Uncyclopedia talk:VFH/archive2

• Discussion archive 1

---

UnNews

Just curious, why is it that it seems almost exclusively UnNews articles are getting featured now? Are all the best writers doing news articles or is it just coincidence? --P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 22:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I would assume coincidence, but understand also that most good ideas have been exhausted by now and/or are stagnating on an ICU page created by an IP, and the only way to find fresh ideas is in current events.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 22:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Quasi-Featured

What makes an article quasi-featured? Mine was +1, but got taken off after 3 days. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs)20:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

See QFH procedure.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

UnNews:Video game blamed for school attack

This article is very short, yet I found it down right hilarious. If it had a bit of expanding it may be good enough. I just can't think of how to expand it...Megamanfanx7 14:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Serial killers

This one is just plain fun.– Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.255.103 (talk • contribs)

Well, it contains a link to a page I did. So that's something, I guess. I hope that it's a good something. Bad somethings make me sad. --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Zombie Bukkake

In defence of this otherwise near-indefensible article, I'd like to point out that far from being simply "stupid", it has some interesting insights into post-war gender relations, teenage sexuality and the effect of popular culture on the evolution of social movements (feminism). It even name-checks Andrea Dworkin, fer Chrissakes. (Though Andrea Dworkin has to go. I'm gonna go across and put it up for deletion now.) -- Sir Armando Perentie KUN FP 03:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Chickenbox

I don't want this to get quasied. I don't believe it's ready. Can it be nominated again if it doesn't get voted to feature. I'm so worried. 04:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Things get renommed plenty. When it gets renommed, be sure to mention you've fixed it up a lot since its last nom. --monika 04:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, Tom. I've fixed up the article a bit. Sor far, we've had only 2 fors. That's a start. And if it fails, I'll submit it to the Pee Review. Also, aren't you going to vote? --Micoolio101 ^{(whine • vandalism)} 08:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure as to what my vote will be. 11:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• This article was removed by Tompkins as requested by the author, Premier Tom Mayfair. The article is not ready to be featured and should not be nominated until a rewrite is performed. 20:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• • I'm putting it up on Pee Review so we can get some help. ----Micoolio101 ^{(whine • vandalism)} 21:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay 21:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

V____ F__ H______

Um, what exactly DOES VFH stand for? --thematrixeætsyou, the master (talk) (flames) 02:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Vote for Highlight. Don't ask me why it's that, it just is. Blame Chron. — Major Sir Hinoa (Plead) (KUN) (02:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC))

I always thought it was "Very Finely Hung"....go figure.... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

And here I thought it was "Vying for Hamburgers," in honor of the award for getting a featured article, back in the days before the internet.--<<>> 21:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Vote For Hitler? --EMC ^[TALK] 21:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I always thought it was "Vandville's Fine Hoses" or something like that. --The Zombiebaron 22:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

i thought it meant articles that were so good that they would be enacted and taped in VHF format for the upcoming uncyclovideo. i even used to refer to VFH as VHF in the dump till someone whacked me on the head. -- mowgli 11:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Very Frightning Height. -- di Mario 21:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Vote for Hearticle. --—Braydie 01:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Vast Future Horrorscape. --love, gustav ^{talk at me}_nope 18:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Vote For Huffing, of course. There can be no good articles, only bad ones! -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 00:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Vompkins Fompkins Hompkins. --Tompkins 16:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

So that's what it means... I was thinking Vote For Honor Jedibob5 17:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Very Freakin' Horrible, as in some of the jokes here are VFH. Not all. But some. Not saying who. Could be me! Who knows?-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 22:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

United States

What was wrong with it, why is it deleted? unsigned comment by Serminigo

Actually I think it's still there, just underneath Canada. --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy (Bleat) 07:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

<Badoom, boom> He's here all week, folks.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 07:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, it was unpopular and, as we all know, unpopular things tend not be popular. Features, however, tend to be popular.

I wouldn't get too worked up about it.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 07:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Pentium 4

• Hawthorn Peebles:

Actually, I bent the truth a bit. What Intel patched was not really the CPU core itself, but its marketing strategy, and the chronology is not quite in order, either. As every AMD user knows, clock speed means nothing. What really matters is how much a CPU can do in one cycle. Intel's doctrine, on the other hand, had always been "Intel inside, a lot of clock speed". To them, the deinal of the "Megahertz myth" would mean the loss of a major marketing hype. Indeed, in the face of approaching threats such as Athlon 64, Intel had to do something. Their solutions? P4 Extreme Editions (a series of CPU's with the first two based on the Xeon Gullatin core and having an extra layer of cache), Prescott (a core that is slower and much hotter than its preceeder Northwood but capable of running at much higher frequencies - or so Intel claimed), and Pentium D (a dual core/die series based on Prescott). These things, as many, many critics agreed, were nothing more than a pile of scat, and because their last P4 core, Cedar Mill, had pushed the silicon semiconductor technology further towards its ultimate limit, Intel had to abandon their high clock-speed strategy altogether and turn to improving the CPU design itself. So, to me, Intel's persistence on their NetBurst design in the past six years was nothing more than a waste of time. -- The Colonel (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Colonel of the Sword Dude:

Um-yeah, your last comment sums it up. But you really bummed me though, I was hoping to see some sick porn after clicking the mysterious "See here" link. --HP talk 03:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• PS Comment: Did I mention I hate Sony? --HP talk 03:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

INTEL SUCKS – Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.93.223 (talk • contribs)

Change to instructions, maybe?

I've noticed a number of people are nominating articles for VFH just to get feedback from people, which seems wasteful to me, especially since there are a number of worthy articles in the middle of the nomination belt (Pentium 4, for example) that get pushed down the list when this happens and seem to be suffering from neglect. Should we add a warning sticker that VFH is not for feedback, and direct them to Pee Review? I'll be a more conscientious reviewer of Pee Review if it happens; I'd just prefer to see completed articles here, rather than what-do-you-think submissions.--Procopius 19:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It may just be an aberration; I've been here for awhile and I don't remember too many nom's of that nature. Still, it never hurts to add a note to VFH pointing noobs in the right direction (VFP has something similar and it, for the most part, works).--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 19:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The current Pee Review instructions might need some work too, as they imply that it's only to be used to get help making an apparently-unsalvagable worthy of survival, as opposed to making an eh-not-terrible article worthy of featuring. --Falcotron 19:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoops; never mind. That's what comes from trying to read on a PDA. There's one perfectly good paragraph about each possible use of PEE; it's fine as-is. --Falcotron 19:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• YEAH. I have an article on PEE REVIEW now, and I think it's a complete article, and no one has read it, or offered opinions, or suggestions or anything for that matter. So it's never going to get nommed, and if I nom it, Modus up there is going to raise a fit against self noms, which I kinda agree with now, (does that apply to VFP?heheh). So look for Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Medical Malpractice and let's get some more FA's going...-- Sir Severian (Sprich mit mir!) 00:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  Actually, my view on self noms has mellowed, as my self noms on VFP (and now VFH) can attest. That most have landed to a smattering of tepid applause merely indicates that I need to move over to ED, where my talents will be appreciated.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 01:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  Read it, left comments on it. I agree; too many articles die in Pee Review. I hope a note would push future nominators (and voters) that way.--Procopius 02:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  ...and it has only been there for a few days, right? It's summer, so there's theoretically less people here, and not everyone that find your peer review and reads the page will have something to say. All of these contribute to the lack of response. Give it time, though this is the interweb, the people on it still only move at the speed of man.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a link to Pee Review at the top of VFH. Hopefully that'll drive a bit more traffic to it. —rc (t) 03:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank ye kindly, Rc. Let's see what happens.--Procopius 17:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"Pentium 4" comment gallery

With MoneySign moneysigned approval, the following comments have been removed from the main VFH page in pursuit of more votes. Also, I'll no longer comment on any votes in this nomination (sorry, folks) just to see if it'll regain some gravity. (Don't look at me - that's MoneySign's idea.)

• Comment - Thanks for the vote first of all, but it would be even nicer if you make a comment or two on the article. See my talk page. -- The Colonel (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Thanks for that, Uncle Mhaille! :) -- The Colonel (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• I'm glad that you like it! :) -- The Colonel (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• It's good that you re-read it, and thanks for your support! -- The Colonel (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Then I hope you are not still mad at the fact that Pentium Pro is weak in 16-bit processing. -- The Colonel (talk) 08:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• No I don't. -- The Colonel (talk) 10:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• I have a desktop with an AMD chip running at 1.8GHz, and a laptop with an Intel P4-M chip running at 1.7GHz. Notwithstanding the fact that there is only a difference of 100MHz, the desktop runs almost 3 times as fast as the laptop. -- The Colonel (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks for your "antipathy" vote. :) -- The Colonel (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• See here. -- The Colonel (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Do not click the link "See here" in the above line, you may regret it!!!!!!!!!! --HP talk 03:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Is that a Dell? Ruuunnnn!!!! -- The Colonel (talk) 12:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• "Idiocrates!" - Idiocrates on Idiocrates -- The Colonel (talk) 05:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

-- The Colonel (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Why THe Fsking hell!?!

Why the fsking hell is this shit page here? have u ever thought about that you bunch of fat fags?!

Chemboy 17:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It is now safe to turn off your computer. Dink.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 17:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Why are new articles being featured quickly while other get left behind?

Some articles (including my own) got a high number of votes for feature and are waiting for a month or more to be featured while some articles that get less votes are getting featured two or three days after being nomed? Why is that happening? -- Brigadier Sir Mordillo GUN UotY WotM FP UotM AotM MI³ AnotM VFH +S 12:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

A couple of reasons. One, articles are featured based on vote-count. If an article gets really "hot" and gets tons of votes, it's featured quickly, and this has happened a couple of times lately. Two (and this often causes the first), people will sometimes only vote for the stuff they haven't seen on the page yet, so if something in on the page a long time, they won't vote on it at all. This, incidentally, is why we remove articles that have stagnated (without any votes for a week or more), because, in the past, things that don't get votes for a long while don't get enough votes to be featured. So, the BEST articles (which, in theory, are the ones we highlight) get a lot of votes early, and still continue to get enough votes late in it's "life" on VFH so that, eventually, it gets highlighted. That is the sick and twisted world of Democracy at Uncyclopedia.--<<>> 14:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

There are also the pages that get a vote every once in a while; just often enough to not get pulled from VFH and just enough to eventually get featured. I know this is true, not because I made it up (which is normally how I get truth), but because it happened to me. Not me, exactly, but a page by me. --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 17:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Democracy? You mean of course the sick and demented tyrany of the adminati :). To the point, can I get my bloody article (17 for) featured?! -- Brigadier Sir Mordillo GUN UotY WotM FP UotM AotM MI³ AnotM VFH +S 15:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Your comments opposing the adminati will be "dealt with." Seriously, though, once your article has more votes than any other on the page, it'll be featured. RC is pretty good at getting the article with the best score featured, with of course that one notable, unnamed exception. ;)

Brad has very clearly outlined the most popular theory of why the phenomenon occurs, but there is another theory, endorsed by a scientist, which claims that the inherent wit of an article actually decays over time. Each article on VFH starts of being quite nicely funny, but during their lifespan, they give off "nice-optopes" and actually decay into a substance known as "no laughing matter". So when an article first appears on VFH, it appears to be hilarious to many people because it is packed with "nice-otopes", but those articles that have languished there for months or even years will appear to the casual observer as somehow tired, listless and lacking in any kind of amusement. This is a purely scientific phenomenon and nothing personal. --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy (Bleat) 15:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

More importantly, can my article (+11) jump passed everyone else and get featured right now? Thanks. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Hey hey! you got like a gazillion articles features, give a jew a break! pick me! pick me! -- Brigadier Sir Mordillo GUN UotY WotM FP UotM AotM MI³ AnotM VFH +S 16:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Throw the Jew down the well! -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 21:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

So my people can be free! --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 22:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Horton Hires a Ho

Score: +28

I'd just like to note that this ran up to +28 without a single against. That's the highest score I recall ever seeing, and the only unanimous vote I can recall, too. (I took a quick peek. The earlier archives are pretty sketchy. . . I don't suppose we've got a score summary somewhere? Just curious. . .) Oh, and congrats, Todd! The article is fantastic, and watching it fly up the charts with a bullet was awe-inspiring! I tip my cranial covering to you. If this is the first unanimous VFH, you should get something special!

I'd like to suggest (if it works, I'll find out when I save this and see the TOC) we put the score line in the heading, like I've done here. If the score shows up in the TOC, then one could see the scores at a glance, on VFH and the archives, too.

Let's see here. . .

Yep, it works. I move that all new VFH noms put the score in the heading. . . second?  Sir Tooltroll, Esq. CUN • Eh? • Oh! • UnTunes! •• I my cat! 09:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tooltroll. I'm actually relieved that the poem was received as I intended, and didn't generate any flak for perceived misogynism. I think one could make a better case for misandry. :) ~ T. (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely not the first unanimous featured article, but it may well be the unanimous FA with the highest score. Also, I don't like how the score template looks in the header, and I'm afraid if we do it like that we may get in a rich-get-richer situation with people just skipping down to articles with the highest scores (which they still do now, but it's a bit harder). —rc (t) 17:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Sheeple can be so stupid, taken as a mass. . . Baaaaa!  Sir Tooltroll, Esq. CUN • Eh? • Oh! • UnTunes! •• I my cat! 22:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion from The Putz Who Stole Hanukkah

• Comment Do your research. I kept certain words for the sake of rhyming and making my life easier, but I changed the vast majority of the original text. I think only two sentences remain unaltered, those being the SING SING SING SING, AND FEAST FEAST FEAST sentences, for obvious reasons. Not that I need your vote, but at least do some research next time...-- Sir C  Holla | CUN 04:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Quote: "VFH IS NOT A DISCUSSION PAGE."--Winston 04:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

But this is...what do you have to say? -- Sir C  Holla | CUN 05:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

CB, chill. That's all I can say. If you got upset and neurotic at everyone who votes "nay" to one of your pages you'd be, well, me; except I don't get upset. It's not worth it, man.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 06:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

But c'mon, you know how hard I worked on this...its gold. If someone votes against, they must be working for my sworn enemy... -- Sir C  Holla | CUN 06:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Some people don't like red wine, others don't like Seuss. It's the way of the universe, man. I work really hard on my stuff, but when people vote against it, do I throw a fit? Okay, bad example. But I heard that there was a support group for this very problem. I went once, but the coffee was awful.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 06:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen how many for votes you got? It was almost featured in one day! That alone should be enough (it would be enough for me, but all my articles suck). Just feel pround, and pimp you're article on people's talk pages and in IRC. --Sir Zombiebaron 13:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

So that's how people feature articles. I just write them and let people find them. I didn't know pimping them was required. Curse my naivety--Witt, of UNion Entertain me* 06:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Article whoring is not illegal yet, at least as far as I know, so use it while you can. But not too much, or people will turn against you... if they haven't already. -- Master Article Pimper 11:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I try not to article whore. Speaking of article whoring, have you seen my pages?--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 11:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No, but I am sure they are of rather high quality. -- Hindleyite 11:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You make my half-hearted and naive attempts at article whoring/tomfoolery look positively amateur by comparison.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 12:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever whored an article before, but if I can get a couple of people to vote on Waiting for Godot soon then I might get two features in a row... <coughs> --Sir Jam 12:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Unsigned vote anomalies

I'm concerned that the approach to unsigned votes still isn't uniform. Depending on who sees them first they are either struck out (as they should be), or signed by another user with the "unsigned" template. I'm hoping to change this. Are you with me? ~ T. (talk) 11:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure. So what's your plan? How are you proposing to change this exactly? --EMC ^[TALK] 15:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The "unsigned" template is not enough to legitimize a vote. They should either be crossed out or if someone is ambitious they can search through the VFH history for the vote and post the diff just so I'll know it's for real. —rc (t) 16:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

They should ALL be crossed out. If you want to vote, you can revote, with signature. {{Unsigned}} should only be used on non-voting pages, in my opinion.--<<>> 23:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Asian male handicap

yes, i reached it via your page. and i know it's your sockpuppet (don't hit me). i like it because it has a nice voice and a particularly querulous pitch full of pompousness and self importance (see racism) verging on the insane. however, for the sake of "offending" readers, it should be withdrawn. since there is no reefer's desk for articles (not the pee review), i thought i'd check here to see if it's offending by uncyc. standards. i'm glad it is. your response is sufficient. now if you could tell me how to withdraw it. :) -- mowgli 08:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I never made a sockpuppet anywhere, and, no, I didn't write that damned article either - I was only responsible for the tedious touch-ups. Next time, when you smell a sockpuppet, 1) make sure you didn't stick a sock in your nose, and 2) ask someone with a "staff" status to do a checkuser. Don't just go around and preach your conspiracy theory. Now go find Rc and let him clean up you own mess (Man, don't you just hate being called a "sockpuppeteer"?) -- The Colonel (talk) 08:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously there's a joke but I am not quite getting it. Anyway, let me pointlessly strike out the previous comment and let the vote continue. Sounds good? -- The Colonel (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[humour free zone ahead] sorry? u mean it's offensiveness is ok for "featured content" standards? it's ok for uncyc. IMO but i wished to double check with a few others if it was ok for "featured" content for personally i did think that it crossed the line. but yes, let a few others comment on it - sounds good to me. kindly confirm if that's what you wish and i'll delete my request for withdrawal on rc's talk. (to further clarify, i do find the piece incredibly funny). -- mowgli 09:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

i guess you were commenting on your own post (that you struck out) as i am doing now. now i get it. -- mowgli 11:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Let's stop playing the guessing game. If you want to withdraw your nomination, then just go straight ahead to Rc and ask him if he can get the nom removed. My vote is "weak for" (which means "kind of for but kind of indifferent), and it will stay that way for the entire duration of the VFH process. If he is happy to remove it, then that's fine. But if he says the otherwise, then the nomination stays. -- The Colonel (talk) 11:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[1] that page stays that way for the entire duration of the VFH process. incidentally i was kidding when i called the author of that piece your sock puppet and i thought you understood as much when you threw a mock hissy fit but then you scratched it out and i'm not quite sure why you're worked up now. or i GUESS i'm again wrong (in thinking that you're worked up) hah! -- mowgli 12:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

HRWiki

Can somebody explain why Homestar Runner Wiki lost and was quickly removed? --Trogga 23:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Because it lost and was speedily removed. That's how it works. We call it a "failed nom" here. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 23:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I still don't know why people don't like it... --Trogga 23:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Send it to pee review and ask there. You're much more likely to get an answer there than here.--<<>> 00:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm just here to get some coffee, before ZB shows up and drinks it all.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

UnBooks:The Complete Idiot's Guide To Talking To Women

Comment, according to UB:VFB "Any UnBook can be nominated and featured via ordinary VFH at any time" (I missed it the first time too, UnBooks are new to me).--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

that's stupid, my vote stands - jack mort | cunt | talk - 20:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

UnNews can be featured. HowTos can be featured. UnBooks can be featured. Sure, they are also featured on the UnBooks main page, but why should an article not be allowed to be featured just because of this? UnBooks is still only quite small. I stand by the ruling. However I cannot vouch for people who are against change or have a chip on their shoulder. Please don't shoot me. -- Hindleyite 20:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. A lot of great material comes from UnBooks, which would unfortunately, have limited exposure due to the still-quite-small status of UnBooks (taking for example, UnBooks:Horton Hires a Ho). --EMC ^[TALK] 21:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles from all content namespaces should have equal opportunity on VFH. Getting a featured UnBook is not exactly the same in terms of exposure as getting an article featured on Uncyc's main page. These are the kind of freedoms MLK died for, people. Besides, giving smaller namespaces more of the spotlight should help them grow. —rc (t) 23:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

But surely you must have noticed that all of the nice stuff of Unbooks is based on and are spoofs of real literaire works but all the stuff features is just the same old drivel that happened to land at the unbooks namespace. and stuff like that Dr Seuss crap is being regurgitated in what ever form even outside unbooks. I say, Unbooks for the most part isn't funny or a parody on anything. If anything, it's a mirror.--Vosnul 00:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I got a bit lost in your first sentence. All I'm saying is that humor, not sex, race or namespace, should be the primary criterion for VFH. —rc (t) 00:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Great, And all i'm saying is that whenever there is something up on Unbooks worth voting for most people will dismiss it because of painfully obvious reasons. The unBook stuff that gets a go for a feature or whatever could , in most cases, be, or should, reformatted for a normal artikle not within any special space. -- Vosnul 00:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of many cases in which people have dismissed an UnBook from VFH for "obvious reasons"; in fact, it has been my observation that a majority UnBooks nominated have been embraced. The statement about the regurgitated Dr. Suess crap, I'm assuming, is referring to UnBooks:Horton Hires a Ho and Sir Cornbread's The Putz Who Stole Hanukkah. I had a long talk with Sir Cornbread on the IRC about how he may be accused of unoriginality, since his page was nominated after Horton Hires a Ho. Sure, a lot of UnBooks parody real works of literature, such as UnBooks:The n00b Survival Guide or UnBooks:Uncyclopedia for Dummies, but as you say, "Unbooks for the most part isn't funny or a parody on anything." My point here is that UnBooks, UnNews, HowTo:, and everything in between should be featured on the front page. There's some great differences between being featured on the UnBooks or UnNews front page and being featured on the Uncyclopedia front page. I can understand if you don't like UnBooks, but other than personal opinion, there's no real reason not to feature UnBooks, or any other type of page for that matter. And with that, I am open for cross-examination. --EMC ^[TALK] 01:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Expanding on my last post, I propose that votes that go against a nominated UnNews, HowTo:, or UnBooks article, with the reason being opposition of featuring UnNews, HowTo:, or UnBooks, should be voided. --EMC ^[TALK] 01:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Against that proposal. Those reasons are as valid as any others around here. No need to disenfranchise voters because of their type-of-articles-that-are-good-to-feature preferences. Keep the articles on the ballot without discrimination, but don't fuck with voting. --monika 01:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

(Discussion carried to forum...)

• WHY have voting systems for featured unnews articles and unbooks if you're going to put them on vfh as well, it makes the book and news votes superfluous - jack mort | cunt | talk - 02:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's no vote for featured UnNews. The good Rev. Zim chooses what goes up. It's a theocracy. Praise be to Rev. Zim!--Procopius 02:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

well there should be a vote for featured unnews..... someone make one, i'm busy with my animals - jack mort | cunt | talk - 02:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Voting on UnNews would take too long. The UnNews pages have dates. Timing is essential, especially if that article parodies a real story, in which it would lose value after a while. That's only about half of the UnNews stories though. --EMC ^[TALK] 04:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The Uncyclopedian's Song, viz. diversity in features

You people and your bitching about "injokey". . . There's always gonna be injokes written and nommed. Uncyclopedians like their in-jokes: That's why we come up with them, and an occasional featured in-joke promotes solidarity amongst the users, and shows newcomers that we are a community, not just a bunch of random idiots. Short? Yeah, it's not Bohemian Rhapsody, (if it was you'd be bitching it was too long,) but it took over 60 hours of studio time and over 100 vocal takes to get it just so. Until you can do it better, fuck ya if you can't take a joke. :D And now I'll shut up.   Sir Tooltroll, Esq. CUN • Eh? • Oh! • UnTunes! •• I my cat! 09:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hell, I didn't know it took that much work. But as I said, I know it did take a lot of work, and it is very clever and funny. All the regulars will see it here, so to my mind it doesn't need to be on the front. What I reckon would promote solidarity is a little more grace and politeness. Meantime, joke a take can't you if you fuck. Cheers -- Sir Armando Perentie KUN FP 10:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Just giving what I took. And I made a smiley. Sorry if you were offended, but did you see InfiniteMonkey's remark? That was uncalled for, and much less gracious than mine, (which is banter in my neck of the woods.)

What I don't understand is the attitude that only certain things should be featured. What's wrong with diversity? You said it's "Very clever and funny," so what's the problem with it being an in-joke? One of the things that attracted me to this site was the in-jokes. I wanted to be in on them. I got in on some, but I'm sick of all the old in-jokes now (just like everyone else, apparently). . . so, here's a new one, for the recent n00bs to be in on. What's the worst that can happen? Will the feds shut us down?   Sir Tooltroll, Esq. CUN • Eh? • Oh! • UnTunes! •• I my cat! 10:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no worry, no hurry, no chicken, no curry. I'm not offended, and I'm all for in-jokes. I just think that if we feature them we risk looking like we're just blowing smoke up our own arses, if you'll pardon the expression. (And sorry I forgot to add a smiley) -- Sir Armando Perentie KUN FP 11:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Mmmmm. Chicken curry. I would agree that in-jokes should be featured less than half the time, say. I maintain, however, that the occasional featured in-joke shows the world that we're a somewhat cohesive lot, and actually attracts users. As I said, I found the current (at the time) in-jokes appealing when I arrived here, "got" most of them right away, and frankly, I don't think they're as off-putting as some would believe. We're all just tired of the old ones.   Sir Tooltroll, Esq. CUN • Eh? • Oh! • UnTunes! •• I my cat! 12:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, geez. You guys are talking about The Uncyclopedian's Song, right? I'm so tired of that in-joke. La-la-la uncyc...la-la-la uncyc. Yawn. <bop!> Hey! Stop with the hitting! <bop!> I kid because I love... --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 14:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It is to laugh. Just remember, the next one's your fault, and it's shaping up to be a real sicko!   Sir Tooltroll, Esq. CUN • Eh? • Oh! • UnTunes! •• I my cat! 14:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Not...that song! <dum-dum, dum!>--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 14:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thy will be dumb, on Uncyclopedia as it is in Heck.   Sir Tooltroll, Esq. CUN • Eh? • Oh! • UnTunes! •• I my cat! 14:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep this up and you'll be TotM (Tunesmith of the Month). It's like WotM, except that the groupies wear pleated denim skirts and have really big hair. Also, it doesn't exist.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 14:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't suppose there's a real award that comes with, say, a naked fat chick? . . . No. I thought not. >sigh< You can never have too many naked fat chicks. Until you suffocate. Promise me if I'm ever executed it'll be by naked fat chick smotheration, then I'll die happy. And/or horny.   Sir Tooltroll, Esq. CUN • Eh? • Oh! • UnTunes! •• I my cat! 15:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow... that's a lot of work on a Uncyclopedia project... there should be some kind of reward for that...--<<>> 15:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's no way to verify how long it took. Realistically, any logs or screenshots I could provide as "proof" could easily be altered or photoshopped. Thanks for the thought, though.   Sir Tooltroll, Esq. CUN • Eh? • Oh! • UnTunes! •• I my cat! 09:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

60 HOURS?!!?!? -- Sir C  Holla | CUN 23:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I was going to do something simpler (a la Tom Lehrer's The Elements, just piano and vocals), but I kept getting ideas for new instruments and parts for it. The next one will go quicker, since I worked out a few kinks in the process this time. I just haven't started on it yet. I'm lazy. My best estimate is: Started the audio just after I first uploaded the article on the 29th. (I wrote most of the words at work on the back of some old paperwork. I was trying to get something anthemic, like a bunch of guys singing about their team in the pub.) Finished the audio on the 10th. 12 days, about 5ish hours a day. Started with a midi of "Modern Major General's Song," which was just raw mono piano. 40 hrs rewriting the piano to stereo tracks, rearranging it to fit my verse structure, writing & sequencing the parts for the violins, cellos, trumpets, trombones, flute, tympani & percussion. 5 hrs tracking those all to digital audio tracks, processing effects & mixing them. 10 hrs doing vocal take after vocal take (about 100, of which I actually used 10.) Kept getting tongue tied. . . Another 5 hrs adding the vocals to the mix, more processing and mastering. Plus 5+ hours working on the lyrics and article, getting the links all coordinated so they'd be significant to the line of the song. I wanted it to be instructional.   Sir Tooltroll, Esq. CUN • Eh? • Oh! • UnTunes! •• I my cat! 08:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You have absolutely no life do ya? -- Sir C  Holla | CUN 01:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary. I have too much. That's all on top of a full time job, playing in 3 bands, and fixing up a 95 year old house. I just don't sleep much when an idea hits me.   Sir Tooltroll, Esq. CUN • Eh? • Oh! • UnTunes! •• I my cat! 06:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Snore. Nobody cares. --EMC ^[TALK] 22:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Did anybody hear that? Some kind of squeaking noise?   Sir Tooltroll, Esq. CUN • Eh? • Oh! • UnTunes! •• I my cat! 23:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

:-O --EMC ^[TALK] 23:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

:D!   Sir Tooltroll, Esq. CUN • Eh? • Oh! • UnTunes! •• I my cat! 00:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Self-Nom Rules

Someone said yesterday that self-noms need pee reviewing first, but I can't find this rule anywhere? Is this an actual rule? 15Mickey20 13:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes it is. It's below the table o' contents:

"SELF-NOMINATION REGULATION: self-nominated articles (i.e. you write an article and then decide to nominate it yourself) must spend at least one week on pee review before nomination. Articles nominated by people other than the author can still be nominated at any time and require no review (though it is still recommended)." --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 14:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry: stopped searching once I reached the contents. 15Mickey20 15:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Delay it!

I believe Argos should be delayed a day before it gets to the main page, as Americans (who will probably like it less) are all out celebrating Thanksgiving. They will not have a chance to vote on it before it becomes featured. --Goshzilla 16:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite understand you. The article must have been on VFH for two weeks, giving people plenty of time to vote on it, Thanksgiving or not. -- Hindleyite Converse • ?pedia 17:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Goshzilla 19:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm an American and I love it. You don't have to know what an article is about, exactly, to find an article funny. Some seem to believe an article can only be funny if you know what it is in advance, while I believe that if it is funny without knowing exactly what it is beforehand, it's a winner. Sometimes they are funnier after you know more (like this one), but when they start out funny without knowing about the subject, they're that much better and more worthy of feature, at least in my humble opinion. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 03:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely true; (i.e. Waiting for Godot). However, I simply did not feel this was one of those articles, and even after I Wikipedia'd it, it just wasn't that funny. (no offense) --Goshzilla 03:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

bug

many times when i come to the VFH page a bug occurs and every internet page i currently have open, including this one, closes down. why is this. please answer in 15 words or less– Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.151.215.60 (talk • contribs)

BECAUSE YO MOMMA SAYS SO!!!!11!1– Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.72.98.45 (talk • contribs)

It's because the pages up for offer on VFH are just too damn awesome for your computer. Some days the pages are good enough that VFH requires a 6800GT or up, while other days they are so good that you need at least 8800GTX's in SLI just to look at VFH (the pages themselves can require double that). True story.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was getting the same thing for a while. VFH would start loading, then IE would bail on me. I got the IE7 update a few days ago, and it's been ok ever since.  Sir Tooltroll, Esq. CUN • Eh? • Oh! • UnTunes! •• I my cat! 07:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or did the crashes start happening shortly before IE7 came out?--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 08:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, about 2 weeks or so. Have a theory?  Sir Tooltroll, Esq. CUN • Eh? • Oh! • UnTunes! •• I my cat! 08:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That was as far as I got. Then Drama struck Uncyc and I got all distracted.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 08:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Darwin Rule

• An article I nominated (The Prisoner) has been removed by someone citing the "Darwin Rule." This is my first time in VFH - what is the Darwin Rule? -Tritefantastic 21:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

See the first bit of Uncyclopedia:VFH/Discussion#QFH procedure.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Voting

Perhaps it's just my observation, but the VFH seems to be pretty slow lately, as is all voting across Uncyclopedialandtopia. I dunno if people are dying off or what, but your options are simple people: VOTE OR DIE! (unless you're one of the ones who already died off as previously mentioned; in which case I apologize for the inconvenience). That is all. --EMC ^[TALK] 01:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Poo lit/school/work. That's my theory. Of course, I'm quite mad.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 03:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure PLS had something to do with it, I guess we'll see soon.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 06:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, the top 10 of 2006 have been featured recently, so there was no urgent need to vote for features. - 15Mickey20 12:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It's modular A-level exam time in the UK at the moment, so probably quite a few people (well, me at least) have been too busy for reading/voting much. --Sir Jam 13:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

We actually timed several things to happen at once to contribute to a lack of voting. PLS and Top10 going on at once, so people would be focusing on their PLS entries instead of voting. It was by design, and we should see a surge in voting now that it's over.--<<>> 15:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually not over just yet - Only 9 hours left...--<<>> 15:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Brad, I know that as soon as PLS finishes I'm going through the articles and voting for or against accordingly. —Braydie at 15:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I propose a vote to increase the voting on VFH by at least 20%. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I think first it would be wise to hold a vote on the number of percentage points that we plan to increase featured article voting by.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 19:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

We'll need to take a vote on following your proceedure, Tompkins..... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Perhaps a vote on whether said vote is really necessary or not is necessary...   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 19:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally would like to table a motion that ur all ghey, lol --Sir Jam 19:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

<James Dean>These procedural anomalies are...tearing me apart!</James Dean> --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Can an article be de-featured?

Just asking, y'know. The difference between Fascist and Nuremberg Rally is night and day.--Nydas 10:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

See this forum. --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 10:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

So to Nominate an Article

I just write the title at the top of the list and make it a link?--Mullon 22:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hit the "edit" button beside the header "Current Nominations (new stuff at top, prefix votes with *)", then right after the text that says <!-- New entries go on TOP! TOOOOP!!! --> but before the first nominated page, put:

==[[Whatever the page is that you are nominating for VFH. Don't actually put "Whatever the page is that you are nominating for VFH", that would be silly. Rather, you should put the page title of the page that you are nominating here, y'know?]]==

{{s|+1 witty comment of your choice but, as above, don't actually put "witty comment of your choice". You can if you really want. I'm not going to stop you.}}

*'''Nom and for'''witty comment of your choice. Again, don't put "witty comment of your choice". Especially if you really did put "witty comment of your choice" up beside the score. Again, I'm not going to prevent you from doing this should you choose to. I'm just saying, if you accidentally poke out an eye from excessive witty commentationizationing, it's not my fault.

Self noms (noms for pages that you made) must spend a week on Pee Review before you nom them on VFH. Simple, init?--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 00:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try it.--Mullon 20:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this a new and revolutionary idea or another retard?

i saw on the VFH page put for a nom a template. Is this approved by the der fuerers of Uncyclopedia (admins)?  Weasel 3689 03:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

never mind i saw the note  Weasel 3689 04:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, for the rest of you staring in stark bewilderment, Forum:Template:Vote has more details, as well as a place to voice your opinion (using the template, of course). --Ж Kalir _{totally not Wario at all} 05:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Coincidence?

Alcoholics Anonymous gets featured on St. Patrick's day. Huh. --Emmzee the Furious^{Spam me!} _{Don't click here!}

Sounds like destiny to me. --EMC ^[TALK] 00:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Reese's Peanut Butter Cup

This is for anyone who wants to comment on the Reese's PBC article. Remember, the VFH is for voting, not comments and flaming. Trar (talk|contribs|grueslayer)

ALERT: Sockpuppets detected

Please see the entry on Cakeism - four votes from otherwise inactive users. --Medvedev ^(scream) 19:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking into it. —Braydie 19:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Nomination

I nominate the article on insanity. – Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.113.150 (talk • contribs)

Nominating a page on the VFH talkpage? That's crazy.

Near the top of VFH is the "Current nominations..." header. Hit "edit". You'll see the following;

{{Vote

|article=

|nom=

|scoretext=

|fornumber=

|for=

|againstnumber=

|against=

|comments=

}}

Copy and paste at the bottom of the edit page. Then fill in, like so;

{{Vote

|article=[[Insanity]]

|nom=[[User:67.171.113.150|67.171.113.150]]

|scoretext=crazy crazies hooked on crazy

|fornumber=.5

|for=

#Madness! [[User:67.171.113.150|67.171.113.150]]

|againstnumber=0

|against=

|comments=

}}

Then sit back and watch your favourite page get mercilessly butchered on VFH. Joy for all comrades! --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 21:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

From VFH

This "VFH is Runing low!1 oh nowz~~!!!" box is a little retarded. When a person (linked from the Main Page) clicks the link and comes here, their first instinct is to nominate rather than vote. That floods it and causes unnecessary removals. Though I can't say exactly how it should be handled, I think the current method will continue to cause problems regardless of the note on this page. --THINKER 16:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That's why I asked people to limit their nominations. The request for more voting won't be permanent or anything - I'm basically hoping that people who may never have bothered to come to VFH decide to stick around and become good voting citizens for the long haul. —rc (t) 20:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the voting is too low, except for the newest 5 nominations. Perhaps limit the page to 20, so that voting is concentrated among fewer articles. No one is going to read 25 articles. You might even limit it to 15. Rogpyvbc 00:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I read all 25 :P Ceridwyn^talk _contribs ^arc2.0 10:37, 06 May 2007

Pee review/IP

Why does something have to spend a week on Pee review before self-nom? Some articles are on pee review for a month before being reviewed, others only a few days. It would be better to say it has to have been reviewed at least once. That would encourage improvements, rather than sitting for a week without response and them self-nominating anyway.

Should IP addresses get votes at all? It means people could have 1.5 votes, and in other cases people who share an IP address can't both vote. It would be better I think to limit it to registered members. IPs can always register.Rogpyvbc 00:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

We had a bunch of selfnoms that, ahem, weren't very good. The rule was instituted to help them improve before hitting VFH. IP's get votes because their people too. Anonymous people. Forcing people to register takes away that whole "...wiki that anyone can edit...", leaving it a shallow husk. An empty gourd, if you will. Also, while the danger of sockpuppetry is always an, um, danger, we've got people with great big eyes who are on the lookout for such things. --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 00:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You haven't really addressed my concern about the week on pee review. I didn't say they shouldn't be on pee review, just that it makes no sense to make it an arbitrary week when articles are reviewed in different lengths of time.Rogpyvbc 02:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That some sit there for ages is unfortunate. But the 1-week rule seems an acceptable compromise. "Must have been pee reviewed by at least one user" may be a better rule. We're always adapting and improved. Soon we'll all be cyborgs. True story. --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"Must have been pee reviewed by at least one user, or on pee review for at least one week" would be the best rule. Why should an article be precluded from VFHing, because other people can't be bothered to review it? Admittedly, the best pages tend to get reviewed quicker, as it's easy to review an excellent article, but forcing writers to wait months for a review is theoretically unfair. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  19:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur and have changed the guidelines accordingly. —rc (t) 21:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been noticing an increasingly large amount of crap being self-nominated by its authors. I know that there's a self-nom rule, and the shite is by and large being shot down, but maybe we should make the self-nom guidelines stricter. Maybe changing it so that you must get a positive Pee Review to post it up or something. I'm not really sure, but all I know is that there's too much crap cluttering space where other, more deserving articles may have gone.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 17:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No. While it's annoying when cruft attacks, more rules is more badder. You can always vote against. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 17:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I figured as much. I agree, but there's just so much, well, bad, that I was wondering if administrative action should be taken. But yes, I will vote against. Additionally, thank you for responding so promptly, I'm impressed.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 18:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Retaliatory vote

Perhaps an admin could look at the Global Cooling entry. Dantoller has voted against it because I nominated his article "Retard" for deletion (see most recent archive). He even acknowledges his vote is a "personal beef." Can his vote be discarded? Rogpyvbc

Problem solved, he took it back. Rogpyvbc 17:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

UnNews

Should UnNews articles be given higher voting priority? Since they relate to current events, and all, they could get stale and irrelevant if left starving on VFH for too long. -- 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 20:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No. "Stale" and "irrelevant" don't strike me as good things for the Best of, IMO. If it's well written it will still hold up, but if it's so topical that it won't make sense in a year, I wouldn't vote for it at all, much less give it priority over other pages. (I think if you look at the featured UnNews', you'll see that most either aren't the "right now" kind of topical, or they aren't topical at all.) Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Modusoperandi completely. Stale and irrelevant ones tend to die off, and that makes perfect sense. A featured article shouldn't have to have that "at-the-moment" characteristic to be able to be understood. It should be able to be enjoyed months or even years later. --EMC ^[TALK] 21:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Clara Bow

This article was supposed to be featured. What happened? ?_?--BEWARE OF THIS COMMUNIST USER!!! 16:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[2] --monika 17:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ekrpat

My article was recently removed on the count of a "Darwin Rule Level 6", and I have read the Darwin Rule several times over, and despite still not thoroughly understanding it, I still don't understand why it was removed. It was only 2 days old and had score of +5, and prior to being removed, it was in between SweeTarts with +2 (which also got removed) and Illegal Aliens from Outer Space (which had 10 at the time and is an MO article). -- 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 19:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeing it as between Illegal Aliens... at +10 and My Chemical... at +8, here. Take heart, good Froggy, VFH is a cruel and unusual punishment. "'Tis better to have been nom'd and lost than to have never been nom'd at all." Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 19:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Damn you with your instantly popular articles! -- 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 19:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Owowow... do not throw the envy card... That's diselegant. -- herr doktor needsAbeam  [scream!] 19:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be envious or anything, just whiny. Having good feedback on VFH, then having it abruptly removed after only 2 days because an intensely popular article just happens to nudge in right above you... it just seems illogical to me. -- 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 19:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeh, well. Shit happens. I've had plenty of articles that had the same thing happen...a smattering of tepid applause is still applause, eh? As I said before, sort of, get used to it, roll up your sleeves and have a nice bowl of soup. You do like soup, don't you? But I digress. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you have to pay attention in who is giving you feedback at Pee Review. You know, we now have lots of kind-hearted newbies who display enthusiasm somewhat easier than the grumpy veterans at VFH. About this article in particular, it's a practical joke, an one-note article. Nothing wrong with this, but also not my favourite style. So I turned into abstaining. Keep the hard work, I had to write 5 (long) articles myself before my first featuring. -- herr doktor needsAbeam  [scream!] 20:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Protecting pages while featured?

I don't know if this has come up before -- my article was vandalized 11 times by the same person the day it was featured. Fortunately due to some helpful people such as HerrDoktor and The KillerFroggy the vandalism didn't last long. But it seems it would make sense that featured articles should be temporarily protected the day they're featured, or while they're mentioned on the front page. Slithy Tove 05:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Aw, I take it in stride: my article is featured so prominently that its being vandalized by idiots. :) --THINKER 06:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That's half the fun of getting a feature. It's only for a couple of days, and it's the wiki that anyone can edit. Plus, every once in a while, someone makes a good edit. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 06:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't they use to half-protect Featured pages from IPs after they hit the front page? -- 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 01:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That was something that just kind of...happened at one point. Not policy. And for the record, I'm against arbitrary protection guidelines...article protection should be on a case-by-case basis. —rc (t) 02:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, but it must be annoying for admins to have to keep reverting. Slithy Tove 01:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats why there's 90 of them :) --THINKER 01:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be admins who revert, my cat can do it too. The Oblong Lobster 11:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Crap

I have noticed a recent rash of re-nominations of Darwin'd articles mere days after they were voted off of the island. If I were Jeff Beck, I'd be insulted, but since I'm but a boy, I'm merely annoyed. Perhaps there should be an addition to the rules that states "An article that has been voted off may not be renominated for <insert arbitrary amount of time here>."

I think at the very least they should be significantly changed before they're renominated. The Oblong Lobster 13:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I just think that a strict "no-tolerance" rule should be in place. You know?-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 13:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This is all based on a false presumption that the darwin'd articles were "voted off". They weren't voted off anywhere, that's only the -3 removal which is not the same as darwin. Darwin'd articles don't suck... it's just an administrative rule so VFH doesnt get too stuffed at any one time. Plenty of good stuff gets darwin'd. --» His Majesty King George VI (the boxes) 23:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The minus 3 rule is part of Darwin, but that is beside the point, which is that whatever you want to call it, crap is getting renominated, and that's not good.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 23:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I just think the irony's hilarious...

It's interesting to note that the article nihilism, a completely white article, not only got nominated and accepted for the front page but then was considered one of the top articles of 2005.

And so for that reason (along with the fact that I generally thought the article was good enough) I nominated Blackout, a completely black article, and it gets vetoed off in in a half hour. --* 01:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It might have something to do with how we already featured nihilism and how blackout is pretty much the same article but less witty and more ugly. --monika 01:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What she said. Already been done = don't do again. -- 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 01:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That, and we're all racist. --EMC ^[TALK] 01:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Especially emc. He's the most racist. Him, and his kind. They're all like that.--<<>> 03:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Remember when Ross Perot was running for president? Once, he was giving a speech and called the NAACP "...you people.". Classic. That's why I hate white people. Well, not hate. Is rubbing up against them in an elevator an emotion? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 03:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's important to keep in mind that our standards have increased ever so slightly since 2005. A quick look at the best articles of 2005 and 2006 will tell you that. I'd say the same is true of the 2007 articles. The steady march of progress moves us onward.--<<>> 03:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

By 2009, for example, scientists predict that our featured articles will have silver jumpsuits. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 03:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I have to say that some of the articles on VFH are bound to be comedic classics, transcending time. As for you, Citation-Seer, I think that your complaint is unfounded. Nihilism was well done, completely blanking the page of everything but the bare minimum. Blackout, however, is just a large image that may not even render correctly in some people's browsers. Furthermore, it takes a very long time to load and doesn't even cover everything. Sorry buddy, you're wrong here.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 17:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't take me wrong; it's not a complaint. I understand and agree. I just thought it was funny. --* 15:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoa

Is it just me or did all the articles currently on VFH just disappear? -- Phlegm Leoispotter * (garble! jank!) 18:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, someone fixed it.-- Phlegm Leoispotter * (garble! jank!) 18:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Chatter

I don't really mind the commenting, but I think we should try to hold it down in the For and against sections. I think its kinda starting to do a disservice to the articles. Unless an article does the overnight 20 votes thing, the regular in-between scorers aren't getting read when lots of peripheral banter is taking place in these sections. Lets keep it to the comments section (use Re:Some user or something if responding to a For or Against comment). The article you save may be your own.. man. --THINKER 19:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, I have VFH watchlisted, so I saw this comment. And I agree. It's a problem.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 23:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, these comments have got the page loaded like a freight train. I've seen so many, I'm flying like an aeroeplane, and feeling like a space brain. 20 bucks cents for whoever gets that reference. ;) P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 05:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Guns N Roses - Night Train, off Appetite For Destruction. And yes, even though I'm often the perpetrator of these things, the comments are cluttering the page. Let's keep it to the comments section. -RAHB 05:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

lol, ya got me, RAHB. I shoulda used a more obscure song, instead of my favorite one on the album. Oh, and just now I was watching GNR vids on youtube, and have concluded that Slash > Buckethead. Also; the sky is blue on sunny days. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 06:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

See, already I've done good by keeping a GNR comment off this page. I feel like I've accomplished something today. :) --THINKER 06:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A retarded man with an IQ of 4 could realize that Slash > Buckethead. No contest. -RAHB 08:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ouch, have you heard Buckethead's Bermuda Triangle? I think he's awesome. And Slash is cool, and a good player, but still GNR is rather ridiculous. I'm always amazed at Axl's ability to take himself so seriously... (its good that we're now chattering in the discussion topic about chattering, oy..)--THINKER 08:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Buckethead is cool, Slash just beats him. The most amusing thing I find about Axl is the fact that he has about 92 different singing voices. -RAHB 08:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Thinker. Guns 'n' Roses is a rather poor band. A few good songs, but by and large I could live without 'em. Especially the fat one who takes a million years to make an album. What's his name again?-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 12:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, he's a cartoon now, much like Whitney Houston, Michael Jackson, etc, but few things rocked as hard as G&R, back in the day. You're forgetting to view it through the blurry glasses of nostalgia. What page are we voting on again? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 14:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, seeing as "the day" of GNR was the '80s, you're right. But wasn't Axl Rose the same always? Or was he just putting on the retarded air when he suggested that the video for Sweet Child o'Mine be about a drug mule baby adopted by an Asian woman?-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 14:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

When it comes right down to it, isn't everything about a drug mule baby that's adopted by an Asian woman? That's a Zen koan, I believe. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 14:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Can't argue with that logic (translation: I'm fresh outta non-sequitur replies).-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 14:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Chinese Democracy, out April 5th 2075. -RAHB 20:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Nom sig

Why is it that when I nominate an article, my sig doesn't seem to be showing up? Something wrong with the sig itself, or am I doing something wrong? P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 20:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you using the tildes or {{u|TheLedBalloon}}? --THINKER 21:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

He uses tildes. I added the {{u|TheLedBalloon}} so people wouldn't complain.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 21:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

People complain about that? I use the tildes usually.. --THINKER 21:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I usually use the tildes, but my sig won't show up in the nom. It's pretty strange... P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 22:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Neh, you misunderstand. He used ~~~~ to sign the nom. It didn't show up. I changed it because an empty nom box is a sign of weakness.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 22:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Neh I understand fine; look at Tuesdays with Maury; signed with tildes in the nom box. --THINKER 22:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Fix'd. Apparently, I have to type something in the box before I sign for the sig to show up. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 22:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a weird bug where you have to have five tidles (or ~~~~~ for the illiterate) instead of hitting the sign button (which gives you --~~~~). I don't know why, but it's sexy.--<<>> 23:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Five tildes forces just a timestamp, though! Why would we want that?-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 02:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I um... meant four.--<<>> 11:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, like I said, it's not a problem anymore, I found a solution. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Like the new lay out and voting system but...

I miss Hitler bear and Stalin bear and Yalta Bear reminding me to focus on quality... Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 23:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That's VFP, silly. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 01:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You are right - excuse me while I go floss my brain. Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 01:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I hate the new VFH. It doesn't show up on my watchlist when it's been edited. -- The fatgoat Talk (to me, obviously) The Crap I've Done 04:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the only thing I dislike about it. But it does force me to stop being lazy and actually check VFH once in a while -RAHB 04:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

ya, I have the same issue. Although, it is nice to be able to monitor just your own article's VFH page. That way, I can be constantly watching myself as I fail, and punch myself in the head with each against. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 04:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I think I'm going to write a brilliant VFH-worthy article now just so I can experience this convenience. -RAHB 04:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Easier said than done, my friend. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 04:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, what are we talking about, and why are we talking about it on the old VFH talkpage? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 05:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Good points all around. But the VFH overview talk redirects here. -RAHB 07:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the view. "All nominations" leads here, while "VHF overview" goes over there. Odd. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 08:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Thinker discussed the same qualm. Unfortunately, there is no way to watch it, but there is something. You can look at the related changes page or you could look at the VFH forum. Either way, it's a little more work, as there is no watching to be done, but both show you the most recent changes to VFH. Cheerio.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 11:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

But that's like....TWO CLICKS! Plus some scrolling, and maybe even another click if you wanna go back to the last page to see. Too much work says RAHB, the holder of too much time. -RAHB 18:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)