Forum:Merge VFD and VFU

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Merge VFD and VFU
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 18 July 2010 by Liquidhelium.

The Requests for Undeletion page isn't used often, while Requests for Deletion is. I just wonder - why not merge them?

It makes sense, because both are about the same thing (deleting pages), they're just each other's opposites. Look at the featured images - adding and removing the images is on the same page. Why not do the same thing for VFU's and VFD's?

A great pro would also be that this way, VFU's get much more attention. How many people look at the VFU page regularly? A few. How many people look at the VFD page regularly? Much more.

Proposal: Put Requests for Undeletion on the same page as Requests for Deletion. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 13:27, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Support - As nom. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 13:27, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Oli, it's pointless to have them on seperate pages. bad_fetustalk 14:07, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Yes I agree. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  14:45, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

See current (but unresolved discussion) Forum:Merge discussion on VFD.

also Support - Merging of

  • VFD
  • VFU
  • Merge
  • Split
  • Move

Since the process should work similarly. Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 19:16, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - VfD's and VfU's should not be merged. Since VfDs concern mainspace articles, they should be given more attention than other things, like the Featured Images that you mentioned. VfU's don't matter that much anyways, precisely because VfD's receive so much attention. Whenever a VfD has reached consensus, there is a strong majority for such a page to be deleted. It is unlikely that any VfU will pass. Featured Images receive much less attention and much fewer votes/discussion, so the reverse process is more important there. --LiquidTalk 00:39, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Errrr, I'm confused. VfU/RfU = Votes/Requests for un-deletion. Chicken7 >talk 02:21, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
>.< No, VfD=Votes for deletion. VfU=Votes for undeletion. I may have to charge you a deep fried chicken for this... --LiquidTalk 02:43, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
LOL! That's what I meant, seriously. Brain typo. But what I don't understand is how Featured Images have anything to do with this. Chicken7 >talk 04:25, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
If you read the original proposal, the fact that adding/removing Featured images is found on the same page is used as support for a merger. So I had to explain the difference between Featured images/VfD's to make a distinction as to why VfD/VfU should not be merged. --LiquidTalk 12:01, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with you. You say that any VfU will have only a slim chance of passing - that's not true. Many VfU's have passed. You say that they aren't important - that does not make any sense at all. I agree that deleting a page is very important - but doesn't that make the opposite, which is deciding to re-add the article to the Wiki, equally important? I honestly don't see why that would not be the case. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 12:08, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
The reason that many VfU's have passed is that only those that feel soooo strongly about reversing a VfD have bothered to start them. Generally when that is the case, the person also has a very good reason and is able to convince members of the community. If we move it to the same page as VfD's, then we will have an influx of doomed VfU's that will take up time and energy from the community to process. --LiquidTalk 21:41, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
So you want to kill discussion about undeleting pages? Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 21:45, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
No. I want to make sure that VfU's are meaningful and are only started in response to a truly outrageous VfD. It is a waste of time to make a VfU on every single VfD. Unless the losing side in a VfD is really determined to reverse it (meaning they have a very good reason), it is unlikely that a VfU will pass. --LiquidTalk 21:47, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't the voters on the VfU itself be able to determine that? Think of the great influx of people that will join these otherwise deserted discussions. How would VfU's not benefit from that? Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 21:55, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
(resetting tabbing) VfU's will benefit, but do we really need them to benefit? It's the odd case that an article is deleted. Is it really necessary to have two discussions for the deletion of an article? I think one is enough. Any articles for which a VfU would overwhelmingly fail could most likely be marked for speedy deletion anyways. --LiquidTalk 22:03, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
So basically you want to abolish VfU's completely? Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 22:22, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't. There are still some VfD's that pass without good reason. VfU's are needed for those. But for the vast majority of VfD's, they are a waste of time. --LiquidTalk 22:27, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
But you keep saying that we don't want VfU's to get this attention. I see where you're coming from (making sure no rediculuous VfU's are made), but really, the 'voters' should be able to judge about that by themselves. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 22:34, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
Voters, as a whole, generally can. However, what you are forgetting is that it only takes one person to start the wiki onto a completely useless discussion. For an example of this, see this page. It only took one user to start an utterly pointless discussion. I'd rather have editors focus their time on improvements to mainspace, not useless VfU's. --LiquidTalk 22:36, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
True, but I'm sure they can decide about that by themselves. Besides, if people really were as desperate as you say, wouldn't they already go to RS:VFU and create pointless discussions over there? Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 10:25, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
As of now, we've only ever had 9 discussions in RS:VFU. That's 9 in the period of about 3.5 years. Even if they were all useless discussions (which I disagree with) that's just a drop in the bukkit as far as our discussions go. If more people see these other discussions that are going on, we'll get a wider range of contributors to the discussion and get a consensus that better reflects the entire community, rather than the limited number of people who contribute because not everyone checks those pages as often. Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 10:41, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
9 RfU discussions means that only nine times has a RfD been potentially incorrect. If we had more RfD's that were wrong, then there would be more RfU's. The low number of RfU's means that the community generally agrees that one discussion for the deletion of a page is sufficient, and that there is no need to have two discussions on the deletion of a page. --LiquidTalk 15:01, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
A VFU doesn't necessarily mean that the VFD was incorrect. It's also possible that something has changed (on the wiki or in-game), and an article now has a right to be there. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 15:24, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
If that is the case, then a VfU will be duly started, and will most likely pass (though, a more likely situation is that the page will be recreated without a VfU). That's why we don't have zero VfU's. However, my point is that we don't need a bunch of pointless VfU's. --LiquidTalk 17:53, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
And my opinion is that people are wise enough not to make pointless VfU's. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 18:45, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
(resetting tabs) I would agree with you there. But, due to the way the system works, it only takes one slightly-less-wise person to start a pointless VfU. --LiquidTalk 19:04, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
And only one admin to close it after it snowballs. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 19:25, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but it still starts a pointless discussion. --LiquidTalk 19:27, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
True, but these people will quickly realise that there is no point to making useless VFUs. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 19:29, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
Ah, but there are many of those people out there. Most pointless discussionss are started by relatively new users. We are going to keep receiving new users, so there will be a plethora of pointless discussions... --LiquidTalk 19:37, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
They don't mean to harm anyone. I'm sure the amount of VFUs will increase quickly in the first few weeks, but then it'll all fall down to a normal (as in, no extreme amounts of VFUs) level. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 21:00, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
I know that they don't mean to harm anyone, but really VfU's should only be used for VfD's that were really wrong. I think this is an example of a reasonable VfU (even if it's not one that I entirely agree with). --LiquidTalk 21:17, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
Aah, good times. We wasted 30KB arguing over whether 0.03KB was useful or not. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 00:17, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
(resetting tabbing) Lol Chia. I completely agree with you. But let me try to find some reasonable explanation for this. Lets see... How about this? This discussion is a one time deal, so the space it uses up is only taken once. However, if the consensus is oppose, then it would negate many pointless VfU's down the line, which will save a bit of space, given sufficient time (time is relative... "sufficient time" may be quite long...). If the consensus is support, then I am out of ideas too. --LiquidTalk 02:28, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
You're saying it like we'll need a Petabyte or something. By the way, why would there be so many pointless VFUs and not VFDs? There are no pointless VFDs right now, so why would there be pointless VFUs? Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 15:07, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
Well, are you denying the fact that there is at least one idiot on the losing side of a VfD that would want to start a second discussion on it? --LiquidTalk 20:39, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
Trust the community. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 20:56, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
I do trust the community. But it doesn't take the community to start something pointless. All it takes is one person. --LiquidTalk 02:23, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
But another user will quickly ask that person not to do it anymore, and they'll stop. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 15:34, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
But how do you know that it will be the same user every time? Like I said, it tends to be new users that start these types of discussions. The only way that I'm going change my vote to neutral is if a provision is added so that VfU's can only be started if one or more of the following conditions are met: 1. a certain amount of time has passed since the original VfD (two weeks seems reasonable to me), 2. Jagex has updated the game in such a way so that the original deleted page is now meaningful. Otherwise, the VfU must be closed per RS:SNOW. --LiquidTalk 22:32, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
Then make a new thread about that. This one is just about merging the VFD and VFU, not changing them. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 14:35, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
I'm happy with the system as is, and hence I voted oppose. --LiquidTalk 22:43, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

{{RFC}} --LiquidTalk 21:12, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't see the problem with our current systems. What would we call the new page, "RuneScape:Requests for deletion and undeletion"? Shortcut by RS:RFDAU? Seems like an unneeded mouthful to me. Since VfU is rarely used anyway, it's not like there's some kind of demand for them to be merged. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 20:50, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

RuneScape:Deletions. RS:D. Simple as that Wink Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 21:35, April 27, 2010 (UTC)
Oh Lol Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 03:09, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Things are easier on one page. Simple as that, really... Ajraddatz Talk 16:59, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Request for closure - Unedited for a while, most people onboard. Ajraddatz Talk 19:31, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. Will also raise notability of RfU topics. PS - Is consensus to merge everything, or just RfD+RfU? Chicken7 >talk 06:23, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - some thing needs to be tried to bring more community activity in vfd/vfu allseperate pages for articles and images etc could be merged to one page. --Dragon helm.png Team6and7 Talk Dragon boots.png 19:18, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Subsequent request for closure - The original request was ignored. Could appropriate action be taken and the thread closed? HaloTalk 08:28, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - If it works fine and nothing is wrong with it let it be. If it becomes inefficient then there should be changes. "Don't try to fix something that isn't broken."

xScoobsx Talk Contribs 08:54, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

I'm really beginning to dislike that argument. If we can make things better then we should change it. If we always used that way of thinking, this wiki would've got nowhere. The forums, talk pages and IRC were not broken, so was there no point in having the CC? Merging not only draws so much more attention to all processes, but makes it easy to change, let's say, a delete discussion to a merge discussion. Chicken7 >talk 09:53, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Merge to RS:Deletions. It will bring more attention to the undeletions page too. 222 talk 10:54, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Request for closure x3 - Discussion is continuing on Merge Discussion on VFD. And discussion has ceased here. 222 talk 08:26, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

This request for closure is complete A user has requested closure for Merge VFD and VFU. Request complete. The reason given was: complete

ʞooɔ 09:17, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Request closure x5 - The previous 4 have been ignored. 222 talk 02:31, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Discussion is continuing at Forum:Merge discussion on VFD. --LiquidTalk 15:42, July 18, 2010 (UTC)