Forum:VFH and Pee Review Idea, maybe
I wonder if it would be at all possible to link up Pee Review with VHF and thereby resolve the problems of both?
Pee Review, currently, is a lonely place, where the sad and the lost wander like ghosts, calling quietly up to anyone who might stumble by for help on a long forgotten pet project. In short, a place where nobody cares.
VFH on the other hand resembles a four lane roundabout in the center of a small Italian city, where all kinds of literary cars are piling in, honking and screeching at each other and getting stuck forever in the resulting chaos.
So, how about a kind of two-tier VFH? First of all, articles are submitted to a kind of pre-VFH area, where comments are not only allowed but also encouraged. After a week or so, those that make it are bumped up to the next level, which is strictly voting only - just like the current VFH.
So that's the half-baked basics. Obviously the main problem is the risk of eveything getting madly confusing so that people bite off their own toes in sheer despair. But this would be resolved by, first of all, having clear criteria for what makes it through to the final round and what doesn't. E.G. - after 1 week if something doesn't have four people claiming it's ready for the main vote, then it's dropped.
Also, to put off people from piling in with any old rubbish, there might be a rule that if something doesn't make it through the first round it can't be re-nominated for another 2 weeks.
The benefit of all this is that you get a Pee review which everyone looks at and a VFH which is streamlined.
There you go. I had an idea. Yeeaa. Back to sleep. --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy (Bleat) 07:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- It would seem to work well with the Image Review page leading to VFP, as was the case with my recent McJesus image. The problem, as ever, is getting people to actually use a new system. -- Sir Mhaille
(talk to me)
- Not if it was the only way to suggest anything for the front page - i.e. it was madatory to go through the review process before the final vote. --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy (Bleat) 07:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Against. Don't increase the bueaucracy.--Rataube 09:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Am I right in thinking Pee Review has no template? Why isn't there a nice template with a picture of a urine sample and caption saying 'head here for analysis' on every page that is under review? Then people might read the article and see that the author is after help, rather than chance by. Then review might be less of a ghost town, and people might be more likely to submit their article to it rather than direct to VFH. FreeMorpheme 12:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- That actually might not be a bad idea. Now to get someone to make the template... </lazy> --Bleachie
talc 20:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC) - Agree. --User:Nintendorulez 23:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Pee Review in fact has an official template:
 | This Piss is being Reviewed. |
- What is important is not a fanciful template, but someone who cares enough to do something about the actual portal. Hardwick_Fundlebuggy is right - Pee Review is a ghost town, and we need action - perhaps some necessary evil like merging the said portal with VFH. Pee Review, despite its midget existence, bears two important roles - to rescue those who are stuck in their La Brea tar pits (i.e. their own projects) and to further improve good articles so they can advance to the level of getting VFH'd. Usually those who put articles in PR are those who have no confidence in their own works - maybe they are overworried, maybe there are real problems in the articles but the authors just don't know what to do about them. After all, these are sincere individuals (if they didn't care, they would have left the articles around like trash and let them get NRV'd/VFD'd/QVFD'd), and they deserve attention. Unfortunately, the current trend is that we put all our focus on VFH and hopefully some "1337" will eventually come up with some top-line stuff. You want Unpocalypse? Here's the prophecy you are looking for - Once the local talents are gone, so will be Uncyclopedia. PR would be an excellent way to ensure a constant stream of VFH-quality articles, but in its current state, it is just a useless waste of space. We need people to pay attention to this portal, and merging it with an over-attended page would be just perfect.
- -- Colonel Swordman 15:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
NEGATIVE! I would put stuff in the Pee review if I could find it, we need more prominent linkage to Pee Review so we don't have the VFH clogged up with unfunny stuff.--Witt E, 21:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Against making it mandatory. I agree with Rataube. A PR template would be a good idea, though - I'm surprised it hasn't been done already. —rc (t) 23:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- There is one already. From Uncyclopedia:Pee Review "If an article is incomplete and thus in danger of deletion, you may wish to put {{PeeReview}} on the page to signal the admins that it is still being worked on..." --Carlb 23:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)