Template talk:NRV

Note: mod6-related discussion has been moved to Template talk:Mod6

Depreciation and Ifs

Since depreciation of this template, usage of this template has quite naturally shifted into two camps, those who know how to use the template and use it right, because they are stubborn old taggers, and those who have absolutely no clue what they are doing, like anonIPs who don't even sign the tag, much less understand that it isn't just a method for them to insult a page, or that there are rules to using it. To try to combat this I have altered the tag, so that it screams much more loudly at people who don't use it right. Now, if the tag is lacking the datestamp, it will not display the tag's text, and if it is missing the fix attribute, which we have long insisted on adding in some form or another, a depreciation note will appear with the tag. This note is removed if the fix tag is used, or if any dummy text is inserted into the second variable spot. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 12:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Text change proposal

I propose that the text of the NRV tag be changed to clarify that it is the article's form, not its content, that is being found lacking in redeeming value. This is to clarify this tag as for articles that are poorly written, but which may have ideas with humor potential in them.

The above is the idea of what the text change should accomplish. The following is a proposal for what the change should actually say:

"Currently this article does not meet a sufficient standard of writing quality and is hence a candidate for deletion. . . . " continue as currently stated.

By qualifying the word "quality" with the modifier "writing" it becomes clear that it is the writing, not the origination of the idea, that is being marked has having no redeeming value.

Please see Forum:VFD for more discussion concerning this proposal.

--RudolfRadna 00:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

While that text is clearer, it is not correct. Any page which has insufficient quality, be it because of lack of a good idea, lack of good execution, lack or encyclopedic qualities, etc, is NRV tagged. When it is finished, a full description of NRV and its meaning will be linked to the template, but it is not yet ready. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That will solve the problem I have with the template, but the explanation should emphasize that marking an article with this template does not necessarily mean the idea itself is bad, only its execution. If the idea itself is bad and has absolutely no humor potential, maybe the article should be QVFD instead of NRV. Editing won't fix a bad idea with no humor potential.

--RudolfRadna 00:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That being said, users should be encouraged to explain, succinctly, why they are applying the NRV template in their edit summary. That in itself will make the template much more useful.

--RudolfRadna 00:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that 7 days won't make a bad concept good, but it is also a useful margin of error. It prevents one admin's opinion from dominating by making the tagging and deleting two jobs and by giving a grace period. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but about the comment suggestion, let's say someone puts up a page that's a horrible idea. It gets NRV'd. The person who created the page decides to write a lot more to try to fix it. They work on it. Then, since the idea, not the writing, was the reason for the NRV, it gets deleted, wasting that person's time. People who use the template should be encouraged to (perhaps required to?) explain why they are adding the template in their edit summary, since otherwise the person who created the page has no idea what needs to be done to fix it, and could end up working on a page where the idea was the reason for the NRV, and it just gets deleted anyway, despite the work.

--RudolfRadna 00:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it, wouldn't it help the admin reviewing the NRV'd pages for deletion to know the original motivation for the NRV?

--RudolfRadna 01:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Making the edit summary explaning the reason for the NRV mandatory goes beyond the bounds of the text of the NRV template itself and goes into how it should be used, and I believe it is a useful change to the deletion process, so I'm going to float it out on the VFD forum and people can comment on it as they want to. I think the conversation we've been having has been very useful in outlining the issues surrounding NRV in light of the proposed changes to VFD.

--RudolfRadna 01:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see [1] for the current discussion about this template.

--RudolfRadna 17:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Something along the lines of this, perhaps?

Reason given:No reason added

Then the reason is shown on all subsequent NRVs, and those placed in the 7 days before this is added will merely state that no reason is shown. Also, you seem to talk to yourself too much. Just look at those timestamps! --User:Nintendorulez 20:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Should {{Badge/NRV}} be put into this template? --User:Nintendorulez 00:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

no. --Splaka 01:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Dead link

The link "please follow these instructions" currently links to https://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/Uncyclopedia:No_Redeeming_Value#Removing_NRV, but it should link to https://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/Uncyclopedia:No_Redeeming_Value#Removing_the_Tags since that's what the relevant section of "Uncyclopedia:No Redeeming Value" is titled.

In other languages

A Japanese version of this template also exists at ja:Template:NRV.--Ryoske 01:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)