Talk:Featured Articles

Please use this page to nominate articles for inclusions. If you tamper with anyone else's vote, you will be banned!

=Rules=
 * 1) Nominated Article must meet Wikiality.com standards:
 * 2) must be about Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, D.F.A.
 * 3) if not directly about Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, D.F.A., it must reflect "The Stephen Colbert Experience"
 * 4) must be funny (actually, its more imporant to be satirical, but that's a wordonista word and what we really want is somebody nailed that we can laugh at)
 * 5) must be written by a Registered User
 * 6) must be truthy
 * 7) Criteria for "Featured" Nominees
 * 8) must not contain red links
 * 9) must not contain any Wikipedophilia
 * 10) must not contain any facts
 * 11) must not be overly random
 * 12) spelling, punctuation, grammatical and formatting errors kept to a minimum.
 * 13) When Nominating:
 * 14) Include the title of the article as a link
 * 15) "sign" the nomination
 * 16) provide some kind of explanation as to "Why You Nominated It"
 * 17) create space to vote "Yes", "Not Yet" and "No"
 * 18) Only Registered Users Who Have Contributed Positively to Wikiality.com Are Allowed to:
 * 19) Nominate an article for "Featured" status
 * 20) Vote for "Featured Articles"
 * 21) And, yes, you may nominate and vote for your own article
 * 22) Number of Articles to be Featured at Any Given Time
 * 23) Only 10 articles will be "Featured" at any given time.
 * 24) When a new article is added, the oldest one is dropped off the list.
 * 25) Articles stay on the "Featured" section of the Main Page until they are dropped off by a new addition.
 * 26) Voting
 * 27) a User may only have one vote per nomination.
 * 28) a User may vote for as many nominees as they choose.
 * 29) Judging Nominations
 * 30) An Article will be featured if it receives five votes of "Yes"
 * 31) An Article will be removed from nomination, if it receives five votes of "No"
 * 32) An Article that has been voted "Not Yet" will be left on the list untill it either improves and is voted in, or degrades in quality, and is voted off.
 * 33) If your vote is "No", please give a brief explanation of your position. This page is designed for voting only.  Please direct conversations to the associated "talk Page" for the specific article.

If you tamper with anyone else's vote, you will be banned!

Winning, Losing and Scoring

 * An article will become featured if it gets 5 "Yes" votes.
 * An article will get sent to the loser's bin if it gets 5 "No" votes or has not received a sufficient amount of votes within 5 days of being nominated.
 * "Not Yet" votes do not count for or against the article. They are null votes used to straddle the fence until the article is fixed.
 * You may change your vote by using the tag to encompass your old vote so that we can readily see change.  BE WARNED: Do not change another person's vote or you WILL be banned.
 * Note: A "Yes" vote will not cancel out a "No" and vice versa. If five "No" votes are cast before 5 "Yes" votes then the article will not receive a featured status.

Voting records are kept here:

Talk:Featured Articles/Winners

Talk:Featured Articles/Losers

How To Vote

 * Just write "+1" under "Yes", "No", or "Not Yet" followed by 2 of these "-", then 4 of these "~", with no spaces in between.
 * The "+1" notes your choice, and the "--~" leaves your signature.

So, for those of you who still don't get it: "+1 --~ " under your choice. Without the quotes, dummy.

Trouble Voting?
If you can't edit this page, and you are logged in, comment on the Talk:Main_Page, if there is a syscop around, they will come and help you.

=Nominees=

Elephants
nominated by --Bulldog 22:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes
+1 Bulldog 22:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC) This article is very truthy, and it is the subject one of Stephen's more popular bits. Wait a second... I just looked a little closer, it has some red links. But I think that the articles describing different varieties of Elephants should somehow be sub-categories under the subject of plain ole "Elephants".

Not Yet
+1 Reformat just like Bulldog said. Get rid of the red links, and voila! (oops, using a French keyboard) a "Yes" vote.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 22:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln
nominated by --Ravman29

Yes
+1 - An impressive display of truthiness. --Amoirae 16:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC) +1 - I don't mean to toot my own horn, but if it worked for Mark Foley... --Ravman29

Acadian
nominated by --Danforth 22:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Not Yet
+1 needs only a little "formatting" first.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 16:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC) +1 - I am a little drawn on this article. It is a good article, but it made me learn something, which I am forbade to do. Also it has those weird << >> looking things that scare me. --Fuzzy 16:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC) +1 - So True. --Lewser 16:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Charlene (I'm Right Behind You Now)
nominated by --Sarlaccpit48 3:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes
+1 --Sarlaccpit 48 I'm right behind you Stephen!

No
+1 - I don't know if you can get enough truthiness out of Charlene to make this a featured article--Lewser 16:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * (FYI, I added some suggestions on the article's talk page)--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 17:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

+1 I officially change my vote to NO. Charlene is dead to me. --Fuzzy 22:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Not Yet
+1 Needs a little more meat, truthiness.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 19:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

+1 I like the article, but it is basically verbatim what we know of the topic from the TV show. --DeagleSteagle

+1 Concur. More comments on article's talk page -- seaRob 21:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

+1 Also agree.--uno 22:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

+1 --Davidj 01:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC) ditto

+1 I agree with the masses. --Fuzzy 16:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Delaware
nominated by --WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 04:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes
+1 --WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 04:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

+1 --Lewser 05:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

+1 -- Kudzu 00:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No
+1 -Thruth Monger 08:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Boring state=Boring Article. A bit thin compared to some of the other state pages. Needs more.

Not Yet
+1 (lets get it a bit more formatting first and then I'll be on board) --DeagleSteagle

+1 Funny and has potential, but agreed, it is a little thin compared to the rest of the states. --Fuzzy 17:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Cylons
nominated by--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 21:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This article explains the "Schwarzenegger" cylon, it is not completely random--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 23:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes
+ 1--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 21:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

+ 1--seaRob 21:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

+ 1 --Amoirae 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No
+1 Its good, but wanna talk about random?--Lewser 16:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

+1 Its good, but wanna talk about random? JINX! --Fuzzy 19:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Tee hee. See article's talk page.
 * That counts as a "No" vote! --Fuzzy 20:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Not Yet
+1 (a bunch of pictures does not a featured article-class entry make) -- Kudzu 00:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

+1 (I concur) --DeagleSteagle
 * OK. I can appreciate that. It's how we get to wikiality, after all. I have, therefore, added a bit more about the truthy bear heritage of the Cylons. Furthermore, I would humbly submit that it may be a bit Wikiphilic to suggest that only a long texty article with a dearth of pictures should be considered for featured status. Articles like that might lead visitors to believe that we want them to read stuff. It's a slippery slope from there to books -- and that's something we should avoid, eh? (Previous sentence in in Canadian. Mea culpa.) -- seaRob

+1 --Thruth Monger 09:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Still needs cleaning up. The Tek Jansen pic is covering some of the text, and the second sentence "They evolved" seems out of place on this site.

Labor Unions
nominated by --WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 02:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes
+1 --WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 02:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

+1 --Lewser 04:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

+1 Officially withdraw my not yet vote, but comments remain for the fact police.--Pro-Lick 06:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No
+1 --Davidj 23:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Sorry, but I'd like to see this greatly expanded to an international scope with sub-sections on industries such as the garment industry, coal industry, oil industry, public employees etc... to get the Wal-Mart et. al slave labour factories highlighted
 * Then expand it, but keep in mind this was created from the standpoint of American Unions.--Weston Esterhazy 00:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What is this "in...ter...na...tion...al"??? I do not know what that means...btw, there is a Wal-Mart, where all that stuff can be added.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 00:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

--Davidj 01:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC) I am genuinely confused if people are trying to be funny or not when US-centric tendencies crop up on the site such as the spelling of British Columbia as British Colombia or saying that the wikiality entry from unions is created from the standpoint of American unions. Obviously, the whole site is created from the standpoint of a US-centric blowhard, but still his views on foreign unions from his viewpoint can still be made known. But it is kind of hard to edit when that option is not available.
 * All you need to do, if you don't like the American Labor Union page, is either expand it or create a new page that deals with foreign labor unions. Also, the next time you feel confused, just go with your gut. One more thing, we're not wordonistas (case in point: there's actually two entries wordinista & wordonista), but if you see a spelling error, you should probably correct it unless it's something like evolution/evilution. Use discretionary judgment.--Weston Esterhazy 01:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. Hello.--Weston Esterhazy 01:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait..."blowhard"? Watch it, buddy. Thats the all knowing Colbert you're talking about there. Regardless, this isnt for conversations, if you don't get it, talk on the article page.--Lewser 16:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Not Yet
-1 Because my gut doesn't feel enough Colbert refences in it yet that reveal the greatiness of the Colbert Report and its ability to interview and nail the most appropriate guests. In this case, I'm thinking of at least 3 shows: I'll do what I can to help it become featured so that Labor Unions can be properly ridiculed.--Pro-Lick 02:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC) +1 (I thought it was a great article, but like Andy says, no references to Colbert) --DeagleSteagle
 * Colbert Report.2006.01.31
 * Colbert Report.2006.03.14
 * Colbert Report.2006.10.03 Andy Stern

Ted Kennedy
nominated by --DeagleSteagle

Yes
+1 --DeagleSteagle

No
+1 --Thruth Monger 09:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Like WatchTV says. It's too random and spacey.

+1 A Kennedy as a feature??? I think not! --Fuzzy 17:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Not Yet
+1 Maybe a little less randomness, clean up the interstellar references a bit.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 18:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

+1 Yeah, its good, just tone down the Interstellar randomness --Lewser 16:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Poincare conjecture
nominated by --WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 21:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes
+ 1--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 21:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI, the guy who won the Fields Medal won for his work on the Poincare conjecture Stephen even did a bit on it.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 23:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No
+1 - Its good, very truthy, and true to The Colbert Report but I barely cracked a smile.--Lewser 16:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Not Yet
+1 --Davidj 22:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC) That's getting close to being an inside joke. I remember something about topology from calculus and matrices class in university but had not head of this asshole Dr. Yau. What as asshole. Definately worth the attention though. Thanks.

+1 - --Pro-Lick 04:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC) It lacks a direct Colbert reference too. If your not mentioning him, your blaspheming him.

+1 - --Thruth Monger 09:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Needs a picture of Colbert and the Donut. Caption: "Dr. Colbert Demonstrates his proof of the poicare conjecture." Also, a sacred theory would be hallowed, not hollowed.


 * FYI: (It is math-nerd humor. Also, we are talking about holes in objects, so the theory would be "hollow"ed. Ha, ha.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 17:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC))

Soledad O'Brien
Nominated by --Pro-Lick 04:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes
+1 - --Pro-Lick 04:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Not Yet
+1 Not until it's cleaned up a bit and more info is added. This article has so much potential! And it's sloppy at the moment. --Fairy Incognito +1 It needs some more text and more Colbert. JesusChrist 08:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

+1 Didn't Stephen mention her entire background once? Or was that Jon Stewart? One of those gyus did a bit on the extent of her racial heritage.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 17:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

+1 This one has so much potential, but it's not a feature by any means. --Fuzzy 20:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No
+1 --Thruth Monger 09:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Not even close at this point. Needs heavy formatting and some actual content. Pics should only be of the subject and Steven. No pics of Steven's Jewish friend are appropriate.

+1 Formatting bugs the hell out of me. Needs more content, and lose a couple of those pictures. But i believe the captions of the pictures of Soledad and Jew make them worth keeping. Its the pictures at the top that are unnecessary--Lewser 16:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

+1 This one has so much potential, but it's not a feature by any means. I am officially changing my vote to NO. --Fuzzy 20:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

+1 --Superfan 21:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC) No way! I know she's the most beautiful woman on Earth, but she has to have more than pictures! (Although I could start at those pictures for a long, long time)

Ann Coulter
Nominated by --Fairy Incognito

Yes
+1 --Fairy Incognito

No
+1 The article mocks her. She is "Rush Limbaugh in a miniskirt" and I think Stephen would be saddened at the way she is portrayed. --Fuzzy 21:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

+1 -- This article has only negative things to say about Ms. Coulter, yet it goes on to say that she is full of Truthiness. That's a bit of a contradiction. Is it possible for a person with such a repulsive description be truthy? --Bulldog 23:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

+1I am going to have to agree, this article does need more than the fixing of one red link. It needs a complete make-over. Something that focuses on her GOP-feminine wiles.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 23:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Not Yet
+1 Has only one red link: Maria Shriver, the original Skeletor.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 16:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes
+1 I think it is a good featured article. JesusChrist 09:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Not Yet
+1 Needs a bit of editing and a little more meat to it... but essentially good. Throw in a bit more about Colbert and I'd say yes --matty233 14:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

+1 Too many red links. --WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 16:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

+1 It's Funny. I say add more pictures and fix red links and you have my vote, fo shizzle! --Fuzzy 21:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No
+1 - its a decent article, but I don't think its front page material--Lewser 16:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Scorn
Nominated by --Superfan 21:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes
+1 --Superfan 21:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC) +1 --Lewser 23:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)