Forum:We need more "front pages!"

Forums: Index > Village Dump > We need more "front pages!"

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4673 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

This just appeared to me

The site could be organi(z)sed so that the front page pointed at several semi-featured articles. I don't mean Yesterday's featured, the one featured a year ago, or anything like that. Now there is the UnNews, the Featured, and practically the rest (For instance, recent articles is not very prominent, and it can contain unfunny stuff as well, as long as the thing has been written well enough). I don't know if my idea would make any big difference, but it might. The layout could be just about the same, but with a few more places with some highlight value. Those would get changed when people feel like it. For a practical example, now "Random page" brings up anything. I think it should bring up something good, and it should be more prominently visible - or there could be a "Random good page" or something - of course there are kazillions of possibilities.

What would be different

These highlights would be voted on, or maybe better yet, decided by admins or another selected (voted on?) group that would change from time to time if need be. The pace of the changes wouldn't have to be fast - or it could be whimsical, like for instance the second highlight could change in two days or more. There would be, say, 2nd, 3rd and 4th page, so to speak.

The group to select the stuff for 2nd etc pages...

...should consist of people with good taste and markedly different sense of humerrrr from each other. They shouldn't be dicks but they could be if need be: if a variety of humo(u)r were guaranteed by the 2-day rule, it wouldn't matter much if they were dicks or not. So long as they weren't identical dicks.

WHY THE FUCK THIS?

Simple: more incentive to try to write good articles, even if not feature-worthy, with different sense of humour, getting a chance for a second place, to see what is funny to others without being voted on (or down because the current voters happen to have a different sense of hum). I have seen at least 37,000 (US punctuation) good articles getting voted down and totally unfunny articles featured (OK, not totally unfunny - but to me, less funny than some others) - and I know it's just a matter of taste. It really is. I have nominated maybe 3 or 4 articles to be featured, at least one of them got through, so I'm not bitter so far. I've even managed a front page with Mhaille so that's not it either - or maybe it is. I want some second places too, and I'm sure there are plenty of others who want them as well. But the main reason is, I feel the appearance of the site would improve if there were a couple of ways more to hit variable good stuff easily. Obviously bad articles would simply get a bit more under wraps by the system. Also, I think it would feel far more positive to select stuff for 2nd and 3rd page than vote for deletions.

Yes but we already have this

I know there are secondary highlights. Actually I don't know it, because if there are, I don't see them as such. If I'm right or wrong, I don't see how more could be bad in this case. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of good users to go through 5 minutes every few days to pick an article on 3rd or 4th page. Setting it up is probably the only actual job in it.

Eggsample of how to do it

Let's say we have a 10-member group (even less might be enough) for each 2nd, 3rd and 4th page, which would all have links to maybe 4 or 5 articles. Those articles would get changed every week for instance. Or, we could highlight the compartements a bit more, picking a highlight for science, sports, people, a few others.

No, I don't want to be the one to do all the selecting

I will if others want me to but it fucking well isn't the main reason, so banish the thought. I have a life too, but I happen to like Uncyclopedia and want to see it improve.

Also...

...there would be added icentive for rewriting stuff. This might make it. If you're in a group to just bluntly select, not vote, stuff for second page, wouldn't you rewrite a half-ready article you see as promising? Huh? Huh?

Obvious rules

• The members of the group cannot highlight their own or each others' articles, at least not often. Because of this the groups must change every once in a while.
• promote articles by the same writer too many (3?) times in a row at the cost of others and you are out
• submit rewrites you want to promote for others to judge

Democracy

I know Americans are not for representational democracy but here it might work nevertheless - so please give it a chance. Now that I think of it, the group(s) of editors should be voted on, like VFH. For example, each group would stay in power for a month or so. The system could be given a year or half a year to see if it's good at all. -- Style  Guide 06:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• The frontpage has enough stuff already. In fact, some stuff could go away. It would, of course, be replaced by more me. Woo!
• Making another group to vote on another thing is problematic as we have enough trouble keeping people who vote voting on the votey pages that we already have.
• There's already a "not featured" section on the frontpage, Template:Recent.
• None of my comments here were in any measurable way humorous. Thus, my UnBroken streak continues!
• Oh, wait. That first one has a "Woo!", indicating that what preceded it was comedy gold. It was a comment about me, probably. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 09:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Modusoperandi - Template:Recent was addressed in the initial text.
• I agree something could go away but I don't know what, and why. If you read everything the front page links to, you don't have much yet. What would be wrong in a sports page, science page, etc.?
• there wouldn't be much voting in this one. If you measure the trouble for voters, in this one the vote would have more value. This is why I mention representational democracy.
• building up your series of against-comments by adding two redundant ones seems to give me the right to do the same. This is the first such comment...
• ...and this is the second. WOO-HOO!

-- Style  Guide 09:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Wups. It is, however, prominent enough. The idea, I think, is that the Features are our best, and enjoy the highest priority on the frontpage.
• Everything that didn't reference me and my awesomeness.
• When VFH, VFP, Top3 & the monthly votey thingies have consistent, sexy traffic, then I can see adding another thing. Adding more just dilutes what we have, when what we have isn't all that popular. That said, yes we can, if enough others are consistently committed to it. Notice the key words, "enough", "consistently" and "committed".
• You've put some thought into this. Try not to take my devil's advocate position personally. I'm a hopeless crank. That's why I'm here. It's the worst. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 09:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

My initial idea probably was born because I can read good articles from years past - some far better than what's up front, some not, of course. A new user will have a hell of a job trying to dig out the gems. If I have, say, 20 good articles properly advertised in front of me, I will probably read at least five of them. If I see links that point to different, non-defined directions, I click one or two of them, and stop clicking when I hit the first one that totally sucks. If not earlier. If I have a culture section, sports section, people section, and so forth, and each of them has an article as the main news, chances are I read all of those, even if they're not the very cream - and come back later to see if they have improved. I think the "second prize" idea is dead, but the compartments thingy should work for the benefit of the site. -- Style  Guide 09:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I initially had high hopes for the star-rating thingy, as it (cross-referenced with categories) would automatically (with the appropriate coding) generate a "good but not featured" thing. Maximum goodness with minimum effort equals happy naked dancing. Sadly, it didn't work out. I danced anyway. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 09:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I take one example just to show I mean business. Look at the article Free_lunch on VFH. I see it clearly as front page material, as opposed to, for instance, Iron Maiden, which I found mostly tedious: too long for the idea (I give you comparison just to show I can make them). Free Lunch has 12/6 now and at least three of the against-votes are for reasons I'd never consider relevant on a humour site. Most or all of those are from people I otherwise respect, which goes to show my sense of humour is not shareware, and neither is theirs. What will become of Free Lunch if it gets voted down and the author(s) are not interested enough to improve it to some imaginary length/sense/image quality standard? Nothing much after it has passed the "recent articles" -stage, where it has no more attention than an article that's rife with typos and so forth. It would make a great supplement as a Food/Nutrition main story. Plus, the person promoting it into that would probably add something to it, or at least proofread it. Which might give someone else the idea to improve it further. Nothing lost if it got featured later, nothing lost if it didn't, but the author would get some sense of accomplishment and would go on writing. Sorry but I didn't check if the author(s) are such that would write in any case - so if this example is bad because of that, you can easily imagine some other article in its place. -- Style  Guide 10:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether a page is being voted on VFH or it's just being read after hitting "random page", it's exactly the same; "Great", "Meh" or "Sucks". VFH is just the random button vetted by random people who decided those pages were great. VFH votes are just the opinions of semi-random eyes (as it would be after typing something into the search box). Lastly, I've completely lost my train of thought and I'm planning on falling asleep in three, two... Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 10:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

While I feel it's vaguely wrong to argue with someone already asleep, I must point out that I'm not random enough to like a randomly written, inconsistent, typo-ridden article as well as any of those that have appeared on front page. But this is beside the subject.-- Style  Guide 11:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

If you were in my head, you'd find whateveritwas that I said was deep, man. I'm like a friggin' philosopher over here. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 11:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

But what about over there? Philosophise that! • Spang • ☃ • talk • 00:38, 17 May 2009

You might be thinking of portals?

A whole section dedicated to a certain subject/area of interest (sports, science, Spang, etc), which could be linked from the main page and/or sidebar? Each portal could have its own editor(s) and so each would feature articles that appeal to people with certain tastes, something that stops a lot of articles from passing VFH. And of course it wouldn't have to have the same layout as Wikipedia's main page, so you'd be more free with the layout. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 00:37, 17 May 2009

I made a rough Sonic. It has some formatting issues, most notably, the wall-to-wall divisions, but it gives the basic idea. --Mnb'z 03:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was thinking of, only I didn't know the term. -- Style  Guide 05:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

We Already have an informal Secondary VFH System of Sorts

(edit conflict) Its called Vote for Good Article. Unfortunately, it stalled out after about a month. It was basically started as a way to find funny, but not feature worthy articles. Although it was sometimes used to recognize good articles that were on VFH but didn't make quasi-featured status, its primary purpose was to funny articles that would never be nominated on VFH. For example, Proto-badger or Japanese Stomping Fish. --Mnb'z 00:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Once more:

• there wouldn't be much voting in this one. If you measure the trouble for voters, in this one the vote would have more value. This is why I mention representational democracy.
• Also, voting on an article to maybe see it get somewhere is far different from voting for someone, in the hopes that the votes fall for you the next time.
• of course the Cabal (which we all know doesn't exist) wouldn't share power (just like the only one Master of the Ring didn't) - it could kick anyone and everyone out of any editing group whenever it felt like doing so.
• The editing part of being an editor of those portals wouldn't be a lot of work: Just to find, proofread and type the name of a good article in the right spot. The links to the portals might be above recent articles, for instance. Or maybe a bit more prominently somewhere. Above "recent" would work for most of those who already know Uncyclopedia, I suppose.
• anyway, clear categories (with leading stories, the point) would make it superficially more interesting to people, since categories are fed to people all the time.
• anybody applying for any such editing group would have to make a solemn promise not to cause any stupid arguments (stupid defined by Cabal I guess) at the risk of being thrown shit at, getting banned for precious minutes (they feel like eternity when you're banned), and being shown a huge penis - really huge.
• Proto-Badger is exactly what I have in mind. -- Style  Guide 05:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course...

...the Cabal could just go and name the groups instead of any voting - if it doesn't cause horribleness for some reason I cannot foresee. Since the Cabal sees all, they must naturally know who are up to the tasks without causing fuck all around. My idea with all this is just to have something I see as an improvement with little more work for the Cabal. The place is full of enthusiasts who would like some deciding power, I'm sure. But I think the voting bit would make it more variable and at least it wouldn't cause arguments among the nonexistent Cabal. Well, I can think of two. One is about starting the thing, the other is about ending it before it stinks the place up. -- Style  Guide 05:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet another idea...

• The articles for those portals could just as well be picked out of VFH: those that have failed non-spectacularly, controversial ones, those that fail because of length, jokes that some cannot approve of and others can, stuff like that. The 50/50 articles and so on. If nobody wants the vote thing, this could work. If nobody wants the category portals with a main page each, I'm fresh out of ideas.
• Modusoperandi: note that this just might get some sexy traffic for VFH as well. I for one haven't nominated anything for some time since I know my sense of humidity is a bit bust. I do vote but don't always want to because it feels like a waste of time to vote for something you really like and see it go down. This is just paranoia of course - but I figure many have the same one. So. Powder to the people! -- Style  Guide 06:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Uncyclopedian Purgartoy

Or you could have a cross ref link area where articles that weren't quite good enough for VFH but showed a lot of promise can go to 'purgatory' where there is a chance they can be fast tracked back but only after modest rewrites/ spelling corrections etc. --Romartus 10:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

On Finding Good Articles

I would suggest having one person in charge of each portal at the beginning, to pick the initial featured article of the portal, the list of good articles, et cetera. Then, we could add some sort of voting system for new portal features and the like. --Mnb'z 16:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I had to check the front page to see where the portals were. Shouldn't they be more 'standy-outy' (a technical term) so that potential new recruits can have a look at what subjects have already been covered and those that are not ? --Romartus 17:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm with both of you there. One person is quite enough. There could be a spare or two, though, just to keep it going in case the main man gets lazy or something. I also think they should be more standy-outish because they're new: added interest to the site. -- Style  Guide 18:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I would lean more toward a {{sofixit}} policy rather than having a Portal Pope. But the idea is the same, don't kill it by committee stalemating. --Mnb'z 00:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you do

Don't include more vote pages or more award pages. Let each portal to be run by a single person. If you get more votes, you'll be killing all the official voting pages, we have too many as it is anyway. Let the guy running the portal decide. Also, as with people running the portals, I'd like to see writers rather than maintenance jockeys running the portals. But that's just me. ~ 19:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

A writer might be more prone to pick stuff that hits his literary taste. I say this as a writer, not as a maintenance jockey. -- Style  Guide 20:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Will have to trust the writers integrity, and if they step out of line, we kick them out. I think we can come up with a few good candidates. ~ 08:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Per Mordillo, voting is teh suxxors. --Mnb'z 00:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggested front page layout; Mnbvcxz's sample portal

Might this be an acceptable layout for the main page? Don't make me point out I made it in 2 minutes and that I don't mean it to look exactly like this. Wait - I made myself point it out! Fuck me! Anyway, the yellow rectangles are there just to show where the portals could (and I think should) be, they are not the deadly yellow snow. -- Style  Guide 19:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I got a sample version Here for Sonic the Hedgehog. I looks like it shouldn't be too much work to maintain, as long as writers properly whore inform the portal operators of good articles they make. Also, I don't plan on being the Sonic portal operator, that is just a sample setup. --Mnb'z 04:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

All right, that's pretty much what I had in mind. The (still nonexistent) Cabal will decide on what happens with front page, right? Mordillo says there "Whatever you do..." (oops he didn't say so, or if he did, he changed it - whichever way, it's not there now {Yes it is, as a header, you bat}) which seems to mean he doesn't have much against the general idea. How about the rest of them, and/or who's the bossman of front page? -- Style  Guide 04:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no boss of the frontpage. It's like the Wild West, but with pale kids with bad skin and allergies. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 04:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Header needed, what next?

What happens next if anything? Who decides the categories to be promoted? Then some admins draws his gun and either acts or violently doesn't act according to the suggestion, I guess? It seems to me there must be a few portals ready, at least 4, before they hit front page. Which means I, the prominent revolutionary, should get an OK from someone who can decide about the front page, and fish for people to work those portals, and submit their names for someone to decide. Or would some admin ask around and just pick? That seems a lot quicker. -- Style  Guide 04:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Spang says in the other forum the frontpage should match Wikipedia's. OK, that's a reason not to change it much. Could someone please tell me now if this thing I suggest will not happen (because of that or something else) so I can stop wasting my time with it? It's been weekend so I understand why most haven't commented. I have to clarify to those who don't want to read all my crap: the layout is not important to me but the accessibility of non-featurable but otherwise good content in easy categories, selected by someone. I would just as well like to see the categories in the upper right corner get their own front pages, with no change to front page layout. I also repeat this for the benefit of those who don't want to read all the above argument: I would like to change the front page to something a bit less random. There would be a "second prize" set of GOOD articles, categorized, so that people would get quick access to next-to-top stuff according to what they want to read about. Also, it would be a positive thing for writers to get their almost-featured articles appear on one of the category portal pages. -- Style  Guide 04:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This is wiki, and it operates on the general principle of {{sofixit}}. I would suggest you create a sample portal, even if its just to create a "template" for the layout. I also don't think the cabal is going to create a list subjects that get to have a portal, it would probably work like the articles and categories. I.e. everything gets created haphazardly by whoever gets around to doing it. Even if the portals don't get approved to the mainpage, they still would have a function.

Also, editing this rapidly will not get you a response sooner. This post has only been up for a while, and the larger a post gets, the less likely someone is to respond. (I know this from experience.) --Mnb'z 05:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not why I edit it rapidly, but because I get fresh ideas and questions all the time. I made the short version in my previous edit because of what you just told me. Also, you just made a sample portal which looks fine to me. I'll make another if you think it has any use without a link on front page. -- Style  Guide 05:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I can see the top box on the frontpage going from, say, "*Politics" to "*Politics Portal" (perhaps with the option thingy to randomisate them). That would both not mess with the formatting too much and attract people looking for the gravity gun. As far as the Cabal goes, though, my opinion doesn't mean much, 'cause I'm #149. Spang is #7. Mordillo is some weird squiggly thing. He says it means "#1". I say he's full of shit. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 06:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps like this

• leave existing category texts as they are
• add some Portals logo or whatnot in front of them to point out there has been a change
• make the existing texts link to said portal front pages, which then would have a clearly visible link to the existing category page in addition to the top stories.
• probably each portal front page should also have a link to the Categories page

-- Style  Guide 06:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I doubt we actually will change the layout of the main page, I for once am very much against changing the current layout (except for perhaps trimming it a bit). A suggestion I have is - chop banners for each of the portals, to be on small size so we can fit them into the current category list, and change the individual categories with portals, and then keep a general "category" link as it is the case now. This way, we make them prominent enough without messing up the front page. ~ 11:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's almost the same thing I meant. It's also easier to work it out if they're only sideroads - no need to set them all up at once, I suppose, but add the banners at the rate the portals get finished. How many portals would you say is the maximum without clogging the space too much? 5-6? -- Style  Guide 12:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a bit of a waste of time? We barely have enough 'specialist pages' on a topic to justify a portal type sections of the site (with vast amounts being patchy even in very full categories). We have namespace article sections (Unbooks, HowTo etc) which is a similar idea however considering the activity going on those, starting up new sections/portals seems a little pointless and unnecessary (does this add anyhting to our articles, making them funnier or better?). Wikipedia has a similar thing to my understanding, but they have lots of really nerdy types who will write article on every facet of the topic. We don't, we write shorter with more humour orientated articles to parody Wikipedia, not really become it. At a time when site unity and morale could be better, as well having a more targeted writing for the sites purpose, this does not seem to be a great avenue. It will take time and effort of users to become half decent, and even if completed to some standard, it will lead the site in a bad direction (assuming there’s the kind of numbers that could write enough to even make it worthwhile).--Sycamore (Talk) 13:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I do think you're wrong for some of the reasons I mention at different spots in the forum. Well, one main reason actually. There are plenty of good articles that go relatively unnoticed because of general unworthiness to front page (I often feel it's only a matter of taste). I want them to get promoted above the "recent article" and "news", which don't have much control. At least "recent" doesn't. I don't want anyone to start writing new articles for the portals, just to promote stuff that is good but doesn't make main page. Summing up some of my thoughts:

• categorized good articles for the readers (doesn't make them funnier, just easier to find among the bad ones. The editor does that for the reader.)
• some prize for the writer whose sense of humour is good but deviates from the one of those who happened to vote this time. Makes subsequent articles better and funnier because of added incentive. It's all there ^ somewhere.
• I think the people to run the portals must be some who understand what makes a good article: at the very least, proofreading - and making funnier if at all possible - yes, I think this would also improve the articles if done right. What do you mean "barely enough..."? 24.000 articles, I think it's possible to slap up a few decent portals every few weeks. They don't even need to stay rigid: if supply for one category runs too low, dump the portal and start another one, or dump it for good. Note that I'm not trying to spread all of the site all over the place - just, I repeat, promote what already is good.
• define "waste of time." -- Style  Guide 13:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sample Portal

I've we-worked this a bit so it should take less effort to update, and it will work more like a navigation tool than as a backup award system. Oh, and I whore VFH alot in that article. Right now, the closest thing to voting would be suggestions for "good by not yet quasi/featured" articles, and suggestions for the random image in the top left. (I haven't goten around to randomizing it yet, but it shows what it would look like.) What we need a process to find good articles without going though the trouble of having 10 people read each article, but I digress...

Anyway, I probably could stick that, or something like that, in the categories. Also, all the "portal operator" needs to do is pick the "good" articles. (And less importantly, pic the images for the random images on the top right.) Unfortunately, we would either be stuck with a "Good Article Pope" or moar voting. --Mnb'z 16:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC) (had a couple transclusion-induced formatting problems, that should be ok now --Mnb'z 16:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

My intended idea...

...was about somewhat wider categories than just one game/character/thingy. Of course Sonic is just as useful as my ideas if people like it, etc. and if Cabal says it's OK. Mnbvcxz - where else are these portals useful if they don't get front page space? I'll make one on science one of these days if there's some use. Do you mean Sonic to be a portal to any good game articles? As such, it would serve a better purpose - more content has been written. -- Style  Guide 16:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Creating Lists

Due to my bot powers, I have discovered that I (or anyone else with a bot) can rather easily generate lists of featured articles for categories (and their subcategories.)

However, for this to work right, it requires that the featured category be properly maintained. (Which it generally is.) Any article incorrectly placed in the feature category will create a false positive. Additionally, transclusions of featured pages into other pages will also create false positives. However, most false positives are easy to spot; anything in userspace is probably a false positive.

As an example, the featured articles in Category:Politics and Government and its 1st order subcategories include:

1. "Paul is dead" hoax
2. Adolf Hitler
3. Al Gore
4. Alien vs. Predator
5. All Your Base Are Belong To Us
6. Argos
7. Axis of Evil Hot Dog Eating Competition
8. Battle of the Sexes
9. Battleship Potemkin
10. Biggles
11. Bloodbath
12. Certificate of Hitlertude
13. Civil War
14. Colin Powell
15. Colonel
16. Conservapedia
17. Democrazy
18. Diplomacy
19. DOHS Anti-Terrorism Regulations
20. Down with this sort of thing!
21. Dwight D. Eisenhower
22. Education
23. Fascist
24. Ferdinand von Zeppelin
25. French Revolution
26. Future ☭f tomorrow, today!
27. George Dubya Bush
28. George W. Bush
29. George W. Bush (featured)
30. Gerrymander (politics)
31. Golf War
32. Google Middle Earth
33. Grand Conspiracy
34. Grand Theft Audio
35. Gratuitous Anime Panty Shot
36. Harry S. Truman
37. Horatio Hornblower
38. HowTo:Bluff Your Way to Political Power
39. Illegal aliens from outer space!
40. Inanimate Sponge
41. Intelligent Design
42. IPod yocto
43. J'accuzzi
44. Jaws did WTC
45. League of Nations
46. Letter to the Isle
47. List of people you do not want to come face to face with in a narrow hallway
48. Lord Sauron
49. Mae Zedong
50. Maginot Line
51. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
52. Make Poverty History
53. Manhattan Engineering District
54. Maozilla
55. Martin Van Buren
56. Missing milk
57. Moon hoax
58. Napoleon Bonaparte
59. NASA
60. National Try To Assassinate The President Day
61. Nazi
62. New Hampshire Merchant Cat
63. Newmath
64. Nike Revolution of 2006
65. No More Room In Hell Act
66. North Korea
67. Orange construction barrels
68. Pacific War
69. Political advertising
70. Pot v. Kettle
71. Private Eye
72. Redundancy
73. Robert Mugabe
74. Rock, Paper, Airstrike
75. Royal Pointless Military Things Tournament
76. Russian reversal (phenomenon)
77. Scotland
78. Self-toasting bread
79. Senator
80. Social Commentary
81. Society for the Intervention and Rehabilitation of Supervillains
82. Stereotype Reassignment Surgery
83. Taft Punk
84. Teabag everything that moves
85. The Color Problem
86. The defense rests, your honor
87. The Free World
88. The Pun Invasion of Uncyclopedia
89. The Siege of Bordeaux
90. Titshugger Penishead McFucknutter
91. Torture
92. UnBooks:Practical Lessons on Communism
93. UnBooks:The Digital Divide
94. UnCameron
95. UnScripts:Song of the South
96. Vietnam War Hoax
97. Vote Fish Penis
98. Voynich Manuscript
99. Walgreens Drug Store
100. War on Terra
101. Why?:Cancer is Great
102. Why?:Does Christopher Meloni not have an emmy yet?
103. Wikipedia
104. Wikipedia/old
105. William Gladstone
106. Witless Protection Program
107. WMD (Donuts)
108. Women's Suffrage
109. World War IV
110. You should talk about ponies - A letter to Bill Richardson

Known false positives in that list (all userspace)

1. User:Ethereal/Wikipedia -archived copy, probably shouldn't have the featured tag on it
2. User:Galvatron -false positive, template spammage can't find why
3. User:MrCleveland - -false positive due to article transclusion

I went back to the direct subcategories of Category:Politics and Government only. Going to the sub-cats of the sub-cats adds too many unrelated articles, at least for this category.

Anway, it should be easy to get featured and quasi-featured lists of articles for the portals on broad subjects. --Mnb'z 17:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

All right - I'm not much of a sprelunker myself. I studied 3D software instead of other computer skills. Anyway - good to know. I guess this means that you can find (probably) good articles easily. Also, I had a look at main page source. It's clear that if I want to make a portal I'll either need to copy and edit something that's already there, or get a lot of help, or shoot myself. -- Style  Guide 17:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I can find featured and quasi-featured articles through category comparisons. Unfortunately, some of the more specific subjects have have only a couple of these, if that. --Mnb'z 19:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, this forum is getting out of hand

Multi, this has turned into a conversation between you and Mnb, no one else is looking at it and no one will bother reading it, and you will not be carrying out any changes on the front page without some sort of consent from someone. My proposal, kill this forum and put a very very short version of it on a new one. I've lost count on what you're trying to achieve here, and I've been reading it more or less from the start. ~ 20:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Mordillo! I've been clogging up this forum from the very beginning! So there! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did notice earlier this is unreadable. I would have put it short in the very beginning if the idea had been ready - but there was no chance of that being the case. Will do as you suggest. -- Style  Guide 04:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I am reading it. Also, wouldn't you have to read through this one to understand the next one? Anyway, Modusoperandi's earlier suggestion of turning the top right section links into portal page links is the best one. Which has the bonus of being exactly what wikipedia do now. Just copy one of their portals and have at it. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 05:13, 19 May 2009

Better ramble on here than somewhere else

Ok, if portals are a no-go, what about adding templates with a list of featured(/quasi) articles in given category. As an example, here is one from the list above forCategory:Politics and Government. This includes features that category and its immediate subcats but not in the subcats of its subcats. Anyway, here is what it would look like:

This would have the benefits of showing off our good articles, without the problem of monthly featuring and the like. --Mnb'z 05:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)