like to vote on this please use the voting section below, and consider adding discussion to the section below that. Thanks for commenting and voting. MrN 21:15, Jan 27

Vote on Increasing the VFD limit to 20

20 votes? Sounds like a Motion Passed to me. -- 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 21:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Score: +19

•  For. MrN 21:15, Jan 27
•  HELLS YEAH – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 21:18 Jan 27, 2008
•  Strong For per MrN9000--Æ 21:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong MrN9000. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 21:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Yes--<<>> 21:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Yupyupyup. A viable alternative/replacement/complement/associate to/for V-Week -- 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 21:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
•  For --EMC ^[TALK] 21:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• For -- puzzling Ape (explode) (Riot Porn) 22:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• For but still for V-Week. After all, my list of future VFD articles has 30 entries and will only get more. Then there's the Poopsmith's Lounge and other peoples list o' crap. A permanent bump up of VFD is good, though. --Dexter111344 22:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• I don't see why not. It's certainly a lot better than a week of mass-huffing. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 00:11, Jan 28
• HUGE MEGA FOR! It sort of saves me the stress of waiting for space in the VFD. --24.76.236.216 01:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that was me, forgot to sign in. -->:( 01:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

•  YES - great idea (Bonner) (Talk) Jan 28, 07:38
• For. You kids these days and your VFD. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 07:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• 4---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 14:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• YES!!! --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 15:08, Jan. 28, 2008
• FORRR I wish people would have voted in droves for my issue with NotM instead :P --~Fag x FS 15:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• FLOOR FLUSH THE CRAP, FLUSH THE CRAP, FLUSH THE CRAP, FLUSH THE CRAP, CRUSH THE FLAP, FLUP CHE TRAP (ooh thats bordering on sexual innuendo) Sir DJ ~ Irreverent
• For --THE 19:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
•  For.--Lieutenant THEDUDEMAN Dude ... Totally UOTM KUN GotA F@H 01:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• For - Sometimes I feel let down by VFD, but with 5 more entries it will be 33% funnier! -- Kippy the Elf Talk Works ☃ 02:13, Jan. 29, 2008
• For - UnIdiot | Talk? | Theme - 02:32, Jan 29
• Four no, wait... Thirty     EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)   18:23, Tuesday 29 January 2008  
• Against Woah, how did I not see this vote? Anyway, not enough people vote on VFD anyway to make more votes any better. We pay more attention to VFH when the voting goes dry there, why not get people to vote more on VFD (or, heaven forbid, VFP), instead of increasing its size? Also, havind just read what MRN said in the intro to this, I'd like to point out that I, who have been active on VFD for over 2 years, do not think that we have any signifigant increase in votes or people voting. -- The Zombiebaron 14:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with you there, but it seems we are outvoted, Mr. Baron. Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 15:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

But our votes are worth 10 votes each, Cs. They can never out vote us. -- The Zombiebaron 16:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, when the expansion is enacted, perhaps a "Please Vote on VFD" Reminder template can be left on the talk pages of the voters on this page who are in favor of the change. Sounds like a job for the Poopsmith, actually.. --THINKER 15:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion, general ridicule and pancake related issues

I like pancakes. --EMC ^[TALK] 21:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Would this increase be permanent or temporary? --Æ 22:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am suggesting a permanent increase. I'm guessing that the limit of 15 was set at a time when Uncyc was less busy than it is these days. If we start getting less voting we can always put it back down in the future as required. MrN 22:30, Jan 27

What amazes me is that people are more concerned with voting of VFD than on VFH/VFP. ~ Mordillo where is my ASSHAT? 22:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Because a lot of the articles are boring compared to what used to be on VFH some while ago? It feels like none of the regulars are writing anymore, and we're just dredging up QFA's and other old articles. With lack of input, there's not a whole hell of a lot we can do. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 22:59 Jan 27, 2008

The fact that Starnes posted three old QFA doesn't mean that they all are. There are some pretty good pieces there (no self whoring intended, honestly). And please, enough with the regulars. I am really tired of articles being immediately featured if they have a "regular" writer or gets an immediate -3 if it's nommed by an IP. ~ Mordillo where is my ASSHAT? 23:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mordillo, that there are some good pieces on VFH but not all of them are. And FTR, several QFA's are high-qwality--Æ 23:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've always preferred voting on if an article will stay on here forever than if one will be on the front page for one day. --Dexter111344 23:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It will all be fine when PLS is over, or so they say... If we are talking about VFH my issue has always been that people don't want to vote against so they just don't vote when they read a nom they don't like. If someone could come up with a way of changing that we would have a much better system, but that's a different discussion I guess. MrN 23:29, Jan 27

That is what we refer to as a "silent abstain." People don't want to crush toesies around here (for some reason). --THINKER 18:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. It's not like when you crush your fingy-wingies, mommy can kiss those and make them feel better. Mommy won't kiss my toesies and make them feel better, though. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 21:40, Jan 29

But your two da...oh, great. Now you've got me doing it. Damn you and your two dads! (Incidentally, (Damn you and) your two dads was a fine sitcom from the late 70's) Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, remember that one where the main character feels alienated because of his strange family position, but then he learns to be self-confident and the people around him learn to accept his differences and they all have a good long laugh about it later? "Lance, what are you doing down there? You know, every time I bend over to pick something up isn't an excuse to fondle my fanny!" *Laugh track* - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 22:59, Jan 29

Who Cares?

Quality isn't important on Uncyclopedia. Let the rivers of shit run freely. --THINKER 19:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 19:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

But how else will we be able to go swimming? Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 00:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In lemon juice? -- puzzling Ape (explode) (Riot Porn) 22:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

For the first bit. The second bit sounds a little icky. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 21:54 Jan 30, 2008

They're one and the same. Also For abolishing QVFD on the same grounds...right? --THINKER 21:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Such biting sarcasm. You guys really can't go more than three forum topics without sniping at each other, can you? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 00:09, Jan 31

Don't worry, my quality concerns will be taken care of elsewhere in small time. I just feel bad for the rest of the site. But, as I seem to be in the minority, I guess the rest shall suffer themselves gladly. --THINKER 15:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Taken elsewhere? Thank God. It's getting a little frustrating with the personal attacks. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 21:01 Jan 31, 2008

/me gets rifle, puts eye to scope. pew pew pew Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 00:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Making a new title header, to avoid making a new forum topic altogether. Let's get this vote over and done with, once and for all, a final, last vote for the ages.

PANCAKES! WUV?

•  No wuv.--<<>> 00:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Woah, what the hell just happened?

The motion got passed, and then Zombiebaron reverts the image and the template? With the edit summary "revert vandalism"? What the fuck is going on? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 20:54 Jan 31, 2008

He just overrode TKF and popular opinion. It isn't our fault he missed out on the vote. He had more than a week. --Dexter111344 21:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

He shall be defeated swiftly I'm sure. --THINKER 21:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, hello there Dr. Skullthumper. Its a bit odd that, since my reverting seems to have drawn your eye, that you would have taken the matter here instead of, say, to my talkpage. In anycase, let me explain. First off, I don't think that this vote proves anything. Who are these people to say what they want, when I know what they want? Increasing the number of pages allowed on VFD has been proven, by science, to slow down the VFD process. People become scared, people vote less on less pages, pages kick around without enough keeps to be kept nor deletions to be deleted for weeks. We've done it before, and that's what happened. V-Week, which everyone seems to have mixed feelings on, only works because it lasts for a week. It forces people to get rid of the cruft fast, before the week ends, instead of the "Oh, VFD will work eventually" method that deletionists and anti-deletionists everywhere seem to have adopted. In summary, no matter what you may think, neither you, Dr. Skullthumper, nor anyone else, Dexter111344 and Thinker, really want 20 articles of VFD. You'll all thank me later. -- The Zombiebaron 22:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You know, I'm really starting to get sick of the sarcasm around this place. If I do something wrong, just say it, please, don't get all sarcastic on me. Really. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 22:17 Jan 31, 2008
    • Sarcasm? Sarcasm? We would never be sarcastic. Sarcasm is the refuge of losers. Oh...shit. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
      • So just because one person doesn't like it means we have to have it his way despite a vote? Come on people, democracy (and you should've voted prior to now)--Æ 22:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I hate to disagree with ZB, but I sort of agree with AE. Why not move it up to 20, if only for a little while? If what ZB says turns out to be true, we can always just change it back. Also, sarcasm isn't the last refuge of losers, cardboard boxes and cheap liquor are. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 22:30, Jan 31
    • I...err...wasn't being sarcastic. I was raising a valid point, in a less "So, why the fuck didn't you ask this on my talkpage, jerk?", kinda way. Because I'm a nice guy like that. Also, how do you know its sarcasm if you can't hear my inflection and tone? Exactly. -- The Zombiebaron 22:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Sorry ZB, but I honestly think your revert is power abuse as the motion was passed. Needless to say, you voted on a close vote which non-sysops would probably have been banned for. You can't always have things your way despite being a sysop--Æ 22:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Before you throw the word "abuse" around, please make sure you're using it properly. Webster defines abuse as "a corrupt practice or custom", and corrupt as "to change from good to bad in morals, manners, or actions". My revert, however, was conducted not only for the betterment of you, and how VFD works for you, AE, but also for everyone else on VFD. VFD will not become a magically speedy page with 20 more articles, and the sooner all 20 of these people, most of whom do not use VFD on a regular basis, realize this the better. -- The Zombiebaron 23:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Ok, I think I can add something here. I was king of Darwin once. I decided to let the people have their way to "fix" it with their "health" status, even though I knew better and could prove it'd never work. And it did work. Oddly enough, trial periods of this kind of stuff aren't a terribly bad idea. Just have a rollback scheduled, and only keep if it's proven to work.--<<>> 23:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
          • For the record, that's the definition of the verb corrupt, and I think it was used as an adjective, but now I'm completely off topic and I don't know if I'll ever get back on topic, and aren't teddy bears cuddly? *A-hem* I completely understand that you've probably seen this happen before, and that it didn't work then, but I haven't seen it happen, and I think we've gotten quite a few more active VFD-voters since whenever it was enacted last. Also, why can't we just try it? Even if you're right, we can easily change it back. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 23:33, Jan 31
            • Just for the record, Gwax, after returning from his vacation a few months ago, changed the limit to 30 before leaving again shortly after, and this was reverted by ZB saying it wasnt needed. Now, we have a 20 - 0 vote to increase the limit to 20, an after the motion is passed by TKF, ZB again comes back and reverts it saying again that it isnt needed. I hate to say it Zombiebaron, but if an old op can see it in less than a few hours and every regular agrees, the VFD limit should be increased and you're fighting on the loosing side of this war.Lieutenant THEDUDEMAN Dude ... Totally UOTM KUN GotA F@H 23:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

“This bickering is pointless”

~ Grand Moff Tarkin on This VFD thing

My intention was to increase the amount of time an article spends on the VFD queue, but without (hopefully) reducing the total throughput of the page. As so many people have voted now, why not just give it a try. We can always put it back. MrN 23:01, Jan 31

I also wanted to respond to ZB's first comment, you say it will slow down the VFD process, well how come it's already slow and the community unanimously approved of the motion prior to your vote. Even if you're correct ZB, keep an open mind, you might be wrong. Let's try it for a month and bring it back to the forum if it doesn't work like you predict--Æ 23:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So, I'm thinking we should just label February as "VFD history month", and celebrate the history of contributions VFD has made to Uncyclopedia. And as part of that, bump it up to 20. That way, if there's any question, we just put it back to 15 and debate from THERE, not from the position of 20, which is what I think Zombie's worried about.--<<>> 00:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong For, I love it when you can take the words that I'm not using properly out of my mouth, Brad. Yes, yes, and yes. I'm working on the proper signage for the month now. -- The Zombiebaron 00:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Lieutenant THEDUDEMAN Dude ... Totally UOTM KUN GotA F@H 00:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Strongly for giving it a try. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 00:26, Feb 1

• VFD History Month has now started. This month will include a template urging people to vote more, at the top of the Main Page, which will be added to the Main Page after the PLS is over. There you have it, we have a 20 article limit for the next month, at which time we will review it. -- The Zombiebaron 01:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

An Outsider's Comments

Wow. People really will flamewar over anything. (files this as Stupid Flamewar Cause #289) —Hinoa talk.kun 00:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Zombiebaron,

Hah! I told you so!

Signed,

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 01:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I was saddened by this sorry affair. Look at the little kitten. He's upset. Sean.hoyland - tak() 01:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the way it's looking at me. It looks...hungry. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 03:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Meow. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 04:08, Feb 1