Uncyclopedia talk:Imperial Colonization/3

A Whole 'Nuthah Revival?

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. —Sir SysRq (talk) 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... -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 02:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I blame Spang. —Sir SysRq (talk) 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. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 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. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 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. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 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. —Sir SysRq (talk) 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. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  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. —Sir SysRq (talk) 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. —Sir SysRq (talk) 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? MrN  Fork you! 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. —Sir SysRq (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh?

Where did that whole block of text come from? -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 15:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

My penis. Obviously you don't pay enough attention. Colin ALL YOUR BASEHeaney! Casa Bey Superfly Portfolio 19:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Which block of text? The one above this considerably smaller one? Because that's been there for a few days now. —Sir SysRq (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you removed it when archiving the previous talk and now it's back. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 15:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Out with the old?

Alright, so I've stumbled upon this category full of Colonizations that were done in the past. Some of them only really meet 2005 standards, and therefore should not really deserve our beautiful new template (that I made! say something nice!) saying that we did it. I personally think that we should remove the Colonization templates from all existing Colonizations that this new Imperial Colonization usergroup had nothing to do with. Opinions? Votes? Volunteers? —Sir SysRq (talk) 02:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we just put a Imperial Colonization template instead? Because we shouldn't just remove all templates from work done in the past I say. ~SirTagstit • VFH • NotM • PEEING • CPT • RotM • BFF 02:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

We cannot remove all the colonization templates of the past, that goes against the ex post facto clause of Uncyclopedia's constitution. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 02:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps we should make new categories and new templates for the new IC? And I wasn't aware that Uncyclopedia had a constitution. I thought we had a government very similar to most other countries: do what the Jew says. —Sir SysRq (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, another alternative would be to just leave everything as is and just group all Colonizations together. That would require no work at all. —Sir SysRq (talk) 02:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ya but it would be cooler if we had a brand new system! By the way Sys, I just put you in my game! ~SirTagstit • VFH • NotM • PEEING • CPT • RotM • BFF 02:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

For taking the easy way out. Also, there's more than one Jew on this block... Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 02:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

As the second most powerful jew on the site, I am seconding and immediately implementing this option. There, the matter is settled. If you feel like improving the old colonizations, expand upon them yourselves, as one would normally do. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 02:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Amen. I've asked a bot to at least move the templates themselves to the bottom of their respective pages, as will be standard protocol from now on. Meeting adjourned. —Sir SysRq (talk) 02:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Colonisation?

I don't about anyone else, but in keeping with the British imperialism theme, I think "colonization" should be spelt in correct English, ie. Colonisation. Or is it too late to change it now? Gis ym esiladnav! _LOB 22:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh, it's been spelled "colonization" for a while now. Like, since 2005. I don't think it's a huge deal, although thanks for catching that detail. We'd have to move every single colonization page and change the spellings of every instance of the word so unless you feel like doing that I think it's just going to stay as is. —Sir SysRq (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I just mean in the context of IC, so wouldn't that just be moving this page, the category, and changing three templates and the banner ad? I mean, it's not like I'm proposing that we change every single instance of the word "colonization" on Uncyclopedia to "colonisation", that's just silleh. Gis ym esiladnav! _LOB 09:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

i've had quite enough of you englizh folk and your damned zpelling oddities! SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 22:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

ya dam britz lurn tow tipe rite lawl —Sir SysRq (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

From the secret cabal of IC

I'm copying a bit from my talk page to allow all ICers to discuss. I agree that having inexperienced users as members could be a problem, I just wanted you guys to weigh in as well. —Sir SysRq (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't even heard of half of the Imperial Colonazation list, I thought it was going to be more frequent users...especially the first few weeks...~SirTagstit • VFH • NotM • PEEING • CPT • RotM • BFF 05:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes maybe some sort of amount-of-time-on-uncyclopedia or edit-count-thing rule. But then rules<funny. But congrats on successfully taking over IC. It's looking good, Sissy. - [08:33 19 February 2009] PlebYettie

Yeah, see I agreed with you at first. Let's discuss.

1. New users could actually work against us with their inexperience.
2. We could either require that they have at least one feature or have <insert time period here> of experience on the wiki.
3. Alternatively, we could let them stay and just remove them after a few weeks of inactivity.

Thoughts? —Sir SysRq (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Coming back on my usual argument - no private clubs please. This could be a very good exercise for new writers. In any welcome message we show them the way to "things to do" in which we ask them help improve articles - without anyone looking over their shoulder. Here we can have them have a first writing experience with someone supporting them and telling them - hey guys, this might not be a good idea, change that...etc. New (or unknown) writers does not necessarily mean bad writers. I think you should take everyone at first, give them directions if you don't feel they're doing a good job and if they're inactive - remove them. Just don't bite their heads off the first time they're writing "In Soviet Russia Norris Chucks YOU!!!" ~ 15:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, Kalir bit off my testicles the first time I did that... Colin ALL YOUR BASEHeaney! Casa Bey Superfly Portfolio 18:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, see I want to avoid this being a private club, but at the same time I don't want to encourage new users to get in over their heads here. I think adoption is more the place for them. My goal for IC is just to get things done. Plus, PEEING has some criteria for membership. Instead of requiring users to have done five good reviews, couldn't we just require that they have one featured article? —Sir SysRq (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well we can pair them up with experienced users, like Prettiestpretty with Firewolf for each section so that way they get a little guidance on the way (Assuming Firewold is new). I think that is what Mordillo was saying I guess though. But I also think having a criteria would help keep crap out. Im not sure...indecisive. BY THE WAY! I know I am a noob so I am not trying to say I am not by saying what I said. I am aware of that. ~SirTagstit • VFH • NotM • PEEING • CPT • RotM • BFF 23:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. —Sir SysRq (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, so I think I'm going to just go ahead and make it a rule to have at least one feature. This is a project about improving articles, not teaching users how to write. We already have a project for teaching users how to write, and while I think it's great that so many people are coming out to support IC I want to be sure that these people are actually going to stick around and do some work. I need to see some experience. I think that asking for one feature is probably on the same level as PEEING asking for five good reviews. If anyone has any other major arguments against this, I'm open to hearing them, but for the time being (especially since I myself do not even really know how well this is going to go) I think it's better to fly with a more experienced group. —Sir SysRq (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I dunno about that, having a whole feature seems like kind of a tough requirement. Why not something more like 'must have written two full articles'? That seems like a more reasonable accomplishment to me. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 01:39, Feb 20

Aye. That's makes for a good happy medium. Alright, I'll implement that rule. —Sir SysRq (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Does "two full articles" mean they have to be mainspaced? Because... you know........ I don't do stuff. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 14:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Just finish your freakin' articles! - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 15:36, Feb 20

Yeah, like, chaa. —Sir SysRq (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement stating the articles had to be good. /me wipes sweat off brow. Colin ALL YOUR BASEHeaney! Casa Bey Superfly Portfolio 20:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Right. They just have to be articles. —Sir SysRq (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

By the by

Let me know when you have enough people and I can remove the site notice. ~ 16:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's shoot for Saturday. Sunday is when the actual test begins and it won't be that new anymore so if you could have it down by then that'd be great. —Sir SysRq (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

query

what's a LOB? SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 13:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

LOB = Lobsterback. First rank in IC. All of the ranks can be found here. —Sir SysRq (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Time limits for nominations

One of the problems I noticed with the old IC was that often an article would get nominated, get several votes, but not get immediately chosen for colonization. This can mean that, when the article eventually becomes the colonization of the week, many of the votes are months old and some voters have gone on sabbatical or lost interest in the article. Therefore I propose that we impose a time limit of, say, a month for a nomination to be successful. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  20:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Perhaps we could do something like VFH and have a health system. Any way we could do that here? That way old articles would die one by one. —Sir SysRq (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

How about we just remove all noms at the end of each week? The page can always be nominated again if people still care. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 22:06, Feb 24

I dunno how I feel about that, since if an article were to be renommed for weeks it would mean removing and adding the template over and over. It makes for a lot more work than is necessary, and then people may be discouraged to renom since it just means they'll have to do more work. —Sir SysRq (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

i agree with the general principle, the staleness of the noms seems to have been what killed colonization each time before its current revival. but a week seems like too short a time...perhaps a month? SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 22:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

What I'm proposing is to remove one nom per week based on either score or a VFH-like health system (combining score and age). What Mick is proposing is removing noms after they have gone undone for one month. What Leddy is proposing is starting each week with a new slate. —Sir SysRq (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, let's vote. Uncyclopedians like to vote.

I like to vote, anyways. —Sir SysRq (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The Mickey Plan

This would remove noms after one month on the IC page without being Colonized.

Score: 0

The Sissy Plan

This would create a VFH-like health system, removing noms with poor health each week.

Score: 2

• W♥v. It is my idea, anyways. —Sir SysRq (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• For Wouldn't we need a colonization-smith for it, though? Colin ALL YOUR BASEHeaney! Casa Bey Superfly Portfolio 19:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Now Accepting Volunteers! —Sir SysRq (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • If you teach me I will volunteer for sure! ~SirTagstit • VFH • NotM • PEEING • CPT • RotM • BFF 15:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The Leddy Plan

This would remove all unsuccessful noms after each week.

Score: +2

• ChickaYeah. I did kind of suggest it. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 04:28, Feb 25
• For Sorry pa', for votin ginst ya n' all. But I don't think we made this to NOT do work. What I mean by that, is that if we have to mess with templates every week or so it isn't THAT hard and I think it would keep this page...mmm...fresh I think is a good word. A fresh slate every week =) ~SirTagstit • VFH • NotM • PEEING • CPT • RotM • BFF 04:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The Socky Plan

This looks a bit like the Leddy plan, but instead of removing after the colonization of the week has been chosen, we leave the nominations for one week, if someone votes for it in the next week it stays on, else it gets removed when the nomination of that next week is selected. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 08:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

And so the cutoff would be on Sunday of the following week? —Sir SysRq (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

So on a Sunday all the nominating and voting starts and everything stays until the next Sunday (except invalid nominations) and when the voting which occurred that last Sunday is concluded, the old nominations nobody voted for are removed. I hope it's all clear to you now. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 00:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Score: +4

• Obvious For. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 08:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• For -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 08:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• For, as my plan doesn't appear to be too popular. This seems to broadly do the same job, whilst assuring that if the article comes off the queue after a month or more it will have at least four recent voters. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  19:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• For this one. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 21:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

From Uncyclopedia_talk:Colonizer of the Month

Please, not another one. We can't have a prize for each and every project we run here....~ 16:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

My idea was to give members some more motivation, to increase participation in house. I realize now that there are going to be members of IC that aren't going to want to participate as much; perhaps dangling an award in front of them will encourage them to participate. I dunno, just an idea. I probably should have started up some kind of discussion before taking action. —Sir SysRq (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This is like parents giving money to kids for good grades :). Not everything should be based on awards. With this one I think it should be based on the will to improve crap rather than adding another set of initials after your sig. We have way way too many awards as it is, with some of the more central awards (such as Foolitzer) becoming inactive as a result. With this one, I think no award is necessary. ~ 16:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that only IC members should get to vote on which article to do. Anyone can nominate and participate in the rewrite, but only those who have shown previously that they are actually going to work on the article should have the final say in what's done. That would give IC members some incentive to be active. Just an idea... Also, Mordillo, do can I have my pocket money now? I deleted LOTS of articles! MrN  Fork you! 16:55, Mar 2

I suppose you can go ahead and bulldoze this idea for now, although this conversation is not over. I'm moving it to Uncyclopedia_talk:Imperial Colonization, won't you join me? =) —Sir SysRq (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Mordillo, you gave me an idea.

Petition to create Deleter of the Month

• Signed -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 18:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Woah woah woah woah woah. Hold on for just a sec here. You had CANDY for BREAKFAST? - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 18:35, Mar 2
  • It's not CANDY it's REESE'S PEANUT PUFFS CEREAL! ONE SMALL BITE AND MY TASTEBUDS ARE LOST IN A SEA OF CHOCOLATY FLAVOR!! -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 18:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
    • REESE'S PUFFS CEREAL! IT'S REESE'S -- FOR BREAKFAST! - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 19:10, Mar 2
      • PUT THOSE SPOONS DOWN I WILL NOT HAVE MY CHILDREN GOING TO SCHOOL ALL HYPED UP AFTER HAVING DELICIOUS DELICIOUS REESE'S PEANUT BUTTER CUPS FOR BREAKFAST!!! WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, DANA CARVEY? —Sir SysRq (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

A reminder to participants in Al Gore

Remember that you get one half feature credit for each colonization that you had a hand in that gets featured. You may want to take care of that yourselves, because I'm not going to do it for you. —Sir SysRq (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Fortnights (or, the Jew problem)

You good Colonizers may have noticed recently that Sunday has come and gone and yet Jew remains our Colonization of the Week. This is due to a lack of participation, as well as the scope of the project. Jew is undoubtedly a much larger project than Al Gore was.

Al Gore was a certain type of article. It was pretty much one joke, with generous amounts of humor. It was a conceptual article and required quality over girth. It's not terribly long, but it's effective and it gets the job done. I like Al Gore. When it was featured, I was thrilled. "IC is really taking off," I thought. I was proud of you guys.

But we're having some trouble with Jew now. Why? I think that, rather than blame ourselves or each other for not doing work, we should just acknowledge that Jew is a big project that, perhaps, IC just isn't ready to do in its infancy. Or, at least, we aren't ready to do it in a week.

So let's cut to the chase. The temporary (and unfortunately necessary) solution being enacted is to extend the Colonization period another week. As I thought about this more, I thought that perhaps we needed to extend all Colonizations to a fortnight. But that doesn't make sense to do, since we're very capable of turning out VFH quality articles in one week's time under the current system. But not all Colonizations are created equal, unfortunately. Some, like Jew, require a fortnight.

So here's what I'm asking you guys:

• In the future, what if we need to extend a Colonization to a fortnight?
• Who makes the call?
• When is the decision made?
  • Before the Colonization begins? (Perhaps we look at the project at hand and say 'this will take more than a week,' we have a vote and extend it to two weeks before we begin)
  • On Friday?
  • On Saturday?

I really need some input here, but I also need guys down at Jew making things happen. So if you could weigh in now, that'd be great, otherwise just focus on Jew for now and come back to this discussion later. Cheers! —Sir SysRq (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Just declare it to be a two weeks projects rather than doing another vote on it. On a side note, I think we're going in a very good direction, it is just a bit bigger than anticipated. ~ 08:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we just have to acknowledge that some articles are just gonna need a bit more time. Jew is the first of those, but I have a feeling it's not gonna be the last. IC is probably going to attract a lot of these "difficult" topics, and I'd much rather we took the proper time to get them right than rush through them just to meet some arbitrary deadline. I understand and agree with wanting to make sure IC doesn't stall out again, but I don't think two or even three weeks is an unreasonable amount of time, as long as we're still actually working on it. If at some point we come to the consensus that an article's got us licked, we can drop it and move on. I don't think we should panic or anything just yet. -OptyC Sucks! CUN15:26, 10 Mar

I never want to see an article go past two weeks. I say that's the limit. If you think otherwise, let's discuss. —Sir SysRq (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, yes, the Jewish problem *Lol*. You should probably just extend it a week, as Al Gore was a much smaller project, and quite funny. Some articles just need more time to be perfect.Saberwolf116 12:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Crisis?

Okay, I realize that I have been absent for quite some time at a rather inopertune point in IC's infancy. I've been gone, I guess is what I'm saying. So have you. I'm looking at Jew right now and, while there's a lot of content, there's not a lot of formatting going on and such. I'll give it my full attention later this afternoon. But I'm here to say a few things and make some concrete promises.

1. I will be around more.
2. There will be a new Colonization next week.
3. IC will take off again.

However, this has led me to realize that IC has yet to become autonomous, as is my hope. I want to remind you that my goal is to get this to a point where you don't need me all the time. If someone else had stepped up and taken control of the situation in my absense, things wouldn't be as they are now. From now on, I expect that if I'm not around, someone will make sure that we get a new Colonization started on Sunday and stuff like that.

But if we're not there yet, then we're not there yet. I'll stick around and try my best to undo the damage I probably did by leaving you guys alone for a few weeks. Again, I apologize. But it's time to press forward. —Sir SysRq (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

righto, sys, i was also not as available as i would have liked to have been the last two weeks. i'll look to see what i can add to Jew and steer things in your abscence in the future. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 19:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks buddeh. I know I can count on you. —Sir SysRq (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Might help?

I'm a bit in the background with this though I am very positive about this continuiing - Jew is a broad topic, they're got a lot of history and a lot for us to work with. It might be an idea to start another one that will be easier to complete - obviously don't get into the habit, but I find the topic pretty dense. Hope this is helpful:)--Sycamore (Talk) 18:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

As I stated before, there will be a new CotW on Sunday, regardless of where we are on Jew. Colonizations should not take this long. We're just going to move on, and if people wanna work on Jew that's their initiative. —Sir SysRq (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

right, the colonizers, having extinguished the natives and are moving on. the colonists can continue to plant corn or whatever it is they do. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 19:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

My two cents about this: as a peon soldier in the colonization effort, I never felt very confident about my place in this one. I found a place where I was comfortable with Al Gore, and I ran with it. I never got a good feel for this one and thought I should leave it to others who had ideas, and that I would just play proofreader or something for my part in this. I wonder if I'm not the only one for whom the selection was a bit tough. It isn't that I'm too much the gentle Gentile to satirize the filthy Jews, no. I just didn't have a good handle on the idea that was selected. Like I said, I wonder if I'm not the only one. --Globaltourniquet - (was TPLN) 23:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You're not the only one. I made some suggestions, but anything I would've written would probably digress into insulting Jews. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 23:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks muchly for the feedback, guys. I see that this may require some tweak in the process, perhaps, some kind of formalization when it comes to ideas. Maybe a proposal/voting system? I don't think we ever really had a definite concept for Jew anyways; having a vote would have cleared any confusion. It's all a journey, it's no huge loss if this one goes under and we just end up moving on. It's still a hell of a lot better than what was there before. Let the masses have their way with it, we'll come back to it. In the meantime, I'm going to start researching some better idea development strategies to address the concerns expressed by Tom and Sock. —Sir SysRq (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

pee

right, so jew is done...are we going to get it reviewed? SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 14:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you take care of that please? As in see that it gets done. —Sir SysRq (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

righty-o, just wanted to make sure you didn't get one off the list. i'll see if a trusted PEEING member can take a look. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 14:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool cool cool. In the meantime, MJ is under way. Care to join us? —Sir SysRq (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

absolutely! SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 15:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Nomination Que

Are all the nominations supposed to have been taken down? I don't want to make a new one for Myspace if it's a mistake.--Blaaargh ^Blaaaargh 20:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

For now, we've been taking them down, yes. Go ahead and renom it if you want. Know what else would be helpful? Taking off all the nom templates from last round. I forgot to do it myself. If you wouldn't mind doing it that'd be great. I mean, I'm just so unmotivated... —Sir SysRq (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Great Britain

Good work guys! I'm really pleased with how it turned out. I think its got a good mix of random silliness and satire. Plus it should be easy for folks to add to (and be reverted) addressing the concerns raised over the Jew article. I think this one's about as perfect an example of a good colonization as we've done so far. So again, great job everybody (except SysRq). -OptyC Sucks! CUN19:10, 11 Apr

official fortnight vote

alrighty gents, it has been expressed in many other places that colonization would be more effective if every effort lasted two weeks. therefore, i bring it to you to decide: shall we permanently extend all colonizations to two weeks? SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 18:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

yes

Score: +2

• for. i think one week is enough when we have plenty of users participating, a clear winning theme, and our loveable leaders to guide us (as was the case with Al Gore). however, most weeks, a few people can't contribute as much as they would like, and we need more time to hash ideas out for various reasons. so there. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 18:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
• Phor per above SIRE FREDDMOOSHA AMUSE ME 19:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
• Definitely I was thinking that is the only way to go. ~SirTagstit • VFH • NotM • PEEING • CPT • RotM • BFF 19:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

no

Score: 0

shut up, gerry

Score: +3

• I'm voting for this option because I'm not voting for the two other ones. Also see below. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 18:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
• for. alright then, we'll go with a case-by-case basis, shall we? SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 20:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
• aye. in classic lowercase style, yeh? —Sir SysRq (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

discussion

How about we make it minimum 1 week (well, duh) and maximum 3 weeks (in exceptional cases). After a week of colonizing fun, we can evaluate the work done so far and decide whether we need another week. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 18:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Colossal articles get 3 weeks. Big articles get 2. Normal articles get 1 SIRE FREDDMOOSHA AMUSE ME 19:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is the best course of action. If it's apparently necessary, we take Saturday to vote on whether or not to go to a fortnight. If it's done, it goes to PEEING. That's how it is now and I like it that way. —Sir SysRq (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

so that's another 'shut up, gerry'? SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 20:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeh. —Sir SysRq (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I do support Gerry in making two weeks a regular thing. But we don't have to make it 'official'. In some cases, one week may be enough. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 20:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)