Forum:VFH self noms

Forums: Index > Village Dump > VFH self noms

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4906 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

In terms of collaborations, where do you draw the line on it being a self-nom? And if it is a collaboration, why is there a line at when, when the entire point of a wiki is to be collaborative, and the rule of having them reviewed before self-nominating is to have someone else look at it first, when by the very nature of a collaboration someone else was looking at it probably the entire time?

I ask because it's common practice to fix up an article and then put it up for featuring, but that is also collaborating, and anyone who does so is by definition subsequently a co-author. Does that mean they can't nominate it anymore?

Also, something about contests - articles tend to be 'reviewed' by not one, but three in these, so isn't that good enough even if the folks don't write out entire reviews for them? But really, the self-nomming thing seems to be a silly rule, anyway. We're not so active as we used to be and so there won't be so many as there may have been at the time it was implemented; can't the users be trusted to just vote things down at this point? 1234 ~ 22:35, 9 November 2011

Obligatory Vote: Remove the self-nomination regulation?

Self-nomination regulation: Self-nominated articles (i.e. you write an article and then decide to nominate it yourself) must receive at least one critique via Pee Review before nomination (or at least spend a week on Pee Review if you can't get anyone to look at it). Articles nominated by people other than the author can still be nominated at any time and require no review (though it is still recommended).

Score: -600

• I am strongly against the notion of a rule banning self nominations on VFH. It was put in place while I was away from the wiki, and I have never understood its purpose. -- The Zombiebaron 22:38, November 9, 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah, if I can nominate my own article for deletion, why can't I nominate it for featuring? And if an article needs a review, chances are the failed nomination will make that abundantly clear... 1234 ~ 22:43, 9 November 2011
• Anyway, I say remove it per what I said up there. 1234 ~ 01:45, 10 November 2011
• Sure. Only because people use the current pee review rule as a loophole so damned often. I've seen the review request of "I don't care what the review says, I'm only doing this so I can self-nom" far too many times. If we're going to have that attitude about it, there's really no reason to keep a rule on it anyway. -RAHB 01:48, November 10, 2011 (UTC)
• Per what RAHB said and it usually takes more than a week a get a pee review anyway. -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 01:50, November 10, 2011 (UTC)
•  Sure. There's usually enough people around to get crappy noms from IPs off of VFH in an acceptable time frame, so crappy self-noms probably won't be too much of a problem either. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 02:11, 10 November 2011
• Comment The only issue I have is if we go into that 20 article limit. The pee review kind of guarantees at least one other person will judge it before we place it on VFH, otherwise we could end up with more stagnant nomination pages. Anyone got a link to the old rule? --Nikau 03:14, November 10, 2011 (UTC)
• Against. I prefer the against self nom rule to continue. It's a good way to filter out what goes up to VFH. Otherwise we would have the Curse of Gouncyclopedia! trying to clog it up with self nominated junk. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 08:33, November 10, 2011 (UTC)
• Of fucking course and I believe I proposed this like a year ago and one of the ops was like "HURR DURR" and I roundhouse kicked him into the sun. Although perhaps my memory is imperfect. Inebriated 08:43, November 10, 2011 (UTC)
• If this is going to happen, can we limit the amount allowed to one a month. mAttlobster. (hello) 14:49, November 10, 2011 (UTC)
• No self-nom regulation. Yeah let's remove that Pee Review obligation. Then we'll know the articles on Pee are there because people want a review. It's quite frustrating to work for 2 hours to do a pee review, then the author doesn't change anything and self noms. It will also unclog Pee, where authors who really want to have their article reviewed are waiting for like 2 months. I agree with Matt Lobster with the one-self-nom-a-month limit. If an article sucks, people won't refrain from voting against it anyway, so when somebody self-noms, he has to be quite sure his article is good. Mattsnow 15:03, November 10, 2011 (UTC)
• The rule as it currently stands is almost pointless because no one does pee reviews in under a week anymore, anyway. So yeah, fuck that rule. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 18:19, November 10, 2011 (UTC)
•  Get rid of this silly rule. Per TKF, it's pointless these days. Besides, there's always UN:OFFICE for anyone who spams VFH with Chuck Norris cruft. -- Sir "TheSlyPony" Invariably certifiable. Rap sheet. [[::File:Sexy_twilight.jpeg|His shameless obsession.]] 04:51 November 11, 2011 (UTC)
• There are a lot of strange arguments on this forum. This wiki is colaborative, sure, but how many articles that are featured are 95%+ written by one author? Articles are reviewed in contests, but recently the review consists of one sentence (i.e. good, not as good as other article or; this article made me laugh). That is not a review. That being said...there are also some very good arguments here, which can all be summed up with, the rule is useless...which to me at least seems true. Could we not at least try to think of some creative way(s) to keep the articles going on VFH of a very minimal quality. We are all smart enough to come up with something. (abstain by the way). P.S. Do admins get two votes in this forum as well? --ShabiDOO 07:03, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
• For removing the Pee rule. Against adding the one-self-nom-a-month rule. If people want to nom their articles without giving it a chance of being featured, let them. However, anyone who said we should remove the pee rule and add the one-self-nom-a-month rule was basically saying, "Let's change the restrictions on VFH by making them even more strict." -- 23:45, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
•  Against. per Romartus. --EMC ^[TALK] 23:58 Nov 12 2011

Well...

I removed the thing from the rules. Let's see what happens or something - chances are if anyone does start overdoing it, taking the matter up with them would resolve it, maybe like what happened with Kakun and VFP... but if it does fail, it can be restored. Hopefully we'll all keep an eye on it, eh?

That said, Magic man's right about the other proposed restriction, but not only that, it wouldn't be feasible to implement anyway; there's no quick way to check how many a user has nominated in a month, especially when some get featured and some don't and some hang around for a couple months and then get featured... 1234 ~ 00:38, 13 November 2011