Forum:Review of Featured Content
The featured content is, by general rule, disappointing. There are however, a few exceptions to this. You guy's will just feature any old crap. Not. Even. Funny. I found large amounts of un-reverted vandalism on a few, mediocre articles that degrade the "featured" status. I think it's time for a major review of your featured articles and standards which are, evidently, becoming increasingly lax.
Lots of IP flavored love, 211.31.205.142 22:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- IP flavor tastes terrible. I'm sticking with user flavor. -- 22:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comments by IPs don't matter. Register an account before you whine, and remember that there is no apostrophe in "guys". --
UNKNOWNFILE 22:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC) - [1] I believe this hyperlink speaks for itself.
t o m p k i n s blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 22:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Although he isn't making the point in the right way or from the right humor perspective, I think we should review some older featured articles and ones that have so much traffic that the funny has eroded. For example, the featured article George Dubya Bush doesn't compare with the currently VFH-nominated George W. Bush, and probably should be defeatured. There are a few others I could name, but I'll see what everyone else's opinion is (maybe make a PFPesque system?). -- §. | WotM | PLS | T | C | A 03:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Since when did people without usernames stop counting as people? You know most people who visit never even make an account? Anyway, he has a point, but is slightly misinformed; a lot of featured articles aren't that great, not becuase we'll feature anything, but because they were featured a long time ago when standards were lower. A review of the older featured articles or a vote for de-featuring would be a good idea to keep the general quality up. Though cleaning up the offending articles would be a much better idea. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 04:02, 5 Feb 2007
- So how will we do this? A vote to de-feature articles? User:KWild/sig 04:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that some older articles haven't aged well, but as far as the "unreverted vandalism" goes, I feel obligated to point out that the featured article template on each one links to the featured version of the page, so if you're quasi-savvy you can find how it originally looked. I know this isn't entirely obvious, so perhaps we could make the featured versions more visible - maybe use a WP-barnstar-esque icon in the upper-right corner that links to the featured revision? —rc (t) 04:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Obligation on Uncyclopedia? Bizarre. Spang is right. Listen to Spang. Look, all I'm saying is that to call some of the more "vintage" featured articles the best of Uncylopedia is wrong. Any device to sort the good from bad is a good step. 220.236.34.107 04:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Obligatory vote for a PFP-like votey thingy for Featured Articles + A "Formerly Featured" section to Uncyclopedia:Best_of, or nonsense of an equal or lesser value
For --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 04:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm against this proposal for the following reasons. Images have this system put in place because they are randomly put on the front page, so if they are not up to quality they can be slowly taken down via voting. Articles on the otherhand are only on the front page for 2 days and then they're gone, so they might as well stay featured. I was informed that this was brought up before that is what was decided. —Braydie at 04:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm against for the same reasons as Braydie, but I'm also musing reformatting Uncyclopedia:Best of chronologically by year, so there's at least some indication of what era in Uncyc's history an article is from. —rc (t) 04:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- I do like you're idea about having the featured version more visible and having them sorted by year. —Braydie at 04:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm still for, because there are some features that simply don't hold up. The impetus isn't as great that that behind featured pics, as pics rotate through on the mainpage, but "Best of" has a bunch that, lower standards at the time or not, have me scratching my head. Pics have
 Former Featured ImageThis is a former Featured Image that has been voted off the island. — Sadly, it just didn't age well.
It is still considered a Featured Image, but it will no longer appear on the Main Page. |
- , why not pages? Plus it's step 2 in my plan to take over the worl...get some ice cream. Yeah, that's it...ice cream.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 04:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- It says "It is still considered a Featured Image, but it will no longer appear on the Main Page." - Articles will no longer appear on the main page unless they are voted in. —Braydie at 05:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- A "formerly featured page" would still be a featured page; it would just be listed in its own section under the "Featured page" section. Some pages have simply passed their best before date.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 05:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- I see what you mean, but wouldn't Rc's idea of separating out the articles into years solve this problem? —Braydie at 05:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, they both do. Should we have them fight to the death, or should we continue to discuss this for a week, come to a consensus, then forget all about it like we did last time this came up? --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 11:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- It says "It is still considered a Featured Image, but it will no longer appear on the Main Page." - Articles will no longer appear on the main page unless they are voted in. —Braydie at 05:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I like Rc's idea best, less process but similar outcome. It might also be a good idea to put the {{FA}} template at the top of the featured pages and not at the bottom. People should see the link to the featured version before they start reading not when they alredy read the whole corrupted one.---Asteroid B612
(aka Rataube) - Ñ 16:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
You are not entitled to view results of this poll.
- I enjoy whay Rcmurphy said. --Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 01:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to rearrange Best Of tonight if I have the time. —rc (t) 02:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
But what, exactly, is deja vu?
Fact: if KITTENHOEFFER magazine stand was placed on VFH today, it would almost certainly not get featured!
Same with Styrofoam!
Also factual: When Phonics was featured, it looked like this!
...What I'm saying is, considering that the standard for what makes an article "good" has undoubtedly risen over the years, do these particular articles still have to be listed on Uncyclopedia:Best of? --L 13:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. ~ Sir Todd GUN WotM MI UotM NotM MDA VFH AotM Bur. AlBur. CM NS PC (talk) 15:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe we could have a second section of Best of where the articles are sorted by feature date, rather than alpha. And then we put a little disclaimer saying the older featured articles didn't have near the same standards for quality, as Uncyc was just a little tiny baby wiki still learning to crawl, speak, and huff. But I don't think we should revoke their feature status. If we were to unfeature anything, though, I can think of one article that was never supported on VFH in the first place... --User:Nintendorulez 18:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Unlike Featured Images, the Featured Articles hear on Uncyclopedia are not put through a rotation where they would be seen regularly on the Main Page. Instead they are featured once, for two days, and then added to the 'Best Of' list. As for the number of people that have actually gone through and read every article in this list? 0. I don't think it's necessary to remove these articles, as they were featured at one time, and they're just as funny as any of the other articles in that list, which since their featuring have been edited countless times in a way inconsistent with the original article. So, keep the list as it is, if there really is a noticeable gap between the new and old articles at some point, we can look into it more deeply. t o m p k i n s blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 18:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- VFP has PFP, why not VFH? PFP isn't a bad thing; it just says that this item had an expiry date (he said, knowing that this question would come back and bite him in the ass somehow...) --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 01:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Phonics is still pretty badass. --
01:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- You're modesty continues to astound me and, indeed, all of us here at Uncyc.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 02:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Definitely agree. Sir Sikon [Guest] F@H NS3 FIC CM2 01:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)- tthis was added by an impostor - User:Guest/sig 08:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)- and KITTENHOEFFER is still one of my favourites (I used to work at IKEA). No, I agree that the more recent highlighted articles thend to be longer and better formatted, but I still think there's some good yuls in those old ones. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 02:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Phonics is still pretty badass. --
Uncyclopedia:VFH/archive1 - isn't it hilarious?
Ahhh, memories... --L 06:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The current "years" system is great, but...
... I personally still support a "former featured" template/category in addition. It appears to me that no one has made a truly "full" argument against it. The several points that have been made are very good, but still not sufficient. To begin with, the post-featured editing process alone isn't enough to explain the lower quality of some articles; Phonics having been pointed out as an example of something with a great (maybe even "badass") concept that still just wasn't (and isn't) of the quanitity/quality now expected.
I understand and agree with, to some extent, the argument that "the number of people that have actually gone through and read every article" is naturally 0 (although it might be cool to try to be among the first, one day). That said, this is basically irrelevant; people nonetheless encounter the sup-par articles, and having a message say that they are of the some quality as all the other features does a disservice to AAA!, Table of Contents, and St. Peter's Basilica, also all featured in 2005 (along with plenty of other great ones). And of course, as Modusoperandi pointed out, "PFP isn't a bad thing; it just says that this item had an expiry date." It would be a mistake to think that the "expiry date" is the identical accross the board; Kitten Huffing is still just as great now as ever (well, it can always use some tweaks, I suppose). Therefore, the sorting process alone doesn't do enough justice; age alone does not equal the lack or the presence of quality.
The system as I envision it would be as follows: A review of a featured article would be allowed to start no earlier than one year after the original date of feature. This review would be initiated on the article's talkpage, and possibly made into its own talkpage with a "/feature review" bit at the end. The article would become "formerly featured" only if a number of votes outweighing the number which originally featured it were to go this way, but it would otherwise remain featured. In order to become featured again, a proposal to re-feature would also go on the talkpage (or a "/feature review"), and would only need to get the same number of votes as that which made it un-featured. This second process, of course, would not logically occur until after significant edits. "Re-featuring" would certainly not have to put the article on the front page again.
An alternative to the whole idea, one which I'm more or less OK with, would be to have a "super-feature" akin to the "Best of the year" category. That way, there's still a place for articles that are truly the best, and not just a mishmosh of really awesome and kinda chuckle-worthy pieces. But this latter process might become even more time-consuming, and there's the risk that it would simply lower our standards for featuring (people might start to think, "this one's good enough, even though it won't ever reach that "super-feature" category").
Thoughts? —Lenoxus 03:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Thoughts
- Why are we thinking of removing featured articles? Don't we need more featured articles than less? Aren't "featured revisions" still good enough? Are these questions rhetorical to make a point? Are they waiting for a clear well-defined answer? Was that hyphen nessecary? I think we should shuppup and keep it that way, it sounds completely unfair for the people on the site that put in the work to make a featured article, even if it is shallow by todays unsaid "standards" that featured articles have. It would just seem hurtful to have the glory of being a good enough writer washed away because the current day doesn't think it's good enough. Damnit I ranted. I hate doing that. Now I know theres going to be a reply greater than or equal to my rant.--Witt,
of 
UNion Entertain me* 07:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- That is a good point, and all I can think to say in response is that the same writer should theoretically be able to imrpove it anyway; it's about imrpvement and not the label. Plus, in theory, no one writer is responsible for everything good about an article; the wiki format should mean that things get back to where they "should" be, by the admittedly "unsaid" standards. And it goes without saying that the "this user made a featured article" award template would (and should) never be revoked. Still, I see what you're getting at, and in a way, I don't feel as strongly about the issue now as I had when I wrote that above. Whatever works with people... —Lenoxus 23:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
