Forum:De-featuring articles that have degraded over time?

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > De-featuring articles that have degraded over time?
Note: This topic has been unedited for 4321 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

I've noticed that featured articles get worse over time, even though the IPs can't get to them. So what if there was a process called de-featuring, or demoting featured articles from Featured status? We'd still acknowledge that an article was once featured on its talk page, but say why it was de-featured. This has a few advantages:

  1. Visitors will know what it means for an article to be featured.
  2. It'll be re-opened to anonymous editing, so there's more that they can edit.
  3. The oversized Featured Article group will get less crowded, so it only contains the best of the good. (I wouldn't say best of the best, that's Top 10 of the Year.)

Discuss. --Clicky! Sir CuteLolcatOnTheRadio [CUNPBJ'12PLS(0)Stuy'16] 16:14, May 28, 2012 (UTC)

Nah. -- NotReallyMyUsername 2012-05-28T16:49
A better solution would be to revert them to a better state. Also, featuredom indicates that an article was on the main page. Therefore, you can't really unfeature an article. --Talk to me! Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 16:50, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
You could say that it was once featured. There's also the Good Article rank. --Clicky! Sir CuteLolcatOnTheRadio [CUNPBJ'12PLS(0)Stuy'16] 16:58, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
Good Articles are similar to Quasi-Featured Articles. --Talk to me! Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 17:00, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
Okay.... There could be something called, like, "Formerly Featured", making it obvious that we want people to help. Oh, another thing. We've completely overlooked the argument about anonymous users that do make good-faith edits. --Clicky! Sir CuteLolcatOnTheRadio [CUNPBJ'12PLS(0)Stuy'16] 17:17, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
After all, anonymous persons are just admins who forgot their passwords. OMG!!! It`s Cat the Colourful, Jesus Christ!!! 17:45 28 May 2012
I'm not sure I'm following you. If you say featured articles degrade over time, why not just revert them to their featured version??? Sir SockySexy girls.jpg Mermaid with dolphin.jpg Tired Marilyn Monroe.jpg (talk) (stalk)Magnemite.gif Icons-flag-be.png GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotYPotM WotM 12:41, 29 May 2012

The whole "revising history" idea is really kind of tacky. It's not to say that there aren't some articles that were featured in the past that we would never feature nowadays, or that there aren't some that could use some serious modification. But revoking the status already bestowed upon it by the due process would be like a band trying to say that their first horribly-recorded and misguided album isn't an "official" album anymore. It so is. It was released. It's there. We deal with it and move on to the next thing. To your point about IPs making good edits, there are traces of it. We have the IP welcome template (which I can't remember the link to at the moment) for acknowledging good IP contributions and a few featured articles were originally written by IPs (ie Grandpa's Stories). -RAHB 15:00, May 29, 2012 (UTC)

Fuck talking, just vote

On demoting featured articles that have degraded to sub-feature status

Score: -10
I said fuck talking. Present your ideas elsewhere . Aimsplode (Der_Führerbunker--Wehrmacht Factories) Happy Holidays! 18:25, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
Fuck talking already! OMG!!! It`s Cat the Colourful, Jesus Christ!!! 18:47 28 May 2012
Fuck fucking talking. Voters should provide a reason for why they are are voting. --Talk to me! Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 19:12, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
Symbol comment vote.svg Per Xamralco. We should try to reach a consensus for this one because it's that important to the future of Uncyc.
Oh, and Symbol for vote.svg For. --Clicky! Sir CuteLolcatOnTheRadio [CUNPBJ'12PLS(0)Stuy'16] 19:16, May 28, 2012 (UTC)

Qzekrom. You can't vote against another user as you have done with Matt Lobster because you don't like the way he has voted. That is bullying and would earn you an automatic ban. Since this forum is supposed to be about a serious subject and not a Benson knockabout, please make note. Eh?

So...to go back to the forum. Deciding to de-feature an article on the grounds that it has degraded will just be another dramafest in my view. I am no fan of nostalgia here but articles that were featured in the early days should be protected from the day they were formerly voted by the then community of people at Uncyclopedia. So all later edits unless they are to correct grammar,spelling, obvious typos, adding links to other articles...etc - should be removed. --Laurels.gifRomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 20:20, May 28, 2012 (UTC)

It's a yes or no question. Aimsplode (Der_Führerbunker--Wehrmacht Factories) Happy Holidays! 20:40, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
  • Against. Talk pages are easily vandalized, monitored much less than the page itself usually, and the notice that they were formerly featured could too easily be removed by vandals. IPs that make good edits have plenty of other material to work with, and it really is not that hard to get an account. We should encourage productive IPs to get accounts, not encourage them to stay IPs by giving them more to work with. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 01:10, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
I just wanted to encourage discussion. I changed it to a counter-argument. --Clicky! Sir CuteLolcatOnTheRadio [CUNPBJ'12PLS(0)Stuy'16] 22:54, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • Against. Just revert to the feature status if a page is really bad (that star on the top right hand corner let's you look at the featured version). I've removed lots of stupid quotes from features which weren't in the original voted-on version. Aleister 1:17 29-5-'12
  • Symbol declined.svg Against. As it was stated before, just revert it back to a better version--Iwillkillyou.gif 333.gif TALK What's it like to be a heretic? 03:44, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol declined.svg Rollback ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Proudly bogan 05:28, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • NEVER--WELCOME TO UNCYCLOPEDIA HELL!!!! Offensive flag.png 06:04, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol declined.svg Against. I think the guidelines for unfeaturing old articles are dangerously vague and could lead to a host of arbitrary decisions. I'm unhappy as it is with the general condemnation of "2005-cruft" and "2006-cruft" on this site. --Scofield & The Machine 12:16, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • Against -- The Zombiebaron 14:28, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • Against Per everyone who already said it good with words and stuff. -RAHB 15:05, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • Against defeaturing features. Features' defining feature is right there in the name. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 16:12, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • Against. Talk Mattsnow 16:23, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • ... --Littleboyonly.jpg TKFUJewriken.GIFUJewriken.GIFUJewriken.GIFUJewriken.GIFUJewriken.GIFUJewriken.GIFUJewriken.GIFUJewriken.GIFUJewriken.GIFUJewriken.GIFUJewriken.GIFUJewriken.GIFUJewriken.GIFUJewriken.GIFUJewriken.GIFUJewriken.GIFUJewriken.GIFUJewriken.GIFUJewriken.GIFUJewriken.GIFUUJewriken.GIFUJewriken.GIFUJewriken.GIFUJewriken.GIFUJewriken.GIFUJewriken.GIFUJewriken.GIFUJewriken.GIFUJewriken.GIFUJewriken.GIFUJewriken.GIFUJewriken.GIFUJewriken.GIFUJewriken.GIFUJewriken.GIFUJewriken.GIFUJewriken.GIFUJewriken.GIFUJewriken.GIFUJewriken.GIFUJewriken.GIFCK Oldmanonly.jpg 18:26, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol declined.svg As head of GTC-ULLA, I believe that by demoting featured articles, we will be considered the laughing stock of the wikis. Why demote articles when you can revert them? Symbol for vote.svg But I vote for an autoban on vandals who vandalise featured articles. GiratinaOriginForme.png |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Man on Fire CUN|IC Kill Don't be fooled. I'm an Aussie too. | 09:32, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

IP vandals

I noticed that the main concern of y'all is that most of the unregistered users we've seen are vandals and that generally, featured articles shouldn't be opened to them. Actually, most of them create single-purpose accounts which they then use to vandalize Uncyc, occasionally waiting to get autoconfirmed status before doing the weird shit they do. When that account gets infibanned, the IP creates another single-purpose account, which also gets blocked. Eventually, the IP address gets blocked and is forbidden to create accounts for the duration of the block (which is rarely infinite, unless we're talking about open proxies).

What's actually going on is that we haven't trusted IPs enough. I see your point, that they should absolutely register. But what they should really do first is read the policy pages as well as some of Wikipedia's essays on good editing, most of which applies here as well.

Perhaps what we should do is: nominate for VFH, vote, feature, lock for 3 months, unlock, see what happens. Maybe it'll get better over time. Maybe not. Either way, fuck voting and just talk. --Clicky! Sir CuteLolcatOnTheRadio [CUNPBJ'12PLS(0)Stuy'16] 23:05, May 29, 2012 (UTC)

Score: 0
Symbol for vote.svg ;D Aimsplode (Der_Führerbunker--Wehrmacht Factories) Happy Holidays! 02:45, May 30, 2012 (UTC)
  • Against I don't see any problem with the current system. Please stop making proposals to fix things which are not broken. -- The Zombiebaron 04:29, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to fix things which are not broken

Score: +4

Article rot

Are there any users who are genuinely interested in taking on article rot (reverting articles back to their glory)? We had a semi planned system set up about a year ago to deal with it. If there is interest by a couple users, we can complete it. Sorry Qzekrom, unfeaturing articles is not the answer. Reverting them back to when it was featured or at its best version (from article rot) solves everything. --ShabiDOO 18:01, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

I just don't think it's a great idea to leave the article untouched, it should absolutely evolve over time as new users come in and more experienced Uncyclopedians retire or become admins. As with God (featured twice!), the new version will be funny in its own way that's different from the old version. What was funny in 2006 might be crap in 2012, and vice versa. And of course, a featured editorial by moi might be considered total bullshit to Uncyclopedians in 2020. They'll then have the urge to revamp it to suit them (I hope). In fact, I don't want the 2020 version of my feature to be identical to the current version. --Clicky! Sir CuteLolcatOnTheRadio [CUNPBJ'12PLS(0)Stuy'16] 22:26, May 30, 2012 (UTC)
P.S. And anons might just have the potential to help with the revamping. (Added to previous comment 22:31, May 30, 2012 (UTC))