Template talk:FI

Weights

The weights are really fucked up. Could someone fix them? --Witty Guy bitch at me 03:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

How so? —rc (t) 03:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The weights are really excellently ok, Mr. Ammo. I've been taking care of them for some time now. --⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ign^STFU F@H|VFP|+S 03:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

So you just weight more the images you think are better? Otherwise I don't understand your logic. --Witty Guy bitch at me 15:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

PFP —rc (t) 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The current image is weighted slightly too high.

While I can understand weighting it higher since it's the current featured image, giving it a complete 1-in-2 chance of showing up is absurd. At most, it shouldn't have more than a 1-in-4 chance since otherwise it really ruins the other images' chances of showing up, especially as that former image list gets larger and larger. Anyone else agree? --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 18:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I couldn't agree less... After all, it's the featured image. Each image deserves its time in the spotlight. I think the current weighting method is pretty near perfect. Besides, you'd be surprised how many time I sometimes have to refresh before the latest featured image pops up. --⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ign^STFU F@H|VFP|+S 19:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Europe is still on!?!

The Europe map has become -1 on PFP. Why is it on? Uncyclopedian 03:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

PFP is, shall we say, a separate operation from other image duties. It'll get updated eventually. —rc (t) 03:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... I'll do it on the 9th of this month. Since y'all have been voting like crazy on there *cough* I thought I'd spare myself the trouble of updating inbetween. Oh, and besides.. Is -1 enough for retirement, Rc? --⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ign^STFU F@H|VFP|+S 03:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, without looking at the archive I assumed you were removing stuff that got into the negatives (though Europe is actually at 0 by my count). Personally I think even images that have very low positive scores (+2, +3) should just be removed, but if I recall correctly when PFP was created, most people wanted to be more lenient. So...maybe? And I'll probably go through and cut some images down to size with my vote stick soon. —rc (t) 03:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think I did in fact retire images that reached negatives. I mean, they're featured images. Reaching a negative amount of votes means it shouldn't have been there to begin with. And yeah, I noticed that wrong score thing of Europe! as well. Guess who got blocked for that shameless display of election-rigging? --⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ign^STFU F@H|VFP|+S 03:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Jeb Bush? —rc (t) 04:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Damn, you're good... Oh, and I forgot to reply to your other statements. I don't think low scores should be retired. They're "punished" enough by hardly ever showing up. And good idea to do some score-shrinking (or growing, whichever). I've even made that "Today's" mission in #Uncyclopedia's topic. ^_^ --⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ign^STFU F@H|VFP|+S 04:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Mistake

WTF is this = <option weight="2">{{FI/class}}</option>  –      (ooh!) (aah!) ...·º•ø®@» LEG CUN GUN DUN 00:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Did that show up on the main page or in the code for the template? If on the main page, that's very bad and shouldn't happen, if you saw it in the code itself, that's supposed to be there and is fine. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 01:25, 07 Nov 2007

Formatting issue

There's a serious problem. I use IE 7.0 and the text is hidden or something. I dont know how to fix it. Ofcourse it works fine in Firefox, but 70% of users use IE, so it has to work there too. Here's what I'm seeing: [1]. Anyone else seeing the same thing? --Allahgator 02:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it fixed now? • Spang • ☃ • talk • 04:50, 14 Jul 2008

Fixed now, yes, thanks a lot! --Allahgator 23:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)