Forum:Time to prune PFP?
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
We're getting close to the 150 image mark on Uncyclopedia:PFP, and I think it's time to retire a few of those images. Last time we voted on this I don't recall that we came to a real consensus about when to retire images, and even if we did it probably wouldn't matter due to changes in voting numbers, etc. So I see two possibilities for a retirement threshold:
- An arbitrary limit, say +5 votes or below, for this pruning session only.
- A limit that uses the limit for attaining featured image status as the criterion for avoiding retirement. For example, right now I use +8 as the lower limit for featuring an image. We could say that, after a month of being featured, each image must stay at or above the current limit for featuring. This would let images be removed on a rolling basis and avoid future votes.
No matter which of these we choose, there won't be a ton of images removed - the large majority are above +8 at the moment (although one of my favorites is not, so everybody vote to save it). —rc (t) 05:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Retire images at +5 or below
Retire images below Feature limit (currently +8)
- For This should let us avoid tedious future votes and cut out some of the more unpopular images. —rc (t) 05:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- For---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 18:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- For. As long as I don't get stuck removing images. 19:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- For. As long as I get stuck removing images. —Braydie 21:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- • Spang • • 02:06, 21 May 2007
- Comment I just went through PFP and noted around 30 images that would be retired if this option is chosen. That's around one-fifth of our featured images, which is an entirely reasonable number in my opinion. —rc (t) 02:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Other/take no current action
- I don't really see a problem. I thought that we took images off of PFP when they reached 0, and if we had as strong numbers of people voting at PFP as we do seem to have on VFP, we might prune most of the generally disliked images that way. I think we should just tell everyone who votes at VFP to cast a vote on every PFP image, and see what happens. -- 05:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say put those images who nearly reach 0 to a particular page and let us vote for them. You know, to determine whether they are still PFP worthy, or not. It's gneomI 06:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Let them hit zero first. 22:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Let them hit -1 first. -- 22:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'd urge you guys to remember that we're supposed to be featuring the best images on the site. I wouldn't feature an image that maxed out at +3 on VFP, so why should we keep stuff that people have voted down below the featuring threshold? —rc (t) 01:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I like the chance of seeing this on the frontpage. Not seeing it would make me sad. Yes, I am a nerd and a member of the Lollipop Guild. At guild meetings we have lollipops. But I digress. 01:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I would be For, because there seems to be a definite dividing line of quality at around about the 8 mark. But since I've rarely got involved with this picture malarky I think I'll abstain and content myself with voting up the ones that I like. --Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 11:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Can't we have featured images that aren't rotated on the front page? I mean, most featured articles aren't on the front page right now, but they're not demoted. So maybe there's a high threshold for front page featuring, but only negative numbers demote, or they never get demoted! Or whatever. --KATIE!! 07:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)