Forum:Thinking Time Folks - Let's Be Featurized for a Change

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Thinking Time Folks - Let's Be Featurized for a Change (talk)

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5461 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

THE FOLLOWING HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ADD.
Any and all comments about ADD may be removed for being completely off-topic, because certain people can't get it through their thick skulls that this is about featuring articles. Please. Get it through your thick skulls.

Recommended prior reading, maybe?: Forum:A very short rant on the state of affairs of VFH featuring a very concise solution, Forum:Is Uncyc heading to doom and awful destruction?, Forum:Temporary feature change, Forum:We have become distracted., Forum:Possibilities to solve the current VFH/VFP crisis &
Certain comments on this similarly named topic

Okay people, featuring articles every day may not be very practical, so it's good this is not obligated. However, waiting until somebody feels like featuring another article while VFH is overflowing with nominations isn't a good idea as this will cause a lot of unnecessary quasi-features, or else if we choose to neglect the health status (or change the settings for it) the number of nominations will just keep growing. Currently there are about 20 nominations, how long will it take before the good ones get featured? It took 50 days to get Jimmy the cowboy featured! -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 19:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I failed one and featured another (and I messed at least one of those up). Are you happy now? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 21:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Almost. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 21:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles are featured every other day. Check the feature queue. The fact that Jimmy the cowboy took long time to feature is due to low voting rate. ~ Mordillo where is my SHITLICKING MONKEY SCROTUM? 07:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

And admins are all flakes. On a completely unrelated note, does anybody remember how to feature a picture? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 07:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd call Algo or RAHB since ZB seems to be...well...dead ~ Mordillo where is my SHITLICKING MONKEY SCROTUM? 08:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Zombiebaron can't be dead, he can't! /me goes Charlton Heston at the end of Planet of the Apes... — Sir Sycamore (talk) 10:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you just need to add a link to the nomination on Template:FI/featured and Uncyclopedia:VFP/featured. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 10:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't think. Feel. It is like a finger pointing a way to the moon. Don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory. Mo Lee 20:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes ofcourse, I should have thought about that spontaneously realized it. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 00:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What if the health went down more quickly. It would get stagnate articles off VFH faster. --Mnbvcxz (Annoy) 01:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What if people featured articles more often. It would get good articles off VFH faster and would prevent a lot of unnecessary quasi-features. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 02:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, going back to an article a day might encourage more writing. I think we need more "good enough" articles, and not so much a few really great articles. Maybe we could have an "Article of the Week" selected from the 7 featured articles in a given week to keep the encouragement for really good articles. We could probably use that to replace the "yesterday's featured" section, I don't think any article needs 4 days on the mainpage. --Mnbvcxz (Annoy) 02:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I AGREE WITH MNBVCXZ

Might I also add that I agree with Mnbvcxz completely. Taking away the stimulus to write good articles because there aren't enough good articles is a totally backwards approach to quality control that can only result in this site further spiralling down into stagnation. IronLung 05:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. Featured articles don't need to be ape shit crazy hilarious or extremely funny in an intellectual way, as long as they are good enough. Though if we eventually run out of even the barely feature-worthy articles, it may be acceptable to leave an article on the front page for several days. But with the number of current nominations, that is certainly not the case right now. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 14:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Its sort of a trade off between encouraging a few really good articles and encouraging more sorta good articles. I can see the logic for going to two days per article: they were hoping that doing so would prevent a slide in article quality on VFH quality. And it very well may have. However, it also narrows the pool of authors trying to get nominated on VFH, which doesn't encourage "good enough" writing as much. One way to get around that would be my suggestion to have an "article of the week" or something of a similar nature.--Mnbvcxz (Annoy) 14:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Once something gets used to going downhill, it becomes more difficult to pull back up. — Sir Sycamore (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think changing the featured article every day would just "look better", even if we needed to "recycle" an old featured article every other day, or even 2 days out of 3. Leaving our "Today's featured article" up for two days makes the site look unmaintained, and in decline. When ever you see a site have a lapse in its updating, one normally assumes that the site is in decline, and probably in its death throws. We should not be "advertising" the fact that our quality is slipping on the main page. --Mnbvcxz (Annoy) 15:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. My quality has never been better. Look at me. I'm gorgeous! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 15:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Or we could put a quality banner on the front page. But seriously, having "Today's featured article" on for two days looks tacky and half-assed. Not as tacky and half-assed as my qaulity banner, but still pretty bad.--Mnbvcxz (Annoy) 15:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I AGREE WITH <insert name here>

We need more shorts and nylon fancy boots. Mile-high club FTW! - Admiral Enzo Aquarius-Dial the Gate 20:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, we'll give it a shot

VFH does look a bit better. We'll give it a try. However, everyone asking to move featuring on a daily basis will vote on at least 3 articles a day. Or I'll rip your balls off and feed them to my dog.

Note to self:get dog. ~ 21:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What if we already voted on everything and no new articles are nominated in a given day? --Mnbvcxz (Annoy) 22:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

THEN YOU NOMINATE NEW ARTICLES. Or better still WRITE THEM. ~ 22:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

But that's too much like work!!1! :( :( :(
Anyway, joking aside, I have a list of 30 articles to nominate here if VFH gets slow. Most were taken from the quasi-featured section, and almost all are older articles, besides the stuff I myself have written. To re-iterate, my main compliant with two-day-long daily featuring is that is looks tacky, not so much that we aren't featuring enough new articles. I think we in a rather fast period on VFH, and we can probably keep up an article a day for a while. Snuggie got 14 votes in 2 days, and we have 5 articles with over +10 votes, in addition to the two in the feature queue. If it slows down, then I'll start nominating old quasi-featured articles. If those run out, we could also re-feature an old featured article every other day.--Mnbvcxz (Annoy) 23:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Too much hassle from the technical perspective. Also, fix your sig. ~ 23:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

How do I fix my sig? --Mnbvcxz (Annoy) 23:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I think I figured it out. --Mnbvcxz 23:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If you already voted on everything and VFH already has quite enough (or way too many) nominations, then you can congratulate yourself as you have done your job for the time being. If you like, you can also write a few good new articles. Now stop bothering me about this and get to work. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 23:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

LET US CELEBRATE

For there is hope! Hope that Uncyclopedia will be saved! -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 09:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with nobody

The only person you agree with is about to die! -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 12:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Since when is "good enough", good enough? Don't we want to be, I don't know...good? Is there anything you've done in your life, aside from mowing the lawn, making the bed, and doing your homework, that your goal was to be "good enough" at? It's one thing if it's a chore or something you don't want to do, but if Uncyclopedia articles and maintenance have become a chore that we must only be "good enough" at to finish and get on with our lives, then what the hell is the point of even being here? I don't know about you all, but I take pride in the quality of our website here, or at least the intention for putting out quality. I don't want to start a revolution or anything here, but the last thing we want to do is encourage mediocrity. And for what? For the sake of having a different article on the main page everyday? Pfft. -RAHB 10:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't even agree with whateveritwas that I said? I don't remember what it was, but it must've been golden. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 11:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I figured it was pretty much common knowledge that everyone in the world agrees with everything you ever say. Didn't really fell the need to point it out...yeah...yeah, that's it... -RAHB 12:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Good. I would hate to think that I was just talking to myself. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 12:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You get enough of that done when nobody's around, we figured we'd keep this place exciting for you. -RAHB 12:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It's either hang around here, or sit at home pretending that I'm Kernel Popcorn, terrifying children's entertainer and chain-smoking alcoholic. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 13:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of us don't have to pretend. -RAHB 13:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Its not so much encouraging mediocrity. There is always going to be some trade off between encouraging a few really good articles and encouraging more fairly good articles. I think right now, too much weight is given to getting an article featured, and their isn't too much of a reward for getting an article to near quasi-feature quality, or, for that matter, beyond feature quality. (There is the top 10 of the year, and the top 3 of the month, but I don't know how those work, is it by net "for" votes? But I digess.) Anyway, I think we might need more ways to recognize good article writing beyond existent methods. For example, maybe a voted on article of a week that is also shown on mainspace, as I already mentioned, to counter-act the quality risks of going to an article per day. --Mnbvcxz 16:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The best of the month is selected by me. Send money. Also, I fully realize that I'm a terrible hypocrite for saying this, but getting featured isn't the important part. Writing (learning how to write, writing, and getting better at writing) is, and from that comes the also only important part; the simple pleasure of knowing that there is a small chance that you vaguely amused somebody from Poland who has only the vaguest grasp of the English language, and he only landed on your page because he accidentally stumbled onto it from a misspelled google search. That is what makes it all worthwhile. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 17:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I so totally agree with that. I've learnded a lot from being here, and not just about RAHB's penis. --UU - natter 18:29, Dec 31

Modus, as usual, gets it right on. Writing here is fun; if it wasn't I doubt I'd still be here. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 23:31, Dec 31

It's alright I guess. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 23:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It's better than that. "It" is to "best" as "Uncyclopedia" is to "worst". Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 16:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

We got a +20 vote!!!

"Ta da!"

Here: Uncyclopedia:VFH/The_defense_rests,_your_honor, in only 3 days. --Mnbvcxz 15:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to thank all of the little people that I crushed to get where I am. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 15:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

LET US CELEBRATE! -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 16:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Can I wear my Kernel Popcorn costume? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 16:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You need to wear a costume to look like him? -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 16:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but I'll let you dress up like Colonel Sanders if you agree to make me some fried chicken. Just don't eat it all this time. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 16:18, Jan 2

That's an interesting suggestion. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 22:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's popcorn chicken, I can try. My whole shtick revolves around popcorn-based humour and magic. At both, incidentally, I'm a dismal failure. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Bah, chin up man! Sigfried and Roy were dismal failures, but did they let that stop them? No! They went out and bought some fucking tigers. Go on Modus, get out there and buy some fucking tigers! - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 02:52, Jan 3

Y'know, you're right! I can do it! I will go out and buy some fucking tigers! Watch out world, 'cause here I come, and I'm bringing tigers! Rawr! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 03:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of tigers... -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 10:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

We are up to 21 now. All we need to do is to convince those occasion voters to vote on everything else in VFH, and our problems with a lack of voting will be solved. --Mnbvcxz 17:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

But it only has 420% health! I'm not quite sure it's ready. IronLung 19:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad News

It looks like VFH is capping off at about 10 at them moment for some reason. --Mnbvcxz 19:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Lots of folks are only voting on one article at a time. IronLung 23:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh? How many articles should they be voting on simultaneously? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 06:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes, words fail me. Or I fail words. Either way, it's bad. IronLung 17:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The Blunt Truth

Your alexa.com ratings have sunk down to the ranks of pathetic bottomfeeding websites for some reason. You have to look at yourselves. JUST LOOK AT YOURSELVES (to quote some lame SNL skit from 20 years ago). Why are people abandoning you after two pages? Is it lack of studying the current events in favor of inspecting supercilious immaturity? If you didn't understand the previous, the answer is YES, get the FucK out of here dumbass. Time to grow up people! The internet is not 90% 15 year-olds. It's made up of an intelligent interface intolerant of underage fuckups! There, I said it. signed --Okra Winfrey 06:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC) s

Poopy. -RAHB 06:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I rest my case. --Okra Winfrey 06:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Haha, RAHB said poopy. Did you hear it, OW? He totally said it. Btw, maturity was what got lolcats and Rick Astley popular, right? - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 15:25, Jan 4

To quote RAHB, "Poopy." -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 15:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I rest in peace. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 15:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

And here I thought our Alexa rankings sucked because of the hostile takeover.--<<>> 21:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Extremely Bad News

Almost nobody is voting for my nominations on VFH! I weep for the day I was put on this Earth, the day my destiny of failure took form. *weep* Life is hard and unfair. *weep* *weep* -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 07:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Poopy. -RAHB 07:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I rest my case.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 07:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Some more whining. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 09:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Why? Why? Oh Why? Must they vote against me??? -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 10:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

To quote RAHB, "Poopy." -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 15:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I rest in peace. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 15:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

To, how you say, paraphrase le Robbe, pouper. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 19:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

To copy some French revolutionary, toucher. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 20:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

My articles aren't even featured!

The reason why many people are voting on one article at a time as the best is because many people voted against an article being featured. Take my articles, for instance. Many people passed it down! Come on guys! Give my articles a chance! It's sitting on the shelf gathering dust now! |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Giratina CUN|IC Kill | 02:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered the possibility that we're all racist? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

HEY! THATS RACIST! ^{Pirate Lord}__Sonic80 (Yell  •  Latest literary excretion) __ 01:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

On a Related Note

I think we might want to lower the amount of time an article is kept at 100% health from 3 days to 2 days. I've been hesitant to nominate articles, as they would boot high score old articles, possibly resulting in lower average scores for the featured articles. --Mnbvcxz 04:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

But that would mean articles fall off of VFH faster, giving us less articles to vote on. I'm not sure how that's a solution... -RAHB 05:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It would get rid of weak articles sooner, instead of having them linger on VFH. --Mnbvcxz 05:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

But it would also get rid of strong articles that people might not have had a chance to look at yet. -RAHB 05:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think 48 hours is long enough to look at an article. If an article is down by a lot after two days, its probably not going to recover.--Mnbvcxz 05:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's one thing if it's down by a lot. I'm talking about articles that only get a couple votes in the first week of being on VFH, one way or the other. -RAHB 05:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

But, we probably shouldn't be giving people too much time to vote on articles either. Most of the articles are getting at least 4-5 votes in the first 24 hours, and most of the 2 day old articles are around 10 total votes. (One article is at 6 total, but its 3 for, 3 against, it probably has some "silent abstaining" votes). My main worry is that a flood of weak noms might force off some of the high score, older articles. --Mnbvcxz 06:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Mnbvcxz, I don't see how that could happen. The truth is, we haven't had over 20 noms at one time since the Wikia thing. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 17:41, Jan 5

I didn't mean 20 noms in a day, but 4 noms a day would result in 12 "protected" articles on VFH, leaving only 8 spaces for older articles. Looking at it right now, its not as bad as I thought it might be. I was worried that VFH would get overloaded and we'd be back to featuring articles with +10 or less net "for" votes. --Mnbvcxz 17:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I dunno. In my mind, we want as many articles on VFH that are justifiably there, as possible. When I look at VFH and see only 12 articles there, I start to get worried that we may not have enough good articles to continuously be featuring. -RAHB 01:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's not limit the amount of time people should or should not spend on VFH shall we? Some of the best featured articles we had waited for quite a while before getting noticed. Were we to drop them after a couple of days, they would have never got featured. At this point of time it's better to have a bit of a cluttered and active VFH then have 10-13 articles with minimal votes as we had in the last few months. VFH is looking good for the first time in months, so let's not brake what's working. ~ 08:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah! • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 16:26, Jan 6

In hind sight, I think my fear of article booting might have been a bit overblown. Looking at the archives of the last 300 failed VFH articles, the highest scoring failure was +10, and only 10 out of 300, 3.3%, had a score of +5 or more. Right now, we have 8 articles with of score of over +10 (higher than the highest VFH failure) --Mnbvcxz 17:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and back in "the day"(r), some asshole used to remove articles that were +15 or even higher! Man, we live in good times now, Komrade. Good times.--<<>> 00:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That was before metric, though. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 01:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And Now we have 13 articles under 3 days old, and 9 with a score of 0 or lower

Out of 25 nominations. If the admins applied the "lowest health rule" to get it down to 20 nominations, it would boot the highest scoring article right now. (And one tied for second place.) Somebody needs to get on there and vote down the bad new articles. --Mnbvcxz 15:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't give them any ideas! It's bad enough that Modusoperandi quasi'd James Bond (character) with a health of 31%. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 15:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Removing articles is part of the procedure, they try to keep the total at 20. What we really need is someone to vote down the bad new articles, and vote "for" on the good articles. --Mnbvcxz 15:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with having 25 nominations? -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 16:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about requesting that the queue size be extended too. However, it is a policy to keep the queue to 20. --Mnbvcxz 16:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Aren't policies supposed to be ignorable. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 16:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a "policy", it's just that if there are too many pages on VHF, too few of them get voted on. 20 seems maximum, unless there are an assload of people voting. An assload. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 21:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

So a lot of people need to be shitting on VFH. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 22:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That is why we need to kick off weak articles sooner, to keep the size down so we have higher net votes, so VFH looks active.--Mnbvcxz 06:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

• Mordillo removed my article from VFH. Why? Why? Oh Why? -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 17:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm guessing here, but I think it's because not enough people liked it. Tough luck man. I remember my first self-nomination... back in the day... • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 17:36, Jan 8
    • I guessed as much. Oh well. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 22:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoring Time Folks - Let's Be Featured for a Change

FOR!

Okay people, I want to know why UnNews:Massacre at Brookfield Zoo shouldn't be featured. Give me some good arguments, and tell me what should be changed. I'd really like it to be featured and I need your help to make it so. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 18:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if you wrote a biography of Ruffles the Tiger, incorporating the material of the early articles of the series. The series was funny, but I don't think any one UnNews article of the bunch was quite feature worthy on its own. Most unNews does tend to be too one-track and short for feature quality. --Mnbvcxz 18:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have been thinking about an article like that, but for now I wanna stick with trying to make this UnNews feature-worthy. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 19:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, it takes place in Brookfield, and everybody knows that Brookfield totally sucks. Secondly, it's got a zoo, and zoos make me sad. Thirdly, it's got a tiger, and tigers are scary. Fourthly, I haven't read it in a while. Fifthly, sometimes you have to let it go. Sixthly, an unrelated forum topic is hardly the place to be asking such things. We stay on topic here, Mister! Seventhly, anybody like muffins? I love muffins! Woo! Go muffins! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 21:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

A muffin! Yummy for your tummy.

Ah yes, muffins. Such a delight. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 22:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I moved this to its separate topic. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 00:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If so, then why am I still here? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 00:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Because I can't decide for you where you should be. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 14:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Getting back on topic, I hope

Partially neglected nominations

I have perceived that some users only vote on a select few of articles, leaving some nominations behind with a lack of votes. I would advocate taking a clear stance. Vote For, vote Against, or Abstain, but don't let an article fail just because not enough people voted for it. This can often leave the nominator completely oblivious as to why the article supposedly isn't feature-worthy. A related problem is that people who eventually end up voting on one of these partially neglected nominations and vote Against may do this with the single purpose to get it off VFH. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 12:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Your failure to vote in VFH makes the Voting Cheerleader sad. Note, this is the best cheerleader Uncyclopedia can afford.

I don't think "strategic against" votes are a major problem. There is probably some "strategic voting" on VFH, but I think most people are a bit generous with their for votes. (I am also a bit generous right now, but that's because I'm a VFH "cheerleader" at the moment.) If people are avoiding the article, they are probably casing silent abstain votes. Mainly, the want to avoid the "Vote-For"-Inquisition, and won't want to explain their against/abstain votes. --Mnbvcxz 20:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I agree mostly, and in the hopes of NOT leaving a potential nominator completely oblivious as to why the article supposedly isn't feature-worthy, I started this page: Forum:Whoring Time Folks - Let's Be Featured for a Change. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 20:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

About re-featuring

Personally, re-featuring articles doesn't really appeal to me.
Would an article that may have answered to the expectations of a featurable article back then correspond with current expectations? -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 16:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The old quasi-features that I renominate tend to do very well on VFH now. --Mnbvcxz 16:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The only time we'll do refeaturing is part of the top 10 of the year celebrations. We don't need refeaturing, we have enough in our stocks as it is. Personally, I think this discussion has run its course a while ago. ~ 16:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Mordillo has spoken, so all the rest of you shut up. Thank you. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 16:41, Jan 15

O_O I feel...special... ~ 16:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel so... edit conflicted... Anyway, easy solution: re-feature all of my articles. I think we can all agree that would be the best solution. Honestly, I'm surprised no-one's suggested it before now. --UU - natter 16:43, Jan 15

/me pointing at UU - You've gone all Moosess!!! ~ 16:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this legal? Oh, what am I saying? This is Uncyclopedia. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 17:20, Jan 15

I'm not sure if we can keep up with an article a day permanently. Kitten huffing was featured twice, on March 23, 2005, and Aug 2, 2005. --Mnbvcxz 17:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

So you're willing to mention a featuring scheme that happened in 2005 due to lack of articles, but not willing to accept the twice-a-day featuring scheme that made most of 2006, and helps effectively solve all issues involved. You see, there's always a way. -RAHB 19:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean two times a day or for two days? --Mnbvcxz 19:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Well, yes, twice-a-day would be silly. Once every two days was the intentioned phrase. -RAHB 19:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Featuring my articles twice a day would also be acceptable. SaveTheUUs 20:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You totally stole my act! Savethemooserandi 20:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Late features

I observe that the feature doesn't always make it to the front page on time, like today for example. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 11:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think they might have gone back to two day features until VFH pics up more. There is an article in the queue for tomorrow, but not one for today. --Mnbvcxz 18:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It so happened that sometimes we miss a day. We are human beings not hamsters on nuclear power, featuring is still on a daily basis and that VFH stalking is really starting to annoy me. ~ 18:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say I'm sorry, but you advised me not to. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 18:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I did. I'm sorry. Where's Manticore when I need him to ban me? ~ 18:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

He was last seen editing his talk page. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 18:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

VFH crisis

Like, nobody is voting! What the fuck!? -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 14:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean besides the people that are voting? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 14:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I mean that there is a shortage of people who are willing to vote. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 14:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The net "for" votes are going down. The three highest scoring articles are +12, +10, +9.5. --Mnbvcxz 16:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I was overreacting when I said "nobody is voting", but it's still a serious problem that not enough people are voting. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 15:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's not dramatize here, it's not a crisis it's a...not voting issues. Also, Socky, remember what I said when we went back into a one day feature? ~ 16:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

But you don't have a dog... -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 16:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh but I do, and he's big and nasty and his name is Butch. And he will tear you apart if you don't get your friends, family, next door neighbor and that little pink sock next door you've been ogling to VOTE! ~ 10:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I voted on everything. There is nothing you can hold against me. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 10:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Keener. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 11:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)