User talk:Hyperbole/VFG

I am bit worried about this. This might turn out to be an alternative to VFH which is already not in a good state. ~ 15:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I dunno about an alternative to VFH - my worry, as stated in my edit comment essay, is that people might start to suffer from voting overkill. I'm all for highlighting decent articles in some way (there are a bunch I can think of that will probably never see feature but are still quite decent), and I applaud Hype's intentions and attempts to make something new and decent happen, but... Well, we'll see... --UU - natter 15:45, Feb 13

I applaud his sister's good looks mainly. ~ 15:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

His sister does weird things... anyhoo I think this is a bad idea, for various reasons, mostly I don't like ideas for the site and policy stuff.--Sycamore (Talk) 16:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it Mordillo, most people who end up voting here, will probably also vote on VFH. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 15:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, as UU mentioned, we have too many votage pages as it is. ~ 15:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Please head over to VFH and cast some votes for good articles. If VFH voting does not pick up by next Tuesday, Mhaille will use British charm to seduce this puppy.

Maybe we should put something like this on the top. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 15:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I think Uncyclopedia definitely needs something to honor good-but-not-feature-quality articles and articles which are generally designated as "unfeaturable" or "too injoky". VFG succeeds where VFH fails. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 16:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well

As it's just a little informal userpage I'm gonna invite people to vote on, I don't think it can do much harm. Just a little side project tucked away in a back corner of the Uncyclopedia. And maybe the list it generates will be a lot of fun. pillow talk 16:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Good luck to you! --UU - natter 16:19, Feb 13

Fun? INCONCEIVABLE! ~ 16:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hallo! My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die! --UU - natter 16:22, Feb 13

Ha ha! You've just made the most common mistake in land warfare! ~ 16:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Vote total issues

Is +5 total "for" votes enough to qualify as a "good article" regardless of against votes? I think it should be higher, like +7 or so.--Mnb'z 19:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. It kind of depends on how many Uncyclopedians are interested in watchlisting this page. I think after a few weeks we should have a sense of whether the numbers need to be changed. pillow talk 19:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

But +5 total is only one more than +4 net votes. That makes "not good" votes meaningless. --Mnb'z 05:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I had that same thought, and kicked it up to +6. pillow talk 06:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Quasi-Quasi-Featured Articles

Here are a list of articles that didn't make quasi featured, but got atleast +4 votes on VFH. (This is out of the last 300 failed nominations.) Most of these have been read by several users, since they were on VFH within the last 6 months. So, they can be nominated whenever this gets slow. --Mnb'z 05:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• UnScripts:Calthorpe's Comeuppance 6
• UnNews:Adam Sandler expresses concerns that his next film ‘might not be shitty enough’ 5.5
• Ghetto White Boy Syndrome 5
• Porpoise of Life 4.5
• UnPoetia:T.S. Elliot Is Dead 4.5
• Tae Pwn Do 4.5
• Logic 4.5
• UnNews:McCain campaign limits candidates' vocabulary 4
• Joe the Plumber 4
• Brevity 4

After going through the list of failed nominations, there really isn't that many articles that get quasi-featured or are near quasi-featured. --Mnb'z 07:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Note, I removed some that were featured or quasi-featured from a different nomination. I should have checked that first. --Mnb'z 07:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

Do new nominations go on the top or the bottom? --Mnb'z 05:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

From the top. Not that I'm gonna exactly enforce that real hard, but that's where they go. pillow talk 07:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Cajek

Did you get permission to re-organize this? I'm asking because I don't want to nominate and vote, then have Hype come back and change his page to back how it was. --Mnb'z 04:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't get permission, but I didn't change too much. He said anyone could smith this page, and that's what I did. The most important things I changed was getting rid of the whoring VFH thing, which is totally unnecessary, and the +4/6 rule (+4 points and it automatically becomes a good article/6 for votes, no matter the score, and it becomes a good article) to the slightly harder to reach +5/7 rule.   Le Cejak • <14:10 Jun 12, 2009>

The whoring VFH thing was there because a couple admins were highly skeptical of this project and worried it would divert attention from VFH. The numbers were set at +4/6 because, frankly, we haven't had five people who even visit this page. I don't mind the changes, though. It's nice to see the project hasn't been totally abandoned. pillow talk 15:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, +5 now, because I'M whoring it. As far as VFH goes, it gets too much attention. The big, scary cabal is not existing having a secrety secret meeting saying that whoring on VFH is killing us! WE'RE DOOMED! DOOOOOOOOOMED! So I says to myself, bah, VFH gets enough attention.   Le Cejak • <15:45 Jun 12, 2009>

I really don't think there is a problem with too much voting. And even if VFH loses votes, it will still function so long as it has even a few voters. I don't why some people think more VFH voting is good; its actually a rather time consuming activity when you consider that there are 15-20 voters per article. More votes for an article don't do anything, one can not vote into an article. --Mn-z 16:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Dead around here

Is anyone going to vote on this page? --Mn-z 04:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

We ought to have templates... really small ones? That might get people's attention. Plus, I'll get back to voting soon, I'm on my break.   Le Cejak • <5:16 Jun 18, 2009>

Templates for articles that pass? Sounds good. Small like the Top Ten ones. Staircase CUN^t 05:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Not yet, young one! Templates for articles that are up for consideration. We take them off whether they win or lose so that we don't get TOO much attention from the higher-ups.   Le Cejak • <5:23 Jun 18, 2009>

Oh. ok. Staircase CUN^t 05:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Screw the higher ups. A small template on the bottom of the article that links to the complete list of "good articles" would be a good idea. There is a complete list somewhere isn't there? I'm far too lazy to read any of this. -OptyC Sucks! CUN14:45, 18 Jun

User:Hyperbole/Good articles --Mn-z 16:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Features

If a good article becomes featured, seeing as the abridged pop songs one is about to, does it get removed from the good songs list? Don Puttano cHeDDs 03:50,21June,2009

Yeah, I think it's best if this list doesn't duplicate the list of FAs or QFAs. If something passes VFH, it gets promoted right on out of here. FA > QFA > VFG > ignored > deleted. pillow talk 06:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, could we keep it on the list, but striken? We should show off each feature we get out of VFG.   Le Cejak • <6:44 Jun 21, 2009>

I don't have a problem with that... pillow talk 06:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, that might turn this into a "whore for VFH zone" instead of a "vote for good articles." If too many VFH quality articles are nominated, it could crowd-out the merely good ones. --Mn-z 03:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that's actually a good thing. I was thinking about that. Pee Review has historically kind of been a "whore for VFH zone" - full of articles people don't really want help with. They just want a review so they can self-nom. It's a lot better that they bring their article here and have a few eyes glance at it to see if it should be VFH'ed - far less of a waste of reviewer time. pillow talk 06:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least this would be a clever way to whore for VFH. Hyperbole has a captive audience in this place, huh? God damn clever whore. But yeah,  For whore   Le Cejak • <14:51 Jun 22, 2009>

Well, voting on here is less wasted work than a pee review. --Mn-z 05:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Not Enough

The limit needs to be more than 7 days. This is supposed to be similar to VFH, in which articles stay on for up to a month, and that's with 30-some people voting every day. Something being closed with only 2-3 people having voted is simply ridiculous. Don Puttano cHeDDs 01:32,23June,2009

21 days, as that is the second best number ever. Right after 42. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 01:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There have to be some limits: 7 days. If it can't get enough votes in a week it'll probably never make it.   Le Cejak • <1:56 Jun 23, 2009>

No, not 7 days. Most can't get enough in 7 days because there isn't very many people coming to this page. If it has to have 5 to pass, there's no way that'll happen if only 3 people see the page. There are some limits, but 7 days is way to strict. If VFH articles only stayed on for 7 days, a lot of good articles would be left out. Also, seeing as only about 2 things are added to this page per week, it's gonna be about abandoned before long.

But it's technically Hyperbole's page. Let him decide. Don Puttano cHeDDs 02:06,23June,2009

Yeah, he could do anything he wants to this page. However, I'm gonna be pretty intransigent on this issue. If he, say, made it 14 days, I'm gonna start voting on VFD.   Le Cejak • <4:06 Jun 23, 2009>

Mom!! Cajek is making threats!! Seriously, though, I think the "re-nom it next month if it fails due to timeout" rule solves the problem. Think the article should be promoted? Just wait a bit, whore VFG a bit, and then re-nom :) pillow talk 11:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That's true, Hype: I like the renom rule.   Le Cejak • <13:43 Jun 23, 2009>

But it doesn't really solve the problem if the exact same thing is still happening a month later. Don Puttano cHeDDs 16:11,23June,2009

I would say 14 days is more reasonable. Articles commonly stay on VFH for weeks. We don't want to remove articles that are a vote or two away from being a good article, espeically when there are only a few other nominations on this page. --Mn-z 16:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Word. Don Puttano cHeDDs 17:40,23June,2009

Articles that stay on VFH for weeks almost always have more than seven "for" votes. pillow talk 17:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but VFH has more voters and a health system. Therefore, it doesn't boot articles that are a vote or two away from passing, unless the article has been on there for a while. Also, Uterus or GTFO! (for example) got a total of 15 votes (7 for, 8 against) in 3 days on VFH, while it only got 6 votes (4 for, 2 abstain) in 8 days on VFG.

It only got 5 total votes in the 7 day time limit, and I don't think there was much "silent abstaining". It was already on VFH, and it was a short article, meaning it would get more votes than average. HowTo:Exploit 9/11 only got 4 total votes in the time limit. I'm afraid if we keep the 7 day limit, we will be failing too many good articles.

I would suggest the following rule changes:

• Change to 14 days.
• Have a simple "health system" I.e. 7 days if the article is at +2 or lower, 14 days if the article is at +3 or +4.
• Have a total nomination limit (say 10 or so) with the time limits. Any article under a week old is safe, any article over 2 weeks gets removed. If there are more than 10 (or however many) articles and articles over a week old, the oldest nominations get removed. --Mn-z 18:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to rule that we're keeping "7 day limit with permitted renom" at least through the end of July, and then if it looks like we don't have enough activity to make that system work, let's open the floor back up for debate on rule changes. Fair enough? I don't think it does us any good to make a rule and then tweak it before we see whether it works. I also really don't want to see a nomination limit unless it becomes absolutely necessary. For now, the most important thing we can do is encourage more participation... pillow talk 19:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Awww, Ma! Come on Ma! Can't we just have Seven and a Quarter days? Please Ma! Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 19:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Death is a cruel mistress

I think that this page is kind of, well, dead, seeing as the most recent article posted is from almost 2 weeks ago. Don Puttano cHeDDs 23:31,19July,2009

Yeah, it's not doing well right now. I think I could make it work if I made a consistent effort to whore it, but I've been busy. pillow talk 17:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The moral of the story is: If you want to succeed, don't have a life. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 18:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

How about...

I like the idea of VFG but the articles seem not to be going anywhere. How about everyone just whoring good articles for portals instead? I for one like to have good stuff pointed to me, for Science portal. I do change it every now and then. Of course what gets featured on those is up to whoever runs the portal - but finding good articles among the crud is so time-consuming that I think anyone who runs a portal will feature most suggestions in time. -- Style  Guide 19:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I would describe that as something entirely different from this. pillow talk 20:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, it probably is. Anyway VFG is a good idea - I'll try to remember to check it for portal stuff when I feel too lazy to pick it from the Science category. I unrest my case. -- Style  Guide 05:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay.

It's the end of July, and it's become obvious that a one-week timeout is way too short. I'm changing it to one month. pillow talk 22:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And on a totally unrelated note, this place is dead again. --Mn-z 04:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well, it's August. pillow talk 07:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

On another totally unrelated note, is anyone planning on voting here soon? --Mn-z 16:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently not... --Mn-z 04:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll... get to it. At some point, VFG will live again!! pillow talk 06:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Scratched out articles, change?

Hi. An idea. On the Good articles listing the pages which went on to be Featured are now crossed out. Why not uncross them and add later Featured in bold red instead. The honor of a Good vote is complete unto itself, and for a page to be both Good and Featured is, imnho, a double honor and a double contribution to the value of Uncy. Aleister in Chains 3:25 19 3 MMX

 For.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  19 Mar 2010 ~ 06:04 (UTC)

Revive and conquer

I applaud the idea of a "good article" category, as I said on the Village Dump. Not only should this page get up and running again, it should become an official voting page ASAP. --Scofield 11:24, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with everything but the ASAP. If Uncyclopedia's base of regulars were to double in size, I think this should be given official status. As it is right now, it's hard enough to get 10 VFH votes. You weren't here in 2007, but back then articles were often featured at about +25 or +30 votes: we have less than half the regular userbase we did then. We can't have something leaching attention away from the voting pages that really need to function, at least not right now. pillow talk 18:02, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

Whenever the time's right, dude. But it better happen. --Scofield 15:37, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

Per Hyperbole, as I've indicated several times in the past when it's difficult to get VFH votes, I don't want to introduce another voting page that will dilute the voting even further. Unfortunately, we don't have a user base as large as Wikipedia, so not everything that works for them, works for us. ~ 15:43, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

VFG Template Prototype

Good Article	Good version: {{{date}}}
This article is considered to be of Good Quality. This means that it does NOT suck, and might even be funny for certain people. However, if you DARE try to get this featured on the front page, we will smite you harder than God ever had the guts to smite anybody! P.S- You can vote for Good articles at VFG.

[[Template:FA/]][[Template:FA/]]

Here's my prototype for the VFG template, to be used if and when this becomes an official voting page. Not that I'm pushing for it to happen anytime soon, though. Just tell me what you all think! --Scofield 10:44, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

PS- I've worked this from the Featured Article template. You can work out the bugs whenever you plan on actually using this. --Scofield 10:51, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

I have some issues with it. The message should be "Good Article", not "Good Job" - it's a label, not a report card. And the bit about not nomming the page for VFH could be confusing to someone who's new here. But, of course, the biggest issue is that I think people might get upset if we start slapping these at the bottom of pages. pillow talk 17:58, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and also, I think it just added this talk page to Category:Featured. pillow talk 17:59, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I actually derived this from the VFH template- everything tagged with it will go into that category. --Scofield 18:44, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

And like I said, there's no need to start using this until this becomes an official voting page. --Scofield 18:46, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

I'd seriously suggest reformatting this template so that its not a featured template. As its formatted right now, its template that is a featured template with parameters already added. Templates that contain other templates are generally a bad idea, since it can cause coding issues, which can break pages. --Mn-z 19:11, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

"Work out the bugs whenever you actually plan on using it." didn't I make myself clear with that? --Scofield 14:43, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

The bugs are from your own poor implementation, and are already impacting matters by putting both the template and the pages on which it is placed within a category in which they do not belong. Perhaps fixing it yourself would be a good... learning experience. 1234 ~ 14:54, 21 February 2011

Per above. --Mn-z 21:50, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

I've made some adjustments, sort of... --Scofield 08:07, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

At least it's not breaking things anymore. Thank you for that much. 1234 ~ 16:28, 23 February 2011