Forum:On re-featuring an improved featured article...
Well, stm has gone and made a special edition of one of his articles that really didn't deserve to be featured in the first place (in fact, of the articles that had been featured, I'd rank the one he improved as being one of the worst. Not any more). How should we handle this? It's obviously WAY better than it was, but we don't as yet have a method for two features for one article. Ideas?--<<
>> 23:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'd be inclined to say, don't feature it. I think it's a good thing that STM is working to improve his old articles, and I think that's a lead we should follow. Other than n00bs, of course, who have no old articles. But I digress. I think that there is more than enough good new material coming through, and as such there's no need to drag up old ones, even if they have been spruced up.
- Back in the day, a few articles were skipped to the front of the queue because they were mentioned in newspapers, and if I remember rightly, Phonics was one of these (I can't be sure, because I can't find the entry for phonics in the VFH logs). What does this mean? It means a random non-Uncyclopedian found the article and thought it a) funny, and b) funny enough to tell other people about. And that, Ladies and Gents, is what the Featured Article is supposed to be for. I know we tend to forget that, and look at VFH as an ego boost/popularity contest. I know I do. But really, it's there as a form of advertisement for Uncyc, and I'd say that the original phonics performed that task admirably. Its duty done, don't send it back to the front, but let it rest in peace. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 00:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- I see it as more of a formality; I merely intended to improve an article to current standards. I would prefer to un-feature the 2005 Phonics and leave whether to feature the new Phonics up to today's voters. I think that most people who have come recently (January 2006 and later) would not even recognize the old one and, if ignorant to the old version, would vote for on the new one. I wouldn't even add it to my Hall of Shame total. I just want to be able to look through all the featured articles (both mine and others) and see that each of them definitely deserve to be in the "Best of" category. --
01:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- I see it as more of a formality; I merely intended to improve an article to current standards. I would prefer to un-feature the 2005 Phonics and leave whether to feature the new Phonics up to today's voters. I think that most people who have come recently (January 2006 and later) would not even recognize the old one and, if ignorant to the old version, would vote for on the new one. I wouldn't even add it to my Hall of Shame total. I just want to be able to look through all the featured articles (both mine and others) and see that each of them definitely deserve to be in the "Best of" category. --
- Moose, I can't speak for everyone, but I don't have an issue with you increasing your bag on Hall of Shame. I don't have a problem with you receiving recognition for your work - I think phonics would be hard to beat in the "Best Rewrite" category on the next PLS. What's more, the 2005 stuff in the Featured Articles category still gets a lot of traffic - I know this from the number of times I've had to go and fix fascist - so if you're worried that your rewrite will go unnoticed, I'd think again.
- My problem is, while I'm all for improving older articles, I'd that the highlighted article should showcase our current output rather than old favorites reworked. They don't give Oscars out to remakes, and I don't think we should either. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 07:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- I see your point, Ben. But I think you would be right if the case were re-voting on old featured articles without re-working them. I don't think it would be a good idea to vote on a featured article from October 2005 on whether it's still good in order to put it on the front page again. In this case, however, the difference between the old article and the new is so extreme that they're essentially entirely different articles. And if I recall correctly, this year's best picture The Departed is a remake of a film from Hong Kong. 2005 Uncyc and 2007 Uncyc are as different as Hong Kong and America -- 16:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- I see your point, Ben. But I think you would be right if the case were re-voting on old featured articles without re-working them. I don't think it would be a good idea to vote on a featured article from October 2005 on whether it's still good in order to put it on the front page again. In this case, however, the difference between the old article and the new is so extreme that they're essentially entirely different articles. And if I recall correctly, this year's best picture The Departed is a remake of a film from Hong Kong. 2005 Uncyc and 2007 Uncyc are as different as Hong Kong and America --
- If somebody wants to VFH it, they should. It's pretty much a new article, after all. We can give it a new FA template with a different date if it succeeds. And maybe a second star? -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 07:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- My problem is, while I'm all for improving older articles, I'd that the highlighted article should showcase our current output rather than old favorites reworked. They don't give Oscars out to remakes, and I don't think we should either. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 07:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
What about an "author recommends" template that gives a newer version than the one featured, in cases like this one where the article has been vastly improved since it was featured. Not only would this be a good way to highlight old articles that have been improved, but it'd also be incentive for authors to improve their old works. Also, I've been thinking that we could have a spot for the Uncyclopedia:Hall of Shame on the front page that's not entirely unlike the featured picture (in about the same area) where we highlight one of the articles of one of our best writers, but that's unrelated to this discussion except that in his blurb for this article, stm could use the new article as a base instead of the old one. Anyway, there are those ideas.--<<>> 12:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- I really like the "author recommends" idea - and not only for featured articles, but ones that attract a lot of crap so we've got a point of comparison for tidying (although I guess that would technically be "editor recommends"). Just so long as it doesn't get used for nefarious edit warring purposes... and if it does it's easy enough to just remove altogether. -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 17:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
So...
Can we come to some sort of conclusion here so I can know whether to put it back on VFH? I think this conversation was necessary but made people hold back their votes, thus leading to stagnation and invocation of the Darwin rule. -- 15:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- I personally think it would be best if you made an "author recommends" template for your article, stm, so that you can direct people to a version of it that you think is worthy of the featured tag. It'd also encourage other authors to do updates of their old featured articles. I think we get enough great articles coming in on a daily basis that many think that re-featuring great articles of the past is kinda pointless. Also, I couldn't help but notice that kitten-related human fatalities still hasn't been featured, and was VFH for a long time when everyone was tired of kittens. That may be a new feature for you with just a little bit of re-working, but that's just a gentle suggestion.--<<>> 16:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- The thing is, this really isn't a "great article of the past" anymore. It's a total re-write, four times longer than the old article and with just about everything but the first sentence looking completely different. Kitten huffing was featured twice despite looking basically the same each time. It would be nice for such a total overhaul to get a bit of front page time if the new revision is deemed as featured article quality. -- 16:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- OK, stm. I'm very sympathetic. The second article is leaps and bounds better than the original. If it appeared on VFH Today, without the prior featuring, I think we both know it'd make it. There are plenty of new articles to be featured, though, and the voters prefer new blood to old, even if your article is a near-complete rewrite of the old one, it's still based on the same original basic premise, and written by the same author, so it's seen as a second version of the same thing, albeit far superior. As far as the kitten huffing precedent, wasn't that back when anything could get featured, regardless of votes? I don't think you can reach that far back in Uncyclopedia history and claim that is a precedent for how things should be featured now. If you wanna put it back up on VFH, I won't vote against, because the article is just too damn good, but there are a lot of users who will, and don't think that's something you should put yourself through again. That's what I think, anyway.--<<>> 16:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- You make valid points. However, I consider kitten huffing a precedent because it was initially featured when the voting system was new and barely used. It was featured again in August 2005, when VFH had become a pretty solid feature. The same thing applies here; Phonics was featured in early 2005 due to being cited in a major newspaper, but now should be given the VFH treatment. I agree that we should feature new articles, but I still believe this is a completely new article. Kitten huffing didn't require hardly any re-writing between its first and second feature. Phonics is all-new. -- 18:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- By the looks of what Bradaphraser's saying STM, if you don't mind the possibility of disappointment, stick it on there. Or sigh, move it to a new almost-identical title, and then stick it on...! -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 18:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- You make valid points. However, I consider kitten huffing a precedent because it was initially featured when the voting system was new and barely used. It was featured again in August 2005, when VFH had become a pretty solid feature. The same thing applies here; Phonics was featured in early 2005 due to being cited in a major newspaper, but now should be given the VFH treatment. I agree that we should feature new articles, but I still believe this is a completely new article. Kitten huffing didn't require hardly any re-writing between its first and second feature. Phonics is all-new. --
- OK, stm. I'm very sympathetic. The second article is leaps and bounds better than the original. If it appeared on VFH Today, without the prior featuring, I think we both know it'd make it. There are plenty of new articles to be featured, though, and the voters prefer new blood to old, even if your article is a near-complete rewrite of the old one, it's still based on the same original basic premise, and written by the same author, so it's seen as a second version of the same thing, albeit far superior. As far as the kitten huffing precedent, wasn't that back when anything could get featured, regardless of votes? I don't think you can reach that far back in Uncyclopedia history and claim that is a precedent for how things should be featured now. If you wanna put it back up on VFH, I won't vote against, because the article is just too damn good, but there are a lot of users who will, and don't think that's something you should put yourself through again. That's what I think, anyway.--<<
- The thing is, this really isn't a "great article of the past" anymore. It's a total re-write, four times longer than the old article and with just about everything but the first sentence looking completely different. Kitten huffing was featured twice despite looking basically the same each time. It would be nice for such a total overhaul to get a bit of front page time if the new revision is deemed as featured article quality. --
No fun without duality
If we are going to allow for the re-featuring of articles, then we should also allow for the de-featuring of articles. That way we can work on making the "best of" truly that. --Sir gwax (talk) 
18:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- [Removed bad comment and image per Wikipedia:WP:TALK#Own comments]
Alksub - VFH CM WA RV {talk} 19:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we should refeature Euroipods. I'm assuming that's what you're talking about - I only look at the pictures. -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 18:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)