User talk:Mnbvcxz/CVFD

decided to make this, you know, an actual talk page, not a page in itself.

Now that's a good idea. ;) Well, I think some of what was here will be needed when we make a post in the DUMP about this, but probably most of it is too much, too long, and over the top to be part of the actual instructions. I don't think having a separate additional help page is a good idea, it all needs to be in the one place. Keep it simple, to the point, and easy to follow... Maybe try and fit in the idea which you had here into the instructions on the other page. Oh, I hope you approve of how I changed it... MrN 02:20, Nov 24

Oh, this is far from ready yet. ;) MrN 02:23, Nov 24

The instructions have been moved to User:Mnbvcxz/CVFDHelp. How much instruction do you think should be on on the template page? I was thinking a brief instruction of usage here, plus a verbose, noob-training instruction list somewhere else would make the most sense. I think I made it a lot less rambling and condescending than it was the first time, but I'm still working on it right now. I think I was aiming a "noob" audience.--Mnbvcxz 02:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it's best to do it all one the one page if you can really, n00bs are probably not going to even find the verbose page. Not sure... You do need to add a link from the actual template to itself so that when people find it on their page, they know where to look to find out what it's all about. Ya also need something about following the normal VFD guidelines (not less than 7 days old etc) when using the template. There is no rush... It's going to take a while to figure out the right way to do this. MrN 02:54, Nov 24

Do you think it should have a request to discuss on the potential deleter's talk page instead of the article's talk page? That is a bit of the return to "Kneel before ME and beg for your pathetic article's life" from the original insulting version, and it places the discussion of why the article should be kept on a user talk page, and not on the article's talk page. That being said, it also gets the potential deleter's attention and would reduce the risk of potential article deleters ignoring article talk pages. Additionally, it has less of lordy, insulting tone then my original template version.

Hmm, not sure about that. Probably the articles talk page is better. It puts the discussion in the right place, and others interested in the article are more likely to see it. The emphasis on action needs to be on the part of the person placing the template (the tagger). I think there needs to be a requirement that the tagger must add the article to their watchlist. They should also definitely need to return to the talk page to check for any discussion, or improvements before making the VFD nom. MrN 03:29, Nov 24

Also, do you think the addition of explicitly stating the article is a candidate for VFD is a good idea or not. It does prevent confusion, but it does make it a bit less "modest".

Yes for sure. That's what it is. Why would we not do this? MrN 03:29, Nov 24

I'm still unsure about the separate help page. It does clear up some stuff; however, like you said, its basically verbose information that will only be read by people who don't need to read it.--Mnbvcxz 03:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can't really see much which is said on your verbose page which is not now on the actual template page. Like I said, what you have on your verbose page will be useful when we need to explain this in the DUMP... Maybe include a few extra details from your verbose page onto the main template page, but naa... I don't think two pages is a good idea. We don't do that for other templates, so we probably don't want to start here.

I'm still trying to figure out if this template should be placed on the articles main page, or the talk page... There are reasons for both... MrN 03:29, Nov 24

I would say main page, that is where re-write, fix, ugly, VFD, and other templates are placed. As for the verbose page, I'd probably keep it for reference for making the template or for its intro in the dump.--Mnbvcxz 03:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes

I altered the text slightly for clarity. The first change makes it clear (hopefully), that only those people authorized to nom on VFD can use this template. The second edit is to say that on improperly added template can be removed with impunity, i.e. templates added by ips or on to articles with a construction tag, or articles under 7 days old. (And any other conditions that would make an invalid VFD nom.)--Mnbvcxz 00:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I get what you are saying, but I think there is still a danger that you may be missing the proper point of this template. Well, in my view anyway, I consider this template to be simply a polite way for VFD users to let others know that they intend to nominate an article for VFD. We are not creating any new procedure here, and we most surely don't want to be creating any new rules. If someone wants to remove this template from their article, that's fine and up to them. The person who placed the template there can then act as they see fit. I don't like the wording currently still. If the author bothers to contact the person who placed the tag, the emphasis should be on the person who placed the tag to explain why they think it should be deleted. Not the other way around. Obviously the author is interest in improving the article, and is going to need feedback for improvement.

Think about it this way... The author has nothing to prove, it's just the tagger who thinks it should be deleted at this point, and chances are anyway that if someone is still around and interested in the article the person who made the VFD nom will most likely not nom it. I sure as hell never would. If you think there its likely to be contention on a VFD nom, just take it straight to VFD anyway... This template is really just a "is anyone interested" template. It MUST offer no new additional power to the person who uses it. If it did, this template would not be accepted by the community. Trust me ;) we are not changing the deletion process here... We are NOT creating a category for "maybe VFD", (although if you know how to use what links here it kinda is). It's simply up to the tagger to watch what happens when they put the tag on. If anyone is interested, probably don't make the nom. There is a lot of crap out there which no one cares about, let's get rid of that first. I hope ya understand what I mean... Also... I must say I admire your efforts with this, and hope you don't think I'm nagging ya too much... MrN 20:30, Nov 25

I'm not trying to establish new rules per say; however, there needs to be a standard "etiquette" for how this template works. In other words, everyone has to be on the same page, as it were, with how to use it. Some people might have the theory that any contested deletion should be a keep, but others don't. As I said previously, we needs to avoid the extremes of suggesting that mere objection will save an article and saying that the author needs to kneel before the placer of this template and beg for its life.

I really don't see why you should take contentious articles straight to VFD, yet place this template on noncontentious ones. I know doing so might limit drama; however, you would making the "process" for really bad articles longer than that for questionable articles. Also, by placing this on contentious articles that you would send to VFD over and against the objection of their authors, you'd at least give the authors a warning. That might create some drama, but I figure it should be less than an outright VFD nom.

To clarify how this should work, I have written a flow chart of sorts below. Each step assumes the actor does what etiquette demands suggests, but does not do any gratuitous or extra work at any step:

Step #1, Potential Deleter (abbr. P.D.) will place template, watch page, add to VFD list. The article Defender(s) (abbr. Def.) should then:

A) Not make any objection (i.e. nobody will defend the article). P.D. then should place the article on VFD.

B) say "I want to keep the article" in its talk page. Go to step two.

Step #2, The P.D. decides if the article is really that bad, or not:

A) the article isn't that bad and its not worth a VFD fight and the potential drama. The P.D. defenders removes template, and says "Ok, we should keep it" in article talk page.

B) The article really is that bad, the P.D. offers, up politely, why the article isn't up to Uncyclopedia's standards. Go to step #3.

Step # 3. The Def. thinks over the P.D. comments, and decides if the article really was worth keeping, the Def. will then

A) the article really was delete worthy. Say, that upon further reflection, the article is VFD worthy, P.D. then can place article on VFD, after waiting for any other defenders of the article

B) The article should be kept. Give reasons why the article should be kept, including (but not limited to) the following:

• The P.D. is missing the joke
• promise to improve the article
• Inform the P.D. that this article is a well known in-joke

Go to step #4

Step # 4. The P. D. considers the comments of the Def, and decides if the article really should be kept.

A) The article isn't delete worthy. The P.d. removes the template, ect.

B) the article is, even considering the reasons for defense, vfd worthy. The P.D. responds to the comments of the Def. Go to step 5:

Step #5. The P.D. and Def. have a conversation about the VFD-worthiness of the article, either.

A) the P.D. concedes, because either the article really was good enough, or maybe, because the Def. will throw of fit if it in nominated. then removes template, ect.

B) the Def. concedes. Article stays on VFD list.

C) after a reasonable amount of discussion, neither concede. Article stays on VFD list. The P.D., may, using his judgment to determine if it will decrease, rather than increase drama; as a courtesy, tell the defender when he will nominate the article for VFD.--Mnbvcxz 23:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess it depends what we mean when we say contentious... It also depends on what's happening in the edit history of the article. If I knew that someone would object to the deletion of an article, but I thought that it was so bad that it still warranted a VFD nom (which I was confident would result in a deletion) I would take it straight to VFD. There is no point getting into a private flame war with an active user. Something contentious like that should be done in the proper place. That's VFD... Limiting drama is more important than deleting articles. Deleting articles is one thing, but loosing users is another. Don't forget... People can always get a deleted article back if they want to work on it in userspace anyway. Also, this template should speed up the throughput of VFD as it should reduce the number of nominations which are kept. MrN 00:17, Nov 26

Do you know how to link to edit the article's talk page, if its possible? Basically, what the re-rewrite templates do, except instead of linking to the article edit, linking to talk edit.--Mnbvcxz 03:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)