Forum:How often to feature articles

Forums: Index > Village Dump > How often to feature articles

Note: This topic has been unedited for 3753 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

When I was here, as opposed to being just a hallucination ghost like Obi-wan Kenobi, I was featuring articles every other day, partly due to Shabidoo's insistence that things were moving too slowly. However, after realising that Shabidoo was something of a backseat driver who would rather have Yoda lift the ship out of the squishy stuff than try to figure out the Force himself, I got hit with the red lightsaber of annoyance, and vaporised into nothingness... ok, enough mangled Star Wars analogies. Since I quit featuring articles nobody has stepped up to the plate to continue featuring them every other day. I had to whine on IRC to get anything on the front page. (Yes, I had to whine, because I'm too full of annoying emotions to get off my butt and do anything about anything.) So I'd like to ask you if you would really like to keep featuring articles every other day and if you will try to be here to do it if I don't swoop in and save you like Jesusman.

I'd also like to raise the idea of possibly beginning to think about considering the possibility that maybe if the admin we dragged in to remedy a supposed shortage is no longer doing anything but whining really loudly about anything and everything, we might be in need of another one. Or two. Or three. Or seventeen. I have some ideas on who that might be, but that can wait. The important thing right now is how often to feature articles, which we might as well vote on. Frosty will also be mad that there is yet another circle jerking word and drama forum, but I was going to think of a nice ending to that sentence and there isn't any. I want something to drink. Ice cream popped into my head. Go away you stupid ice cream. Go bother Lyrithya awhile. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 00:07, 10 Jun 2014

There's another issue here which wasn't mentioned, which is that the template (or whatever) which puts the article on the front page has a really short fuse, and after a few days it detonates and takes the article away again, leaving a vacuum. That's a bug, which should be fixed -- if the admins decide to leave the same article featured for two weeks ('cause it's really great, or 'cause they're all vacationing in Cuba, or 'cause they've all got the 'flu, or 'cause they've all quit, or 'cause they're all taking a really really long lunch break, or 'cause they've all been desysoped, or...) then the article bloody well ought to stay featured for the full two weeks and not just deflate and disappear like a punctured whoopee cushion. A stupid template should not be overriding the admins on such an issue. (IMHO.) Snarglefoop (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Either Illogicopedia or Wikipedia could serve as a model. Illogicopedia has a template that contains the featured article text, and Wikipedia has a series of project pages containing the text that are stuck into some kind of queue that may or may not involve something with DPL. Illogicopedia's system looks easier and more appropriate for our potential needs. The easiest option by far however would be to replace the whole thing with a whoopee cushion. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 00:39, 10 Jun 2014

Vote on whether to continue featuring articles every other day

Score: ≈ 1

for because like yeah. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 00:07, 10 Jun 2014
Against I think the turnover's too fast. I find it very hard to believe that there are hordes of people out there checking the Uncyclopedia home page every day or two to see what's featured today. And if the same people aren't coming back that frequently, then what's the point of changing that frequently? Snarglefoop (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
For. It's depressing to see the same article up for a week. And if there isn't an article to feature we can easily re-feature cream-of-the-crap articles. --ShabiDOO 22:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Not if it's a really good article -- 'cause then I get to read it 7 times, which I wouldn't have done otherwise, and laugh at it seven times, which is 3.5 times better than just seeing it twice! What's depressing OTOH is seeing nothing at all featured because some stupid tool or other has careened off the end of the tracks and pulled a nonexistent article from beyond the end of a list which isn't even ever used as a list anymore. It's like a stack loader on a cassette player where the owner only owns one cassette -- what's the point? Snarglefoop (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Depressing is in the eye of the beholder, I think. To you it's not depressing if the article's good, but to Shabidoo that's outweighed by the impression one gets that things are moving slowly. Another suggestion I didn't think to make is to schedule articles for various slots way ahead of time, which would keep to the current slow pace but also resolve the issue I and (I think) Shabidoo see of a backlogged VFH with many articles that are ready but are just collecting dust. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 22:43, 25 Jun 2014
Keep - Yeah, sure, whatever, who gives a shit? -- Thankful Kippy Share blessings Bountiful harvest 22:59, Jun. 25, 2014
(has there been a nomination in the last 7 days)?(once a day):(once every two days) ｡◕‿◕｡ 00:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Let's not stop there! Fine tune!! (Have there been five noms in the last 6 days)?(twice a day):(have there been 3.5 noms in the last 7 days)?(once a day):(Have there been any noms in the last 7 days)?(3 per week):(have there been multiple noms in the last 14 days)?(2 per week):(Have there been any noms in the last 4 weeks)?(1 per 2 weeks):(Let it rot til folks start writing again) Snarglefoop (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You're saying that if there's been a nomination in the last 7 days articles should be featured every day, otherwise, every two days? I'm fine with featuring articles every day and I wouldn't count that as an against vote in that case, though I may have totally missed what you're saying. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 01:10, 28 Jul 2014
Aw, crap, I knew I shouldn't have started using ternary operators... btw, here's a new sexy signature for you guys: قزكرمؔؑ ^talk_stalk [CUN • PBJ'12 • PLS(0) • Stuy'16] 01:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Like though. قزكرمؔؑ ^talk_stalk [CUN • PBJ'12 • PLS(0) • Stuy'16] 01:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Cool sig. I'm not sure what a ternary operator is. Shows what I know. Wikipedia probably has more info on them than anyone would ever want to know. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 04:22, 28 Jul 2014
"+" is a binary op -- takes two operands, written: "A + B". OTOH "?:" is a ternary op -- takes three operands, written "A ? B : C". It's a C-ism. When people start talking ternary ops you know you've fallen into a pit of C programmers. Snarglefoop (talk) 12:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm a Java programmer, but same difference. قزكرمؔؑ ^talk_stalk [CUN • PBJ'12 • PLS(0) • Stuy'16] 16:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

General circle jerking/discussion/arguments

So long as we are featuring the articles as quickly as VFH is producing them that's the main thing. IMO we currently are (probably) doing that. IMO we need to get rid of the current crop of >60 days nominations from VFH. Anything that old is just embarrassing to have hanging around. It makes us look stale, which we are not. J F C 00:22. Jun 10

Sometimes it takes a while to accumulate votes (because we are stale -- or, anyway, kind of slow and distracted sometimes, if not exactly stale). So I'm not so sure it's a good idea to flush anything that's over 30 days, or 60 days, or 90 days, or whatever age old. Snarglefoop (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I think to feature them as soon as VFH is producing them we would have to do it every day. There are almost always more than one ready at a time in my experience. I would get impatient sometimes. I agree we need to get rid of the 60+ stuff - was meaning to do that, but then I kind of quit. I hope there's no rule that non admins aren't allowed to fail nominations, because it would be really zazzly-cool if some of you could help out and I see Jesus is already. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 00:37, 10 Jun 2014

We have the "Health" indicator for a reason. In the past we used to cut it off at about 20%. I see an article with 7% health and a score of only 5 after 68 days, yet new nominations are getting votes far more quickly and exceeding that score in less than a week. I think we used to cut them off at about 20% because sometimes people don't want to vote against, and so just leave it. Maybe we can't go back to 20%, but I feel we can do better than allowing nominations to live with health as low as 7%. Yea, I feel happy removing obvious failed nominations, but I think removing the more controversial ones should be left to the admins. Wait! VFH is producing a new FA every day? I wish. ? J F C 00:48. Jun 10

I failed Britainy Spears. I hope you're happy.

I was directed to User:TKF/VFH Removal Guidelines once and I think if we follow the advice there we shouldn't be failing 20% things the way stuff is these days. If the number of nominations is 15 or less, never remove anything over 10% health, it says. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 01:36, 10 Jun 2014

I would forgive Britainy... That TKF thing is 6 January 2013‎ and so kinda not with the times now. The reason there is no rule here is probably because we don't need one. Generally we features the articles as fast as VFH spits em out. We may need more sysops to actually do that (I have no opinion on that) but that's a different matter. Usually when people are bitching about the admins not featuring VFH articles fast enough it's actually because the users are not writing em fast enough. I suggest that's probably the main problem here also. J F C 02:49. Jun 10

Maybe.

How many articles are ready to be featured varies. There's only one right now, which surprises me. I think those are both contributing factors - both writers and admins are a mite slow. How about I nominate a thing or two of mine. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 03:01, 10 Jun 2014

Hell yea, everyone go for it! A faster turn around is always better IMO. Personally I think that VFH itself would also benefit if more voters were willing to vote against. That way we could help to speed up throughput of VFH. That's one of the reasons I always liked Romartus. Even though I often did not understand his reasons I respected his willing to vote against the herd. Others read the article, thought it was not that great, but did not vote because they are pussies, and Romartus is not. No disrespect intended to cats that find it easy to sit on fences you understand. My girlfriend has one. J F C 03:29. Jun 10

Miaow...Filial Piety. Where is the Frog??? --

RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 14:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Your girlfriend sits on fences? --

RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 14:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Llyw it's pretty nasty of you to bitch about me on a forum for asking you to do two extremely simple tasks. What's wrong with you? --ShabiDOO 22:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Shabs, you are missing some information. The forum was not started to bitch about you, that was secondary. It was started in large part due to an off-site, private discussion in which I argued (to Llyw) that every two days was too stornry often for changing the featured article, and bitched about the stupid template which whacks the featured article after about 10 minutes. IOW the main question here was, "How often should the feature be changed?", and not "Why is that Shabidoo such an annoying so-and-so?", and to some extent it was my fault that the forum happened..... (and now Llyw can post something denying all this, oh whatever...) Snarglefoop (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Oops, just read my response back, and it sounds kind of annoyed and jabbish, and it wasn't supposed to be. And it left out the best part, which was to say I'm sorry, this was largely my fault, forgive me for starting the boulder rolling down the hill! or something like that.... And I still think every 2 days is too often...Snarglefoop (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Here's a response... I'm quite sure it's entirely wrong somehow or other. I seem to say everything wrong sometimes.) Two extremely simple tasks, well, naw, I wouldn't say so... there was more to it. You were asking me to feature articles during retro week and in that admin forum you were really intent on having me keep vfh running quickly, and you just generally strike me as the sort of person who often wants admins to do stuff. Not that there's anything wrong with that, I was like that once and I still sort of am - but you were offered adminship once and refused it, even though it would probably be very useful to you... you see? I think we're two sides of the same coin - we both dislike doing work and have lots of ideas for how it should be done, but one of us happened to accept adminship and the other didn't. You may have been wise to refuse adminship; I admire those who refuse it because I think they know more than I did when I accepted it... that sentence isn't coming out saying anything useful. As to what's wrong with me... I'm depressed, and I tend to do childish things because... well, I am a child, sort of. I know I have growing up to do - though I don't really know what all has been done wrong here because I'm stuffy and disrespectful of ordinary users or something, I don't know. But I do seem to have hurt your feelings and for that I'm sorry. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 23:07, 19 Jun 2014

Only feature articles by or about ChiefjusticeDS

I propose we draw them from the pool of 10 articles that I have written and on public holidays we feature my userpage or, even better, my userpage becomes the main page. I would be cool with my articles being featured every day, but you can feature them whenever. It's cool. --ChiefjusticeGameCube 12:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Too much pink, not enough heterosexuality. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!)

22:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Only feature articles by or about this genius

I propose we draw them from the pool of millions of articles that 4.252.99.182 has written and on public holidays we feature his userpage or, even better, his userpage becomes the main page. I would be cool with his articles being featured every day, but you can feature them whenever. He's one cool-ass motherfucker. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Mon, Jul 28 '14 14:51 (UTC)

Forum:How often to feature articles

Contents

Vote on whether to continue featuring articles every other day

General circle jerking/discussion/arguments

Only feature articles by or about ChiefjusticeDS

Only feature articles by or about this genius

Navigation menu

Forum:How often to feature articles

Vote on whether to continue featuring articles every other day

General circle jerking/discussion/arguments

Only feature articles by or about ChiefjusticeDS

Only feature articles by or about this genius

Navigation menu

Search