Forum:Should Quasi-Featured articles that later get featured still be listed in Category:Quasi-Featured, and if not, how would I go about getting rid of them?

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Should Quasi-Featured articles that later get featured still be listed in Category:Quasi-Featured, and if not, how would I go about getting rid of them?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5372 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

??? Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 21:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting question. I don't know. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 22:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

rename them featured quasi features? --Docile hippopotamus 22:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's really an agreement about it. I've seen QFA tags being replaced by FA ones, but I've also seen a lot of featured articles that still had a QFA tag on them. In conclusion, ??? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 22:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

When they get featured, the QFA should be removed from the page, which should pull the category. I say "should" because I have no idea what I'm talking about. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

So James Bond (character) shouldn't have a QFA tag then? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 22:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

So, in conclusion... what? Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 22:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

QFAs are supposed to be removed upon featuretude. I don't know why this suddenly hasn't been going on anymore. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 22:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a madhouse. A MADHOUSE! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ooooooh here he comes, look out boys, he's [Modus] a man-eater! --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 22:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really. I'm more of a maniac, maniac on the floor. And I'm dancing like I've never danced before. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 00:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

/me agrees wholeheartedly with TKF. For some reason, some people have changed their minds on this. We used to do this back when I had control of QFA, but people started bitching, which is why I stopped doing it. Or messing with VFH at all, for that matter. (For God's sake, people, it's a LOSER'S award...)--<<>> 12:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Since this is apparantly (somehow) still an issue...

I, like Brad, don't understand how this sudden change of face came about, but I won't stand for it. Keeping QFAs alongside FAs is absolutely asinine (let alone leaving two QFAs and an FA, as was the case with one article). For starters, it clogs up space in the article, making it look overburdeningly championed with a template-heavy finish. But a funky formatting is really the cheapest concern.

I peruse the QFAs constantly for articles to re-nom for feature when VFH is slow; after all, is this not the purpose of the QFA, in the first place? Keeping already featured articles in this category destroys the entire purpose. As Brad says: the QFA is only a semi-honor, that's why it's quasi featured: because when the article finally does get featured, it's a graduation. We don't need to brag about our high school diploma after we get our master's.

I'm not going to go out of my way to revert Orian's reverts of my own, as I wouldn't like to get infinitely autoblocked again and I also have some stuff to do, so let's have some discussion before we ultimately see that mine and Brad's argument prevails, logically and functionally. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 15:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

For Removing QFA if it gets FA. What purpose does keeping it there achieve? I can see how some authors might like it, but the point should be what's right for the article and the wiki as a whole. MrN  Fork you! 15:40, Aug 2

Yeah. I like that whole graduation metaphor TKF said, although I'd like to point out I only brag about my kindergarten graduation, as I fainted on stage in front of the huge crowd. And they left me lying there... Dicks. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 20:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I, too, brag about every graduation, even that stupid 5th grade one.--<<>> 21:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In elementary school, our band got its picture in the city paper. The editors cropped it, though. You can only see my arm. Not my good arm, either. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 21:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

My long standing argument was that I considered QFA to be a different recognition than FA. So, two QFAs+FA would mean for me that that article got regonized twice as a good article and one time as an extraordinary one (or the author was really good at whoring). The inifnibanning one was more of an explanation of me not being lazy while featuring articles but to show that I am following some logic. I'm not, however, that passionate either way - so go ahead and do whatever it is that you feel is right. ~ 22:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, how about this...

Would there be any way to keep the Quasi template on the page (for the reasons Mordillo mentioned up there), but not have those articles show up on? That would seem to be the best of both worlds. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 22:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I still think that's a bit like introducing Ronald Reagan as "four-time Presidential Candidate and former President..."--<<>> 23:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Or calling Al Gore former senator, former Vice President, Inventor of the Internet apparently, Nobel Prize winner, winner of the 2000 election and techniclly the guy that should have been President, and Oscar-winner. Note that the Oscar is the greatest accomplishment. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 23:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I had this idea about maybe including something about quasi features in the featured article template and then removing the QFAs. Maybe something like "This article was quasied twice before it got featured on the front page." I'm not too sure it's a good idea though. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 23:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why you would want to. Instead, I suppose one could create a category called, ""Former Quasi-Featured Articles" and in it state that these articles were once qusi-featured articles, but have since been featured. Or you could just state on the talk page it had been quasi-featured and link to a revision with the quasi-featured template on it. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 23:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the best idea I've seen. This seems like a very good idea.--<<>> 23:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Or you could just add the FA, cut the QFA and leave it at that. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 00:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 00:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

For. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 01:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I like this one, and since the leader of the opposition is dispassionate, I declare a sweeping victory! -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 04:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

We shall start the QFA liberation organization, just you wait! Just you wait! ~ 08:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that, although Mordillo is the only one opposing us here in the forums, you're going to run into some people that'll raise a major stink about this. That being said, it seems like we've got a moderately large coalition of the willing here, so I say knock yourself unconscious.--<<>> 11:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Screw 'em. A feature is a feature. Keeping a quasi on a feature is like riding your old bicycle while driving your new car. Crazy! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 12:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Just tell them the one metaphor. The one with the nipples. Yeah. That'll win everyone over. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 13:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

against quasi's being anything other than recognition of almost being a feature which is erased upon feature. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 13:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

So for Modus' idea. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 13:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, I've realized that keeping a quasi on a feature is as absurd as keeping a CUN while having acquired a KUN, so as to give an Uncyclopedia related example. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 13:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

So for Modus' idea, but with a lame metaphor that has nothing to do with bicycles. Or kindergarten. Or nipples. God Belgium must suck... MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 13:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I can come up with a nicer metaphor, if you'd like that. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 13:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No, now I want a raunchy simile. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 13:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't care what you want! Keeping a quasi on a feature is like not repressing your traumatic childhood memories. Madness I say! —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 13:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It's like using baby oil after you get a bottle of astroglide. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 14:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Modus wins again. God Socky, you're really embarrassing Belgium. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 14:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Fuck you. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 14:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that is definitely something she said, but you forgot to kick in the balls. Come on, champ! You'll never beat Apollo Creed like that! MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 14:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Screw you. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 14:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

All right. You may have beaten Apollo Creed, but you'll never beat Mr. Miyagi. Wait, he's dead?? What the Hell? /me cries. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 14:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)