UDWiki talk:Projects/Very Funny...or Not: Difference between revisions
(→Um...) |
Giles Sednik (talk | contribs) (An important stipulation on the 2/3 requirement) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
:It were ''the holidays'', meesta. Wiki was generally running slowly. Personally, I wanted to vote all the time, but the put the thought on the backburner with all the holiday stuff going on. --{{User:Spiderzed/Sandbox/Sig}} 23:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC) | :It were ''the holidays'', meesta. Wiki was generally running slowly. Personally, I wanted to vote all the time, but the put the thought on the backburner with all the holiday stuff going on. --{{User:Spiderzed/Sandbox/Sig}} 23:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC) | ||
::Hm. Good point. Perhaps we ought to extend the current ones by another week. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 23:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC) | ::Hm. Good point. Perhaps we ought to extend the current ones by another week. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 23:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC) | ||
== An important stipulation on the 2/3 requirement == | |||
First of all, this project is a great idea, props to whoever came up with it. One little thing that is nagging me is the 2/3 vote requirement for deciding if something is funny or not. The 2/3 requirement is completely reasonable for determining the status of good articles etc, but I can foresee a potential problem when applied to humour, since comedy can often have a strong polarizing effect.<br> | |||
You'll see this live comedy, where something is just drop dead funny to half the people in a room, but the other half are left scratching there heads or steaming. This doesn't necessarily mean the joke isn't funny, it's just one of those things that causes a strong reaction down the middle. To ensure that such humour would still be recognized by the wiki, I would propose that a stipulation be added to the wording ''"Those that receive 2/3 Yay votes '''or a total of 10 Yay votes''' will be kept"''.<br> | |||
My thinking there is that if something is humourous enough to get 10 people to vote for it in our declining wiki base, then it should be included as funny, even if another 8 or 10 people vote against. So far there are only 3 people voting on any of these, so it will probably be a completely moot point, but I'd like to have the language added before any potential issue comes up just in case. Anyone have a problem with this?--{{User:Giles Sednik/sig}} 06:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:41, 28 January 2011
...
We're gonna have to move this later...Someone come up with a witty, but decent project name that we can stick into UDWiki:Projects, despite the fact the project page hasn't been used in half a year... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 21:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm pushing "Project: not so great" again.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 21:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- I just realized the Project page needs minor clean up as well. O.o --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 21:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Project:DoublePlusUngood ~
22:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Project:DoublePlusUngood ~
- I just realized the Project page needs minor clean up as well. O.o --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 21:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Notice on purged pages
I made the template {{HumorousPagesCleanUp}} to put on top of the affected pages:
|
Humorous Pages Clean-Up |
| The content of Projects/Very Funny...or Not is currently being reviewed to get rid of unhumorous entries. The voting takes place here. Come and let your voice be heard! |
Helps to bring the message to those who don't watch community news, and hopefully gives a broader voter base. -- Spiderzed▋ 18:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Um...
...Is anyone even gonna bother to help clean up these pages? I know we're running slow, but one vote after a week and a half? That's just not right. Not right at all... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 23:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- It were the holidays, meesta. Wiki was generally running slowly. Personally, I wanted to vote all the time, but the put the thought on the backburner with all the holiday stuff going on. -- Spiderzed▋ 23:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hm. Good point. Perhaps we ought to extend the current ones by another week. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 23:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
An important stipulation on the 2/3 requirement
First of all, this project is a great idea, props to whoever came up with it. One little thing that is nagging me is the 2/3 vote requirement for deciding if something is funny or not. The 2/3 requirement is completely reasonable for determining the status of good articles etc, but I can foresee a potential problem when applied to humour, since comedy can often have a strong polarizing effect.
You'll see this live comedy, where something is just drop dead funny to half the people in a room, but the other half are left scratching there heads or steaming. This doesn't necessarily mean the joke isn't funny, it's just one of those things that causes a strong reaction down the middle. To ensure that such humour would still be recognized by the wiki, I would propose that a stipulation be added to the wording "Those that receive 2/3 Yay votes or a total of 10 Yay votes will be kept".
My thinking there is that if something is humourous enough to get 10 people to vote for it in our declining wiki base, then it should be included as funny, even if another 8 or 10 people vote against. So far there are only 3 people voting on any of these, so it will probably be a completely moot point, but I'd like to have the language added before any potential issue comes up just in case. Anyone have a problem with this?--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 06:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
