Forum:How about Good Articles?

Forums: Index > Village Dump > How about Good Articles?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6040 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

We're supposedly a Wikipedia parody right? Wkikpedia has good articles. We should have a good article grade for stuff that's not quite featurable but is better than this. Perhaps we could even have some sort of weak pun.-- sensual Ape (pwnify) (Riot Porn) 20:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we need to mock 'em article for article. Not this random title shite.

We could call it "Rude Articles" or "Poo'd Articles" or "Pud Articles" depending on how you pronounce "good". -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 21:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

And how do you propose we find all the good articles? And stop people arguing endlessly about which are good and which aren't... :-) -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 21:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

/me imitates Robotnik. No! (that was to your statement about how we should not argue about what articles are good) --General Insineratehymn 23:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

For good articles. Mainspace = everything, ie, 60% trash (at a charitable minumum). Goodspace = articles which have passed a litmus test (good score on two or more pee reviews by established 'Uncyclopaths). Kidspace = subpar articles on television cartoons, video games, and teen memes. It's just a quality-based categorisation system. *shrugs* It will not happen, of course. *goes on with life*. ----OEJ 23:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I got featured articles when I clicked on that link. And won't this flood Pee Review more than ever? There were articles from August 27th, when I last looked on Friday. It's a good idea, just it's a lot of work for not much of a notciable goal. Fresh Stain Serq Fet of Pokemon (At your service) 23:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC

REJECTION! Adds bureaucracy, and with Flammable our only active bureaucrat, things don't look good. --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 00:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Run along, kiddies. Nothin' to see here.

Shorter, less meaningful comment. --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 18:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No! I'm sick of Uncyclopedia "getting better" lately. Can't we just have simple pages like Mr. Peanut and quit trying to make every aritcle on this site featurable? -- Kip the Egg Talk Works 18:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

My idea was to have a whole new voting section for good articles where we're not as strict/snobby as on VFH for articles that aren't quite as good. Perhaps we could make it so that in order to be nommed on VFH you must first get Good. Or you can just rubbish my suggestions, dash my hopes and leave me a gibbering wreck on the floor of this public toilet scrabbling around for the remnants of some guy's cocaine binge. -- sensual Ape (pwnify) (Riot Porn) 20:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

HIGHLY AGAINST. Requires way too much thought. Nothing's wrong with featured/no-featured status. Additionally, agreeing with Kip. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 20:16 Oct 03, 2007

Against. Things are complicatified enough. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What if we started it as a user-run program, like how Ceridwyn's proofreading service started out? Create the voting page under thine namespace, noble Ape, and yea, include a set of basic rules which will be heavily criticized and then rewritten. The age of 'For/Against' policy changes is behind us (I miss those days, though, when every single forum topic had a vote attached to it), now we can start stuff while nobody's looking! --The Acceptable  Cainad  (Fnord) 08:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

How about good articles?

Please vote below. Results will be shown when you have voted.
You are not entitled to view results of this poll before you have voted.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

There were 0 votes since the poll was created on 00:11, 13 January 2013.

poll-id 9C5CD118E0EBF2A7CF0B16F7D7F17D31

Not that kind of vote, the one where people used to make a separate header and call it "Obligatory Vote" or something like that. --The Acceptable  Cainad  (Fnord) 09:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Oligarchy Vote

TINC. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Inebriated Vote

Blim? Smuh. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 09:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Against Now that I think of it, those old days sucked. Never mind. --The Acceptable  Cainad  (Fnord) 09:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

V-Oat

A relatively unsuccessful game created by Namco in 1988, where the player controls an "oat" called Oatee on its journey to escape from certain death in a horse's feed bowl. All 10 levels are spent lying stationary in the feed, the highlight coming in level 3 when the wind blows Oatee 3 inches. Only 4 of the 20,000,000 copies were sold, 3 were as firewood for a poor Hungarian family. If you really want a copy, visit the State Surgical Waste Dump of Nevada and dig up 17 feet of toxic waste. Bingo. Now have "fun"? with your copy of V-Oat (it makes a great door-stop).

In other words NO. – Preceding unsigned comment added by Moneke (talk • contribs)