Forum:The Great Quasi-Purge of 2007

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 12:02, June 1, 2007 by Gneomi (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > The Great Quasi-Purge of 2007
Note: This topic has been unedited for 2515 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Ladies and gentlemen, but I assume mostly gentlemen, I come to you Today with a warning. There is a storm on the horizon. A great purge of Category:Quasi-Featured is near. The standard will be changed from 25% to 50% of the previously featured article, and what this means for you is that a whole heck of a lot of articles that have {{QFH}} on them now wont in two weeks. Now, the Dread Pirate Roberts and his crew will be sinking many a QFH template on that day. And they're told to fire without warning unless proof can be easily gotten that the article in question would certainly fit the new criteria. They are a mite trigger happy, so I'm giving every last user on Uncyclopedia this warning, before the storm. If you have an article that says QFH now and should keep it following this great purge, leave a note below (with a link to prove the claim as well, if you can be so kind), so that Roberts and his horde will know to pass by that article and leave it safe and sound. You will also find attached a place where you can sign up to be a member of the horde, where you can forever wear a badge saying that you... you remember the great Quasi-purge of June 1, 2007. And not only that, you were a part of it.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 17:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles to be saved below

Give me a date on when it was on VFH, and I'll check to see if it gets the QFA. I didn't find it when I looked.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
There it is your edit adding QFH to the article [1] and the last version of VFH before you having it removed [2]. Actually, the score was 15 X 1. -- herr doktor needsAcell Rocket [scream!] 05:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Added to the list.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 11:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone who's helped double-check me. Please look here for my research. If you find anything that has dashes, I was not able to find it in VFH's history, so feel free to find it for me and post a link, and I'll add it.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 18:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ooh - cool summary Brad. I find it ironic that this forum topic is still quasi-featured though... (By which I mean, don't remove it!) --Strange (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 00:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Official sign up sheet (please print legibly)

  1. The Dread Pirate Roberts 17:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. The Divorced Dog With Blue Hat 14:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Carlos The Deck Scrubber 00:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Louis the usurper Subordinate01:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is that necessary?

What's wrong with updating the quasi policy without yet another purge? We seem to be looking for excuses to remove articles or change their status. Obviously not all of them are on the same standard, but same goes for the featured articles. So I suggest, change the criteria - and leave the kittens alone. ~Jewriken.GIF 17:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said in the other Forum post, there are currently 300 Quasi-featured articles, which is far far far too many.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 17:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
First, I apologize for showing up late for the party. I read the other post and I agree with the new QFH qualification criteria. However, I don't see anything wrong with the current number remaining at 300. It does represent over two years of VFH voting...And third - I didn't see any voting on the matter, and I think this is something to be decided by more members of the "community" (nuthouse is more like it) - since this is going to affect dozens of Quasies. ~Jewriken.GIF 18:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, ok. Quasi-features should be more of a pool to chose VFH noms form than an award. As such, 300 is too many. Also, many articles in the category are not legitimately there, and this will help make the articles there truly legit. An example of an article that I thought was legit but wasn't, my old article Baby Fu was on VFH back in early 2005 and taken off in early February. It didn't even meet the 25% criteria, but got a QFH because it got a net +3 votes. That's probably one of the more legitimate illegitimate QFH's out there. I've talked to another user who just put a QFH tag on his article 6 months ago without telling anyone. With 300 articles, there's no real way of stopping this from happening. I'm not looking to reduce the number of QFH's by dozens. I'm looking to reduce it by hundreds. RC, Isra, Modus, and I (some of the users who've been most closely watching VFH over the years) all agree that this would make QFH a more meaningful designation, which is why I am going ahead and pulling the trigger on this without a vote.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 18:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
If you make official the bonus points for quasifs (since you seemed to agree) I will nominate that one for a last time. -- herr doktor needsAcell Rocket [scream!] 17:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Fries Quasi-Quasi-Featured Article
This article was nominated to become a featured article but due to a disgusting level of voter apathy which would have our forefathers centrifuging in their graves it didn't even come close. It's probably just too refined for you philistines to understand.

How about adding this to quasi-featured's that shouldn't really be there? It's no big deal to change it (just add a Q) and may soften the blow for the author. In any case, it won't show up in category QFH any more. --Kelpan 20:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually remember getting an article of 100% up there, but since the subject was sports (and very few people around here seem to actually like sports), it didn't get the quality reviews it deserved. Hell, it remained on Pee Review until I had to beg for it to be done. --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 21:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

How about we introduce a new Quasi-Quasi-Featured category for all of the articles that were between 25% and 50%? Because we seem to be splitting enough hairs or being overly redundant with this whole Quasif issue anyway. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 22:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the QQFH template would be more relaxed usage. ie. anybody can get it. That way every article that gets take off vfh gets a tag on it so people know it's been on and the author doesn't just stick a quasi tag on it to make him feel better.--Kelpan 22:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually looking to phase out {{QFH}} completely and move to {{QFA}}, but I'm still planning on keeping and maintaining only the {{QFA}}s, so QFH will probably end up deleted when it's all said and done. And trust me, this is hurting my ego as much as anyone's here, as I have been calculating my own and haven't found one that'll make the new cut yet. I've lost 5 QFH's already Today! That's a real bummer!--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 22:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What's up with the QFH template itself? --Strange (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 23:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
It needs a timestamp function so if we have to do something like this again (oh God I hope not), it won't be quite so hard to find out when it was QFA'd and why. And maybe we can have a flavor text that isn't two years old, too. Also, we're now auditioning for funny flavor text for the next QFA.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 00:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know all about the need for a timestamp! See here for why.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 00:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll quasi-purge YOU! -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)

Ok, whatever. I'll be a little sad to lose my quasi, but at least the award's actually worth something now. --Kelpan 22:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not tooo too bothered about the 50% rule, but it's a real shame we won't be able to find any of these pretty-good articles via categories or anything any more. If not a template then even a QQFA category would be useful... --Strange (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 23:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

We'll still have the memories article's history.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 00:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I've said it before, but having a QQFA just seems all too redundant. If we're going to make a new "award" for this, why don't we just keep all the quasis? --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 00:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not talking about an award, just a category page that contains some good articles that are worth looking at. Call it "Quite Good Articles" instead of "QQFA" if you like. I just think we should be giving people more opportunity to find the good stuff rather than having to wade through the rubbish. It's easy to get so involved in tidying a place that you end up completely forgetting where you put stuff you want to find. --Strange (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 10:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


Ok, crew. Here's the plan. Starting at midnight British time on June 1, we'll start the purge. It will go as follows:

  1. Take articles from here, and put {{QFA}} on it. Don't worry about the signing, or the weight, or anything. I'll fix that later.
  2. Go to {{QFH}}'s page, here, and click "What links here" in the toolbox, and follow the links to remove the {{QFH}} from each page.
  3. Brag out your exploits on your blog.

That should be it, folks. Happy hunting.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 17:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oooo! It's just like D-day. Except that instead of the greatest seaborne invasion in history, it's a small cadre of nerds on a wiki. Other than that minor variation it's exactly the same. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 17:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Nerds? That right there is quite an insult to me. And Brad too, but me! How dare you? /me curls up in a ball in the corner, singing himself to sleep.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 01:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think its a compliment. And MO is including himself in that I'm sure. <3 ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talk DUN VoNSE arc2.0 02:04, 31 May 2007
Oh well, I must be inclined to agree with Ceridwyn. Just because.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 02:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm in the larger cadre of nerds that's not really involved at all. The Switzerland of nerds, as it were. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 02:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Sooooo, kinda chocolately nerds full of holes? ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talk DUN VoNSE arc2.0 03:16, 31 May 2007
Exactly. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 04:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see. One could also say you were very much like the French in World War II, but I digress. I'm involved in the Luxemborg of nerds, wherein we aren't involved in anything important, but are involved nonetheless.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 16:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm identifying with my actual country on this one, I'll be the NZ of nerds. If called upon by the Commonwealth, I will don my camos to help out, but am largely unaffected personally by this war. I'm going to happily sit in my sub-antarctic archipelago unless needed to die en-masse on some foreign peninsula :) ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talk DUN VoNSE arc2.0 11:37, 31 May 2007
Plus Jesse Jackson filmed King Kong there...that can't be right. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 01:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yowza. Suddenly quasi-featuredness has become quite an exclusive club. Who needs featured status when you can have the much rarer QFA? --Strange (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 00:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

QFA: Scaling the heights of mediocrity since 2007. Not that I'm bitter. Drunk, sure...bitter, not so much. Also, naked for some reason. Well, except for the bowtie and the tophat. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 01:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The idea is to turn this into somewhat of a recycling bin for people to find good articles to nom at VFH. Ideally, articles on this list should get another shot at VFH in better circumstances.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 11:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
You mean instead of the mix of pretty good and meh that QFH is now? When you put it like that it sounds like a good idea. This can only mean that you're up to something. I've got my eyes on you. Except the lazy one, that's staring over your right shoulder. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 20:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It is finished!

Well, more or less. If someone wants to go through and put the accurate dates on all of them, be my guest. I just left them all as Today, as I'll be able to check my little list if we ever have to do this again. (I've got a little list). Pay your respects to QFH everyone, as it is going bye-bye.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 02:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Finished? But I was just going to start.. - It's gneomI 06:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
You were too late. You will have to explain yourself to the Dread Pirate Roberts. I warn you, he is very unforgiving. Icons-flag-au Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 07:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
"Late? Inconceivable!" Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 07:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Who? Which? What? How? It's gneomI 12:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Personal tools