| abstract
| - C'mon, gize. Let's get this fat bastard back into shape again. Come discuss some revival strategies with me. Put the tea on. Forget about it and come back to an empty pot because all of the water boiled down. Fuck tea. Let's write. Idea No. 1: Keep the current nominations where they are, just push through those for now. This would involve doing very little work and just picking up where it was left off. New nominations would not be illegal but would be discouraged until the queue goes down. Idea No. 2: Ix-nay all current nominations and start anew. Justification for this would include the argument that articles nominated back then may no longer be in need of improvement, or not as much improvement as other articles. The old nominees could be renommed, but scores would be set back to one (assuming the re-nominator chooses to also vote for that article) and voting would resume as normal. Wanna get some votes in there or something? Be my guest. My other proposal is that we should have a formalized list of colonizers. This could be made to be like PEEING, which has had much success since its conception. This way, users that choose to take part in colonizations will commit and be active in order to remain in good standing with the organization. This would also create a network of users, making it easy for people to send messages regarding colonizations to those users that are interested in colonizations and have participated in them in the past. Finally, it would make it easier to identify experienced colonizers among inexperienced colonizers. Discuss. I'm totally committed to getting colonization back on track. This is absolutely necessary for the future of Uncyclopedia and I'm deadly serious about that. 00:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Personally, I think all Colonization really needs is more publicity. Move the "Current Colonization" back on top of the UnNews on the main page. I don't understand why that got moved in the first place... -- 02:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC) I blame Spang. 02:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC) I think a usergroup would be a good idea, not so much because it would encourage greater participation but because it would encourage people to stick with the project and not abandon it as they did the last two times. 04:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Also ideas: Picking a concept before the writing gets underway. This was my rub last time--it's much tougher to write an article when you have no idea what it's going to be about. Instead of nominating "Twilight," let's nominate "Twilight - Movie about vampire baseball as written by someone who only saw that one scene." Anyways, just my 2 cents. - 04:17, Feb 16 How about we include something about colonization on the welcome messages? 08:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC) for reviving colonization, for led's idea, conditional for on the usergroup on the condition that boomer be its figurehead. 16:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC) I'm for that. I'll add it to my welcome message, anyways. Now here's my idea that addresses Leddy's concern: schedule out the week to allow time for ideas to develop and for consensus to be reached. Peep this shit: Sunday: Articles are nominated, voted on. At midnight GMT, the week's article is taken off the top of the queue. Monday-Tuesday: Ideas are presented, hashed, developed. By midnight GMT, an outline is finished that lays out the idea that the entire group agrees upon. Wednesday-Friday: Article is edited, using the outline as a guide. Saturday: Article is evaluated. Perhaps we could put the article up on Pee Review? I'll talk to the boys at PEEING and see if we can't work out a little deal to get our article reviewed at the end of the week. Following this schedule (I'd love to test it first, of course) we have a central theme and a unified goal, rather than just saying "This article needs love, go shoot cum all over it" and expecting a quality product at the end. I think I have a good amount of support for a usergroup. I'm going to spend today getting something together to show the community. I spent all last night coming up with this system and I think that if I could test it, it would work. But today I'll work on getting a usergroup together and see if I can get some other people in on this. But if I could keep getting people to give me feedback on this idea, that would be great. I'm happy to see all the op support I'm getting. Hopefully that will continue. Also, thanks for the edit conflict, Ger. And I thought we were gonna get Steve Jobs to lead us. 16:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC) I'd say that expecting the writing to be completed in three days is incredibly optimistic. I think it would be better to do the whole thing over a two-week schedule with at least half of that devoted to the actual writing. 19:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC) I'd agree that it's unrealistic for one writer to complete a VFHable article in three days. However, for a group of writers, to create something that at least meets Uncyclopedia standards in three days is not as tall of an order, in my opinion. Perhaps we'll just do a test run of this and see if a two week cycle would be more realistic. 19:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Okay, so here's a link to what I've got so far. I'm being rather italic with this, so if any of you ops have a problem with some of this (like my idea for giving one half of one feature credit to all who participated in a Colonization that gets featured) or any of you over at PEEING have a problem with making the week's Colonization a priority on Saturdays just let me know. I'm very open to change here, this is more of a rough draft and an organization of my ideas than anything else. 20:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Hea, why not. I see where Led is coming from... We could have a page of "deserving" pages waiting to be done, but don't actually start on one until a good concept has been agreed on. The nominator does not necessarily need to provide the concept, but someone must before it starts? 20:42, Feb 16 My idea is that first an article is selected. Then, all participants hash out ideas and arrive at one concept that they will use for the article. 20:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)