Forum:Suggestions on reducing the need for CVP

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Suggestions on reducing the need for CVP

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6161 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

First of all, let me explain what the scope of this proposal is. I am not claiming that it is possible to eliminate CVP entirely, nor am I suggesting that UN:PT replace it. This proposal is made in full seriousness, unlike several others I have seen within the Dump.

With that said:

I have noticed that CVP is used a lot more than it ideally should be, with the following vicious cycle occurring for many pages:

1. Article is created (often on a subject that is important by virtue of its connections to other subjects).
2. Despite substandard quality, the article stays around for a while and is edited by many good-faith editors.
3. A more senior Uncyclopedian musters the courage to VFD the article. (Rarely, the article may be summarily deleted by an administrator.)
4. Article is deleted.
5. Well-meaning but satirically unskilled newbies, unhappy that the article was deleted, click the newly created redlinks and write whatever comes to mind. (By "satirically unskilled" I mean that their ideas are closer to ED lulz than refined Uncyclopedia satire.)
6. Repeat, faster and faster, until the admins get fed up and CVP the page.

In order to break this cycle, I would like the following to be considered:

• BGBU/HTBFANJS/insert other style manual here need to make clearer that creating unnecessary red links is bad. (I am unable to suggest a specific wording. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Red link)
• We should encourage more consistent use of user talk pages to warn users of misbehaviors and give them criticism on poor-quality articles (just as a common courtesy, not a formal system).
• We should encourage the creation of redirects as appropriate, and administrators should be willing to protect redirects as needed. Of course, I am talking about redirects from articlespace to articlespace. (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Redirect)
• We might need to organize a "Central Rewrite Team" in order to improve the quality of at-risk articles.
• It might be a good idea to remove wikilinks from VFD nom headings when the article is deleted, to avoid tempting noobs with a redlink. A bot might be able to do something similar for QVFD.

--Pentium5dot1 01:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what you said about central rewrite team...well, even though a V-Week is still under debate, a C-Week seems to be unanimously supported. Why not have someone establish a list of "high-importance" articles for rewriting? That way, they'd be more likely to get rewritten during CW. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 01:44, Jan 23

CVP (or its successors; it is obsolete) should only be used for titles where there will never and can never be a legitimate page on a topic. Names of individual non-notable individuals might qualify, names of individual states no. Incidents of short-term vandalism should not be dealt with by long-term blocks that are never removed once they've outlived their purpose. Topics which could already have related valid articles elsewhere should be redirected, ie Diarrhoea -> Toilet or Poop Cuisine and Buttsecks -> Anal sex, and not placed on CVP. As for UN:PT as dumping ground? No, using the português Uncyclopedia to dump en:'s garbage is a bad idea. The likes of Forum:Talk/index.php/ (XRumer spam), however, should be protected against re-creation indefinitely. – Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.80.212 (talk • contribs)

If a page still has inbound links, and you have no intention of removing all of those links first, maybe the page title doesn't belong on CVP? All too often, one clicks on a blue link to what looks like a legitimate topic only to be redirected to "oh, by the way, this page used to exist but was CVP'ed into oblivion for reasons unknown...". Annoying... --Carlb 18:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)