Forum:VFH Reform

Forums: Index > Village Dump > VFH Reform

Note: This topic has been unedited for 3283 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Voting on VFH has been low recently, as mentioned in Forum:VFH low. As a result, there is usually a new feature every two or three days instead of every day. VFH has been like this for a few years now mainly because we don't have such a high number of editors as we once did. I think that it would be cool to have a new featured article every day to keep the mainpage fresh but we can't do this with the system we currently have.

Therefore, I propose that we create a queue of already featured articles to show on the mainpage when there aren't any articles on VFH with enough votes for featuring. Perhaps, every registered user with let's say 100 or more edits (meaning that they have contributed to the site a lot) can pick five already featured articles to put on this queue and when it starts to run out, we can add more. If enough people like the idea, I'll make a page for it and we can all come up with some concrete rules for how this will work. -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 03:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Let's talk! -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 03:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I propose we feature User:Meganew/Seizure Page. Revolutionary, Anti-Bensonist, and TYATU Boss Uncyclopedian Meganew (Chat) (Care for a peek at my work?) (SUCK IT, FROGGY!) 03:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

And my eyes are bleeding. -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 03:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the idea of 3 new FAs and 1 old one balances it out. Every article gets 2 days on the front page. So we go - New - New - New - Old - New - New - New - Old - etc. I said before we should use UN:HS and work down the list, so we allow Aleister, then Sog, TKF, Hyperbole, Modus, Mhaille, Funnybony, Black flamingo11 etc. to choose their favorite featured article. That should cover us for a full year at least, it boosts community involvement and it shares the glory evenly. --Nikau (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem with using HS is that a lot of our once prolific authors are no longer active. -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 04:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Aleister, Sog, TKF and Hype have been around recently. Modus is always popping by. We can message the others now and wait the weeks or months for a reply and just choose something of theirs at random if all else fails. Any more underdone retro votes will just see the same old crap (Boner) on the front page for the billionth time. --Nikau (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I also think that a lot of great stuff wasn't necessarily written by our top feature producers and it would be a shame to exclude that. Martin Van Buren for example, written by a bunch of users over a year or so, is one of my favorite articles on the site. -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 04:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

We can add those articles at the end of the cycle. The problem this site has always had is when people hit the point where they are WotM and at 5-20 features they kind of get forgotten because we're too busy jerking over the same few articles that come up and there are machines like Hyperbole who write 50 incredible articles faster than I can shit on one shitty one. MacMania, RabbiTechno, GlobalTourniquet, THE, Mrthejazz, Athyria are more likely to come back and be good writers again than a bunch of IPs. If we want good editors, focus on the good editors. There are people on the list I'm sure we've all never read anything by. --Nikau (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Good point. We do want to encourage prolific authors to return. -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 05:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a nice idea. I can't add anything, because Nikau added enough. Anton (talk) 06:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I've asked Sog and Al so far, Sog said Charles DeGaulle among others. --Nikau (talk) 06:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

So are we doing this?

I would say we need a majority of the site to agree to do this. If passed, for now the rules will be as follows (I mean we can always amend them later if we want. Or not. Whatever.):

1. A new page (Uncyclopedia:Re-feature queue) will be created with a list of featured articles to re-feature.
2. The list will begin with one article from each author in the Hall of Shame, starting with the author with the most features down to the author with the least.
3. The author, if available, will pick his/her favorite article to feature. If not, a feature will randomly be picked.
4. Active users (with 100 or more edits during their time on Uncyclopedia) will also be asked to pick three articles of their choice (that they didn't write themselves) to add to the list.
5. After every three new features, an old featured article from the queue will be re-featured.

Now vote!

Score: 7

1.  For. -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 18:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
2.  For. Anton (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
3.  For. Ãs long as the articles on VFH get featured after a note of say, 8. For comparison, the french Uncy features them at 4. Mattsnow 22:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
4.  For. I'd like a minimum of 9 on VFH because that's about as low as I've seen it and we don't want to set the bar too low. If nothing reaches that I guess we can bring forward the old article. As for the "randomly chosen" article, we can try Xam's idea to get people to suggest 3 of their favorites. Bonus is that gets people reading again. --Nikau (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
5.  For. Cat the Colourful (Feed me!) Zzz 19:06, 16 November, 2014 (UTC)
6.  For. EveryOtherUsernameWasTaken(get dtf) 19:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
7. For I think this is a very elegant solution to our lack of new features. I would like to say that I am heavily opposed to the final point of this proposal though. Banning "joke noms and injokes" on a comedy website is a very slippery slope and one that I'd really rather not go down. Anything that was previously featured should be fair game for refeaturing, and I personally look forward to refeaturing Euroipods as often as possible. -- The Zombiebaron 20:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
8. For As long as we can bar Filial Piety. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 00:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

   Blasphemer! --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 11:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

9.  Against. The in-jokes part changes everything. I personally would hate to see Template:Boner on the main page once again. Anton (talk) 06:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
10. I've created two forums in the past most people said it was stupid or unnecessary. I am very glad to see interest in it. I can help you compile a list of articles to refeature. --ShabiDOO 13:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Voting Closed

Everyone seems to like this so I made the page. Check out Uncyclopedia:Re-feature queue. -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 00:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

A guideline was deleted after my vote. Although the community might not want it, I do, so I changed my vote. Anton (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments - whom to ask and what to ask

First of all, writers are not necessarily the best judges of their articles. I think it might work better if we ask writers about the best (featured) articles others have written.

Second, I am not sure if we should limit the interviewees list to Hall of Shame authors. We've had many good writers who only got one feature. We've also had some who never bothered about features. So, all in all, how about simply asking active users about their favorite featured articles? Anton (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I personally did not think we should choose articles this way, but Nikau suggested it and made a pretty good case for it too. When you commented before, I thought you were agreeing with Nikau's HOS idea, so I took it as 2 people agreeing with the HOS idea vs 1 (me) disagreeing. -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 21:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

If you have any other ideas about how to choose the articles, I would love to hear your suggestions. -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 21:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with asking HOS users - that's just that I don't want to limit our choice to them - and I am fine with your original idea. I forgot about it, when I was writing that comment, actually. It's a nice idea for a project, all in all. Anton (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I altered the rules. Do you think it sounds better this way? -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 21:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes! Yes! Yes! Anton (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

There are good articles who struggle to get 6 or 7 votes as you can see on VFH. Lowering the bar to 8 may help. Mattsnow 20:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that would work until VFH becomes more active again. -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 21:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Alrighty then

I've created Uncyclopedia:Re-feature queue. I guess we should start building up the list now. -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 21:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

A new dilemma

After copying the entire HOS list to Uncyclopedia:Re-feature queue/Nominate, I realized that the list of HOS authors is ridiculously long and a lot of those on it have not edited this version of the site ever. Maybe we should create a cut-off at a certain number of articles if the user isn't active (Active users with 3 features, 4 features, etc. can still be included). I mean just look at this list. -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 01:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm assuming some still pop around. If we message the guy with 5 features today he might reply in 6 months. Excluding *anyone* is going to lead down the slippery slope of only refeaturing injokes and not giving a complete cross section of the site; injokes are fine in moderation, and following the list ensures moderation. Every single person on that list contributed and (maybe excluding a certain member) left a positive impression. --Nikau (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I left a message on the page of everyone who's edited this version of the wiki. If they reply (even if it's in like 6 months), I'll add them to the list. -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 05:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, at least 5 features so we cover the WotM is fair. --Nikau (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

In-jokes

One of the main guidelines here was that in-jokes weren't allowed. If now they are, then there'll be no difference between this and Retro Week. I agree that there are several worthy articles amongst our in-jokes, but this might be 1 out of 10, and even that only one wouldn't be of an exceptional quality. Opening this project to in-jokes means we are opening our main page to things such as this, this or this. Are you going to set up some quality control that will determine which of the in-jokes can be featured and which cannot? It will be a lot easier and better just to limit our list to articles that aren't in-jokes, which we have plenty of. Anton (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but as Zombiebaron pointed out, saying that no in-jokes are allowed creates a slippery slope of whether or not articles considered in-jokes actually are funny on their own. Articles like Euroipods can be funny whether or not you are a member of the Uncyclopedia community even if they are occasionally stupid. Stuff like Matt Smith giving Mr-ex777 buttsex doesn't make any sense unless you know who Mr-ex777 is. I guess there can be some sort of quality control if problems arise. -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 18:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is cool, if that's going to be the case. I see you already organized the re-feature queue, so you don't need me to change my vote. Anton (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. Feel free to pick one of your own features to re-feature as well as three features written by another person at Uncyclopedia:Re-feature queue/Nominate. :) -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 19:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I added what I wanted. Concerning my articles, I haven't written anything that deserves re-featuring (yet). Anton (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure? You totally can pick one. If not, I can remove you from the list if you want. -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 20:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am. Thanks for taking me off! Anton (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

But I did choose my three favourite pages, so I did participate, technically speaking. Anton (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Confusing system for regular users

This bewilders me greatly. I'd probably be confused by any explanations too, so if anyone wants to help nominate A bunch of aristocrats fucking. Awesome vid, Al Capone and Birmingham Niggers under my name.

In fact you'll probably want to hear my problem. I type "Everyotherusernameistaken" (and later "User:Everyotherusernameistaken") into the bar and it just gives me the ol' error page. --EveryOtherUsernameWasTaken(get dtf) 21:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I put you into the box and added the articles. It worked fine for me. Could you take a screen shot or something of the error message. -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 23:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry it's working fine for me now, it just screwed up last night I guess. And cheers for nominating for me. --~~