Forum:VFH master debation

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > VFH master debation
Note: This topic has been unedited for 2469 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Okay, there has been a situation that needs attention to on VFH. There are noms not being attended to in terms of removing and featuring. I had to go around asking an admin to feature something. Eventually, I got RAHB to do it daily. However, he is willing to let me do the featuring when the time comes that I actually feature stuff. And plus, I LOVE doing this stuff, so I would really like to do the job.

This does not require oppage of me, but a minor tickle with the settings of certain protected pages in which the results say; Sir Peasewhizz can make edits. Thus, being able to feature stuff.

The question is, would it be okay with you guys if I did the VFH stuff? I promise, I won't be unfair, or you can have me removed from the position. Actually, I have no say. If I do become arrogant and selfish, I will be removed from the position.

Whatever, just vote whether or not you're okay with it below. – Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Peasewhizz (talk • contribs)


Score: 0

Frosty has an alternative suggestion that doesn't need the settings played with

I think instead of getting the same 1 or 2 admins to do the featuring, we set up some sort of monthly roster out of admins that would willingly do the featuring that way it doesn't come down to 1 or 2 people to do it all/instances of people forgetting would be minimized. I think this idea would be easier since several of the templates involved are cascade protected and would be extremely tedious to set it up so that a non-admin can edit it. Vote for this instead! ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Proudly bogan 22:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Vote for the other idea

Score: 10
  • Symbol for vote.svg For. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Proudly bogan 22:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol for vote.svg SCREW YOUR GODDAMN ADVERTISING POWERS — Capitalis quadrata Y.SVG (talk) (contributions) Feb 1 2013 23:07.
  • PurpleDickVote.svg Boner. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 03:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol for vote.svg For. --EMC [TALK] 03:34 Feb 2 2013
  • Symbol for vote.svg Your gay idea is actually pretty cool. Fuck my dreams, though. Sir Peasewhizz de New York 04:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol helicopter.svg Roflcopter. Sir SockySexy girls.jpg Mermaid with dolphin.jpg Tired Marilyn Monroe.jpg (talk) (stalk)Magnemite.gif Icons-flag-be.png GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotYPotM WotM 06:12, 2 February 2013
  • PurpleDickVote.svg Boner. I don't know what a roster means in this instance. I have been doing the featuring/removing lately and don't mind continuing to do so. But it is good to make sure people have their eye on it, in case somebody forgets or is just busy at the time. Before the tremendous voting decline, we were able to feature multiple articles ahead of time to combat this in spots. Now one at a time seems the best. I also think that we should use a hybrid of the daily and every-other-day models, based on a certain round number. I've been using 7 as the number, meaning that if the "average votes per nomination" is above 7 at feature time, I feature an article, and if it's below 7, I wait until the next day. I would also like someone to explain to me why leaving articles with high scores on VFH for long periods of time is a bad idea. I do like to remove them if the health is low or there's no support, but I don't know why users keep telling me "Such and such has been on VFH for 20 days! We have to bring it down!" I'm always like "Why, dude? It's got a +8 score, and only one against vote, and the health isn't even all that low." And then they're like "tl;dr dude, this is a voting section, not a comment section." And then I'm like "Oh." -RAHB 07:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • That was beautiful RAHB.--Sir Peasewhizz de New York 17:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol for vote.svg For. You are either with Frosty, or you're with the terrorists. Talk Mattsnow 18:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol for vote.svg If you don't support the idea, you don't support the VFH Perfectionist Dude-man (2013-02-2 18:39 UTC)
  • Symbol for vote.svg For.An easier fix. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 05:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol for vote.svg For. Just ask me, I'm happy to do featuring. However, please remember that I do have a life. Once things settle in some, I could just toss a reminder in my phone to do VFH every week (probably on Sunday). The big looming problem is that VFH is drying up, both in nominations and voting. We also need more articles written to get a decent number of high quality articles (as a fraction of the total written, ~5-10% being feature-worthy is healthy), and to maintain a reasonable backlog of articles ready for feature. I don't mind if it goes to 30 or 40 noms on VFH, as long as they're all healthy. When the health goes in the hole, all admins should be bold and call them. Under 25% is pretty much dead (right now, that's 5, 12, 13, and 14). More aggressive pruning can be done in the weekly maintenance. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 2013.02.08.06:42
  • comment The admins can do a simple task once a day themselves. --ShabiDOO 03:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Follow Wikipedia's FA procedures?

We need to refresh our VFH procedures. Currently we have a for or against vote, and a comment vote. What I suggest is a myriad point plan:

  1. A point-based calculation made by the submitter of a request of article to be featured- when someone submits a VFH of an article they found hilarious, they need to do this, plus a "for" vote on why. Points will be calculated on five criteria:
    1. Timing (suited to the date of an event- e.g. first anniversary of Gangnam Style being released)
    2. Humour or Importance (how funny it is- can be based on Pee Review score)
    3. Age (since promotion to VFH)
    4. Diversity (is the humour too underrepresented?)
    5. Is it Pee Reviewed? If so, extra points go on score.
  2. We still have the current voting system, but this time, the most votes in VFH will become VFH. This will reduced the numbere of articles in the VFH queue and will encourage more people to vote in it. In cases when VFH queue is large, a maximum quota must be reached (e.g. 10 votes for VFH), and when it is small, you guess it.
  3. Keep the Top 10 articles of whatever year though- I think we still need that.
  4. Split the VFH into specific and non-specific dates. Who knows when will the article coincides with something amazing or a date of something related to the article?
  5. Review all VFH articles every year. Some of the aticles may had been damaged by vandals or something. So it is best to review the VFH articles.
  6. All timing of nomiations must be controlled by a VFH director. His vote will be worth one and a half votes, all others will be one vote, and IPs half a vote.

GiratinaOriginForme.png |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Aussie CUN|IC Kill Don't be fooled. I'm an Aussie too. | 09:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar at all with Wikipedia's procedures but I can definitely get behind an option to feature content on a particular day. For example, we could decide to feature an article on or related to a certain event or holiday on the anniversary or date of that event or holiday. --EMC [TALK] 03:45 Feb 9 2013
Mammogram, having gratuitous breast exposure, is currently in the queue to run through all of Thursday in every time zone. Not quite the same, but we're not exactly as formal as Wikipedia. In the future, nominators should list their reasoning for a feature on a given day in the nomination or a comment and nominate at least 15 (and preferrably 20) days in advance. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 2013.02.11.03:43