Forum:410 Quasi-Featured articles

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > 410 Quasi-Featured articles
Note: This topic has been unedited for 579 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

It was brought to my attention recently that the Quasi-Featured category has become bloated and overrun with things that are... um... not funny. Part of this is this the fact that what qualifies something for QFH has changed over the years, and part of it has to do with it not really meaning anything for the months before I quantified and standardized the whole thing. I'm posting this here to get suggestions for how to pare this down. I do know that when we finish, we should have all QFH's on the Featured Content link over to the side. Possible ideas I've had so far include some kind of PFP for old QFH's or a "second chance" VFH for QFH's for weekend features (and losing QFH if you don't make the cut there).<<Bradmonogram.png>> 14:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently a similar effort occurred in Jun 2006 by a lone crusader who removed the QFH from things that were obviously not funny (he left a note saying he reached the letter "F"). Hopefully this go-round will be more successful, as it should be a team effort.<<Bradmonogram.png>> 14:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I was actually the "lone crusader". Though if I recall, everything through the letter "C" had been checked before I started sorting through things. I'll be working on cleaning things up again, and removing the unfunny from the list. Manually going through them one by one is the only way I can think of right now to fix this problem for the time being. Any help would be greatly appreciated. --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 21:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
K. A quick history check suggests J-Bob was going through before you. What criteria should we set for what stays QFH and what doesn't?<<Bradmonogram.png>> 22:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
And do you still quasi-feature something that was once feature-ish quality but now kind of isn't, but which may one day become good again? (I.e. like half the old featured articles.) If that makes any sense... --Strange (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 23:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine is something declines in quality from near-featured status. What I don't want is something that was never feature-quality having the tag, which is what we have with a lot of QFH's right now.<<Bradmonogram.png>> 23:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The guidelines for Quasi-featured articles are as follows and noted on the VFH and QFH page:

Decent articles that were nominated to become a Featured Article but didn't quite make it. Articles must meet the following vague criteria:

  1. Must not suck.
  2. Must have did acceptionally well in the VFH (three or more For votes).
  3. Must adhere to the "Codeine's mum rule".

--Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 23:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Three Fors is weak. I'd say articles should end their VFH run at +6 at the minimum (counting Againsts), though that could always change since VFH is dynamic... —rc (t) 01:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I like percentages. I've been running of a 25% of most recently featured article (as that takes the changing nature of VFH into account), though I'm willing to change the percentage if that's what we want. Also, I assume everyone's volunteering to go back and check the VFH logs for when these things were taken off? It's a big enough chore as it is, even ignoring what exactly the range was when it was taken off VFH.<<Bradmonogram.png>> 01:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I've removed a few based on the 25% rule. Hope I'm not following the wrong rule; it says in Category:Quasi-Featured the threshold is 3 votes. Alksubsig.gifAlksub - VFH CM WA RV {talk} 05:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow... I was kinda being sarcastic, assuming no one would do it. You're getting a cookie for that.<<Bradmonogram.png>> 10:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects