Forum:VFH in '05 = VFD in '08

Forums: Index > Village Dump > VFH in '05 = VFD in '08

Note: This topic has been unedited for 3997 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

What should we do about VFHs from the past that are not up to snuff now? I present Spanish Inquisition, Nostradamus, IQ Test, 1927, Axis of Evil Hot Dog Eating Competition, Gibberish, and a bunch of others that I -at least- think are not uncyc's best featured work. I feel like something should be done, but I don't know what... they've already been featured, but they're not up to 2007/08 standards! Delete 'em, rewrite 'em, do nothing... what?   Le Cejak • <May 05, 2008 [23:13]>

/smack IQ Test is awesome because it is so satirical of the real thing and Gibberish is quite alright to. --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 07:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

also Cabbage – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 23:21 May 05, 2008

Uncyclopedia:Best_of/2005   Le Cejak • <May 05, 2008 [23:23]>

• Strong nothing – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 23:14 May 05, 2008
  • Sure, it's easy to say that... until you realize that these articles kinda suck.   Le Cejak • <May 05, 2008 [23:16]>
    • (reads) ARGH THEY SUCK, but we can't delete 'em, they're part of UN:BEST. You could try getting people to rewrite 'em, but that's not gonna happen, because judging by the quality it wouldn't be a "rewrite" so much as a completely new article, and then who's to say that rewrite is up to featured standards? I dunno. I think it's easiest just to leave them alone. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 23:18 May 05, 2008
      • it's ALWAYS easiest to do nothing! I'm not asking what's easiest to do!   Le Cejak • <May 05, 2008 [23:19]>
        • Well, if you really want to get people thinking, there's only one thing you can do... – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 23:20 May 05, 2008
          • What do you think is the worst featured article of '05? I'll nominate it so that there's less controversy. Maybe Gibberish?   Le Cejak • <May 05, 2008 [23:22]>
            • Spanish Inquisition, hands down. Listy, lack of humor, ugly templates, basically violates all of HTBFANJS. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 23:23 May 05, 2008
              • Okay, I'll nom it. It'll cause some drama by uncyc historians, but they're all dead anyway.   Le Cejak • <May 05, 2008 [23:24]>
                • /me spills wine. Oh, bother! Treasurer of the Uncyclopedian Historical Society 03:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • If it's deleted, what happens to STM's record?~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN  [talk] 02:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
                    • Ha ha ha. Classic Ljlego. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 02:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
                    • It will probably end up sticking out of Cajek's back... --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 11:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Idea

As has been the problem with wikipedia, we can all agree that ofer time things might not get better, or get worse. The way their rating system works, as i've seen with the w:uncyclopedia article, things can get unfeatured and apparently happens when feature pages are no longer featurable. why not create a system like that for these articles, and then if they fail, stick somethinjg on there like what we have for UN:VFP/Expired. From there we can add/rewrite/remove as absolutly nessicary. --Lieutenant THEDUDEMAN Dude ... Totally UOTM KUN GotA F@H 23:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

For. I agree with that: voting to de-VFH a crappy article takes 5 seconds out of my day.   Le Cejak • <May 05, 2008 [23:43]>

Against. So we create another voting system? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 23:43 May 05, 2008

That's a good point. Are we going to vote on that, too? How do we decide what is and isn't featurable at this point in time, anyway? That's the trouble with Uncyc versus wikipedia, we're much more subjective. I think we may just have to live and let live. Maybe add a disclaimer that reads "Warning: articles from 2005 may or may not suck"? - Don Leddy the Crunch (Nyah, see, nyah!) 23:48, May 5

But it's more than that, guy who adopted me! Most featured articles from 2005 violate the heart of HTBFANJS!   Le Cejak • <May 05, 2008 [23:49]>

Perhaps, but it's arguable that those things were put in HTBFANJS because they were already done to death by the 2005 featured pages. Look at Kitten Huffing. It's one of our iconic pages, but today it wouldn't get featured, since the joke has been done to death. Of course, that doesn't apply to all '05 FAs... still, though, I think our readers will be able to figure out that, 'hey, these featured articles aren't as good as these featured articles, I guess this site's standards have gone up, or something.' - Don Leddy the Crunch (Nyah, see, nyah!) 02:08, May 6

Its not to unfeature all the old features, only the ones that supremly suck for a majority of people. --Lieutenant THEDUDEMAN Dude ... Totally UOTM KUN GotA F@H 23:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking something as a subpage of VFH. Same type of system, but for the regulars. 5 or so votes to unfeature, and call it a day. Besides, its not that ALL voting pages completly fail at the moment. the things like UotM and NotM are running greatly. (That is not the point of the forum, and if you reply about this, I will hunt you down and shove a dick in your ass) --Lieutenant THEDUDEMAN Dude ... Totally UOTM KUN GotA F@H 23:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

For. Voting on Uncyclopedia issues is about all I have going for me in my life right now. So, as you can imagine, I'm pretty excited about this. --Hyperbole 01:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there could be a middle ground...

Is it possible that articles can be on the site that aren't feature-quality? Also, have I mentioned that we delete too many articles? Ok, just checking.--<<>> 01:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Back in my day, we had respect for our elder articles. Sure, their writing wasn't the best and they'd crufted up over the years, but they had wisdom and stories about how much better things used to be, dagnabit! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 03:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Lets just keep them as they are and say nothing. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Agree. Kids these days, with their black and white feature/delete wiki world. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 20:36, 06 May 2008

I blame it on the rapping music. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Review

I say if it is a really poor article that has been featured we just rewrite it and keep the featured version from 2005. If the rewrite is significantly better, put it on VFH for a vote with a warning in the comments. Remember back then everyone was a noob and was learning, neigh, building the site so of course the early ones suck. It would be easier to leave them alone though. --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 07:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

As I remember STM went back over most of his early articles and improved them greatly, thus proving their featureworthiness - see the bottom here --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 13:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What is the problem?

• Umm...so, at some point all of those articles were featured. By a vote and stuff. In fact, I like some of them. They still make me laugh. Obviously, for some reason, they don't make some amount of people laugh anymore (I really can't be bothered to read about it...). So what? They aren't on the Main Page. They're on a "Best of" page that clearly marks them as being from several years ago. If you feel that Uncyclopedia has taken a turn in quality since those articles were featured, that's nice, but we are never going to delete a featured article, and I will never support taking featured article status away from something that was once featured. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 13:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

We're not asking you to sign over your first (or second) born, ZB. ...jesus. Also: who cares about featured articles from 2005? They suck.   Le Cejak • <May 06, 2008 [13:35]>

Did you miss the part where I said that I don't think they suck? IQ:Sample test is a wonderful article. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 13:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I verily admit that IQ Test is funny in parts, but really it's just a list. Mostly a list of cliche type things. But really, what about Spanish Inquisition? Made when STM was getting his feet wet, it's very noobish, dontcha think?   Le Cejak • <May 06, 2008 [13:44]>

If by "noobish" you mean "shorter than his later efforts", then yeah. However someone, and, in this case, a group of someones thought that this article was good enough to put on the Main Page. Who are any of us to say that they were wrong? I may not have liked Joe Clark (Joe who?), but I don't run around ripping pages that mention him out of history textbooks. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 13:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed....this is who we are and where we have come from. Remember folks....those who do not learn from their history are doomed to repeat it. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Also, those who do not learn from their history are doomed to repeat it... MrN  Fork you! 14:16, May 6

Yep it is. --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 14:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Very strong against

These a part of Uncync's history, I feel that no article should ever lose it's featured article. It was good for whoever voted for them then, we shouldn't take it away. Not everything on the site has to withstand to any kind of standard. It's not about taking the easy route, it's not cutting off the the roots of Uncyclopedia. ~ 13:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Support for Moardildos. --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 13:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. I don't think they all suck. I don't think they mostly suck. Sure, there's a lot I wouldn;t vote for nowadays, but then again there's a lot of featured articles right now that I wouldn't vote for. If people genuinely think that the average quality of featured articles is so much better these days, why not just chalk this up as a positive thing and move on? --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 16:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Further grumbling about the kids these days, etc

*grumble*, *etc* Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 14:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I remember back in my day when... actually, I don't... MrN  Fork you! 14:43, May 6

Way back when Britney's sister got knocked up? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 14:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

As I told the judge at the time, I was standing downwind (not upwind) of that lady, and as such had nothing to do with the pregnancy. MrN  Fork you! 08:07, May 7

Against!

In 2011, the articles that are featured today might seem poorly written in comparison to the awesomeness of future features. But I wouldn't want to see the featured articles of me, Cajek, RAHB, TheLedBalloon, The Thinker, Ljlego, etc. get deleted or "unfeatured" just because they seem outdated. There may come a time when our site may become so awesome that all the featured articles of today seem lame and unfunny by comparison. But we shouldn't delete them by any means. Uh, yeah. --THE 20:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Featured articles in 2011 will, no doubt, use some futuristic typface and reside on a nuclear powered wiki which, itself, will travel on the Interweb 2000 (a super-duper superhighway). Also, George Lucas will go back and update the Episode I-III, ruining the childhood memories of another generation. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 21:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It'd be really hard to "ruin" Episodes I-III. Really hard. - Don Leddy the Crunch (Nyah, see, nyah!) 21:55, May 6

Three words: more Jar-Jar.--<<>> 22:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Replace all the lightsabers with walkie-talkies? -- 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 22:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Replace Natalie Portman with 2011's Dakota Fanning? -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 23:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Nah, she'll have OD'd by then. - Don Leddy the Crunch (Nyah, see, nyah!) 02:30, May 7