Forum:Two Suggestions!

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Two Suggestions!

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6037 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

I don't know if it's vigilance week or just a fit of inspiration, but two ideas came to me over the last two days, and here I articulate them. I'm just the proposer, and I believe both of these ideas are quite good, so I'll just tell them as they are and leave the discussion to the rest of you.

My first idea is to take the increased article limit on VFD, and keep it after Vigilance week is over. I've found it just as easy to manage as when there was a 15 article limit, and the page loading times don't differ all too much either. The only difference between the two is that we get more done with 30 articles than with 15. If this is a bit too much, we can raise the normal limit to 20, as 15 still doesn't give us normal users much legroom when stumbling upon a vivacious vein of cruft, or when the Lounge backlog starts clogging up.

My second idea is a VFC: Vote for 'Crat. I've browsed though our B'Crat list, and almost every single one of them is inactive. Of course, this is old news, but when Sannse and Flammable are the only active users that can accomplish the advanced tasks that are sometimes needed and only accessible through staff or buerocrats, things can get a bit bad when both are out to lunch. We only need one more, maximum two, and there's no shortage of willing, active sysops willing to do the job. Not too big of a stretch, really. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 18:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion: Larger VFD

Score: +13 for at most 20, a bit less for at most 25, a little bit even less for 25+

• Heck yes. It doesn't take long at all to read through thirty articles of very probable shite. Even VFH gets around twenty, and then most of them are actual long (and entertaining, for that matter) articles. Up it to 20 at the least, although I prefer 30. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 18:48 Sep 30, 2007
• I agree, the limit should be at least 20--Sir Manforman 18:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• I support this idea. Even though the limit on VFD now is 30, the number of pages actually seems to be hovering around 20-25 anyway. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 18:55, Sep 30
• 15 works, but let's not go crazy. Try 20 for a month, if that works try 25. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:49, 30, Sep 2007
• Against I've avoided coming back to VFD this week after my various holidays, partly because of the 30 limit. I think others might have voted more because of the novelty of Vigilance Week, but that'll probably wear off and leave things getting considered by a too-tiny jury. If popular opinion goes with more (and I don't see why it suddenly should...?), at least make it a more manageable number like 20. The point is not to shovel through them as fast as possible, but to read as much of each one as possible and give everything a fair hearing. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 22:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• 15's fine per SbU, but if it really needs to be larger, 20's a good number. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 01:42, 01 Oct 2007
• I used to frequent VFD a lot more. If anyone remembers, I was the one with the super-long delete comments. I think, if one actually stops to think about the vote they're about to place and exactly why they're placing it, then VFD would be better. I think VFD needs to make a shift to a more AfD-themed approach. The droves of people voting as such: Delete-~~~~ - present a problem in the "is it actually crap" department. I realize there's a huge amount of crap on the site, but one or two sentences about why the article is bad will help more "consensus" to be garnered. Isn't that the point?-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 02:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I dunno, I basically think that you can write whatever you want about a page, but it boils down to this: Good stuff stays, bad stuff must go. And, usually, the best way to see if something's good is to read it. Whenever I nom anything on VFD, my reason is always really short, and amounts to "read it, you'll see". P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 04:31, Oct 1
    • I try to avoid leaving no delete reason on VFD as well, but as your thousand yard stare kicks in from reading too much crap, it's quite tempting. Most of the crap there doesn't merit a lengthy discussion, but a word or two to show you looked through it helps, I think. --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 13:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I show my reason through the medium of interpretive dance. *Jazz hands* Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 06:52, 2, Oct 2007
      • The eye-glaze that sets in is one good reason I think we should beware of too many things on VFD - if it gets bad enough, you can end up just being swayed by existing votes and not really thinking about it at all. I know it's happened to me after reading only half the pages on VFD some days. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 10:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• For a one month trial with a limit of 20 after Vigilance Week. Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 03:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• For a trial of 20 as above. Per SBU we don't want to drive people away from VHD. We need a decent number of people in there to maximise our chance of not deleting a half decent article in error. --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 13:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• For no catch-limit on VFD (30 at least). For one-sentence description of reason for VFD: avoid flamewars, tell authors why you vote to delete stuff. For fluffy tiem. For more turtles and less television. ----OEJ 16:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Abstain - I've been here long enough to remember when there was no limit on VFD, but then that raises the issue of "should this article really go on VFD?" At the same time, fifteen's a bit confining. At any rate, I don't give a crap either way; I'll just roll with it and ban if people screw up. :3 —Hinoa talk.kun 18:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• For a one month test of a limit of 20, preferably 25. I've seen no reason over the course of VW that we should lower the limit back down. VFD is working just as well, it just works faster. --THE 22:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Against, tl;dr. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 23:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• For a trial period of 20 (Bonner) (Talk) Oct 2, 17:01
• Conditional For I'd like to see the limit raised (despite me rarely voting on VFD) but if it is raised, it should be something like twenty, maybe go to twenty five later. I also agree the reasons for deletion should be expressed. Possibly add a requirement to leave at least a short comment when voting. -RAHB 02:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Bump, since cleaning up VFD has been slow lately, and the 15 article limit quite restricting for those of us stumbling upon new crepes. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 18:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• For. VFD-limit of 37,238 articles is reasonable. -- Mitch 04:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Big for --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 18:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion: Vote for 'Crat

• Huh? I thought all B'crats did were user rights. That only changes once a month, if that. I don't really see a need for it. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 18:48 Sep 30, 2007
  • I don't think we need more. B'crats do nothing but op users, and that honor is only once a month, and Rcmurphy and Dawg are semi-active b'crats. I don't see the need--Sir Manforman 18:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
    • It's only 1 or 2 more, and it never hurts. Plus, Zombiebaron/Mhaille would shut up about it if we made him/them one. What are the disadvantages? -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 18:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Why don't you just leave it up to the sysops and b'crats?--Sir Manforman 18:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Because this is my idea, and I proposed it. Ultimately, it's up to them whether they support it or not, but it's still my proposal. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 18:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Then let's discuss opping one or two (or three) of them, and not making a VFC page — it kinda implies that b'crating will occur on a regular basis. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 18:59 Sep 30, 2007
• Sure, why not? Might as well keep one or two more backup 'crats, just for safety's sake. (Although, I'm not really 100% sure exactly what B-Crats do, anyways...) P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 18:57, Sep 30

All bureaus can do is make new admins (and new bureaus). Between myself, Dawg, Flam, Pants and Sannse (Sannse isn't an Uncyc bureaucrat but as Staff she can use crat-power in an emergency or something) I can't really think of a situation where we desperately need an opping and there's nobody around to do it. —rc (t) 20:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect I wouldn't class youself, Dawg, Pants or Sannse as active users, you are a little more than the others, but most of the people with 'crat are no longer active in any way. I appreciate that people come and go but with only Flam an ever constant I can't see what the issue is with having back up from amongst the more active Admins. It may sound like I'm just after this for myself, but I'm really not bothered if I get it or not, just as long as someone does. I'd be just as pleased to see Codeine (or at least someone outside of North America) upgraded to Bureau. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Brad actually made a good suggestion (I know...I'm as shocked as you are!) that the UOTY for each year should be made a 'Crat, as that was a good indicator of their passion and love for the site. I for one am all for that. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

That doesn't sound half bad, either. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 19:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds like a good idea to me, too. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 19:16, Sep 30

Me likee. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 19:16 Sep 30, 2007

At least if they're already a sysop... -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 22:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's anything like UotM, it'll be another 7 years before a regular user is even nominated. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 02:05, 01 Oct 2007

I wonder if Mhaille has an ulterior motive for his suggestion...Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 02:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The only "advanced tasks" a bureaucrat can do is op someone, I doubt things would get bad if all of them were out for a week-long lunch. We hardly need more people opped that regularly. That said, one or two more would be nice. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 02:05, 01 Oct 2007

Actually, I was thinking of ordaining a Eurocrat. Cody and Mhlaille are the current frontrunners.--Sir Flammable KUN (Na Naaaaa...) 02:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds ever so proportional. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 20:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm for whatever would further consolidate power in the hands of Mhaille. Anything that speeds up the Apocalypse as foretold in Revelations is fine by me, and it is said that the anti-Christ will be from Europe. Put two and two together guys, and remember, Praise the Lord! --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 19:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)