Editing HRWiki talk:STUFF

==Show Page Problem?==
When I attempt to add my name to a vote and click "show page", it brings me up to that toon's stuff page (ie STUFF/mile) rather than the original STUFF page with all the facts on it.  Is this a glitch?  Its a little troublesome to have to click back and then back again to get back to the STUFF page. -- [[User:Tony Stony|Tony Stony]] 14:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
: It's normal, because the only edits to the actual STUFF page are adding more subpages. There's a "back to STUFF index" link on every fact. --{{User:Jay/sig}} 16:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::got it.  thanks~ --[[User:Tony Stony|<nowiki></nowiki>]][[User:Tony Stony|<font color=green>T<small>ony</small> S<small>tony</small></font><nowiki></nowiki>]] 16:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== Good Jorb ==
Much, MUCH better, guys. Great job. ''{gives round of applause}'' -- '''''[[User:Joshua|<font color=green>Joshua</font>]]''''' 18:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Well done It's Dot Com, Tom, Jay, and anyone else who was involved with this.  This incarnation of stuff should really cut down on the flaming and the confusion of the old way.  One question: what if the vote is a tie when two weeks is up?  Do we go into sudden death? (exprobably not) Does decline win automatically? (would make sense to me) Accept?-- {{User:Tony_Stony/sig}} 19:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also agree, it looks great! I think that if the two weeks are up and it's a tie, then it just stays up longer until the tie is broken. {{User:Homestar Coder/sig}} 19:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I actually ''used'' it for real the first time today, and it is ''so easy'' to see at a glance how each fact is doyng. I mean ''doing''. I'm really glad we got this done. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 19:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:And now I have gotten to STUFF two new real facts using the new method&mdash;so simple, anyone could use it! &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 22:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It looks great! Much more easier, although it takes a little longer to add a new fun fact, it's still way better! And it's really easy to count the votes! Thank you to all that were involved in re-organising STUFF (Jay did the tedious work of launching STUFF, changing all the fun facts to the new templates and everything). {{User:Rainer/sig}} 05:49, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
: I just did the grunt work. I helped with a little of the formatting stuff, but most of the design (as far as I see it) was IDC's. --{{User:Jay/sig}} 05:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::Yeah, that's what I meant. I also like how you can now add individual STUFF'd fun facts to your watchlist, instead of watching the whole page. I used to never go to STUFF because of how messy it was, but now I visit the page heaps. {{User:Rainer/sig}} 06:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

''gasp!'' Oh. My. Gods. I. Love. It. Oh. So. Much! [[User:single deuce|single deuce]] 1:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== Candidates for speedy verdicts ==
I propose the following guidelines for closing facts before the two-week time period is complete:
* After 4 days, a unanimous vote of at least 8
* After 1 week, a unanimous vote of any number
* After 1 week, a vote in which one side has at least 8 more votes than the other AND the ratio of votes is at least 3 to 1<br />(for example: 9 to 1, 12 to 4, 15 to 5)
&mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 19:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's pretty close to the criteria that I use(d) to close STUFFs quickly. I have been known to close a STUFF that's 10-0 (or higher) after just a couple of days though. -- [[User:tomstiff|tomstiff]] 19:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:Yeah, I've never had a problem with items being closed that are just taking up space. I wrote these guidelines not too long ago in an attempt to codify our policy. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 19:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::I've taken your advice and closed a couple of items quite early when they met the following criteria: unanimous or overwhelming vote with a double-digit lead. "Overwhelming" to me is a vote ratio of at least 4 to 1, preferably 6 or more to 1. The sooner it's closed after opening, the bigger the lead has to be. Also, if nobody votes on an item for over a day, but other items are heavily traficked, then (again, depending on the vote) it might be time to shut the former down. Judging these is becoming as much an art as a science. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 04:47, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)

== Verdicts ==
For verdicts, we can either move the items to the talk pages (like we do now), or they could be moved to a different subpage, like '''HRWIKI:STUFF Archive/pagename''', for example. If we use an archive subpage, we should put a reference link on the talk page with the fact in question and the verdict.<div style="text-indent:2em">As items close, they should definitely be ''moved'' somewhere. Otherwise, if down the line someone STUFFs something new from a page, all the old, closed facts will still be there. Once a template subpage is empty (all the facts have closed), the template subpage should be deleted. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 17:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)</div>
:Okay, I've set up some more templates and closed some facts. I think the verdict notices should move to the respective talk pages after a few days or so; then the STUFF templates can be deleted and the STUFF links can be removed from the articles. I've got to run right now, but tomorrow I'll write up the procedures for closing items. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 01:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::All right, I've written the instructions for '''[[HRWiki:STUFF/Verdict|How to close an item]]'''. The instructions are not for novices, so I don't know whether they should go on the main STUFF page or not. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 02:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== Doesn't fix everything ==

Apparently, as cool as this system is, there's still the plague of "Accepting a fact because I like it, even if it's not (or questionably) factual." I'm especially disappointed in three of my fellow sysops for voting for such a fact, all of whom I thought had more sense than that. And... I just needed to get that off my chest. --{{User:Jay/sig}} 06:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:I'm disappointed that you beat around the bush instead of just saying that the fact is "You said doyng" and that I'm one of the sysops you're disappointed in. And I happen to think that the fact is true true true. Strong Bad lingers on that word far longer than any other word in that email.  Disagreeing is fine, and accusing me outright of not having any sense is fine (although I can't speak for others), but there's no need to be all passive-aggressive. {{User:Homestar Coder/sig}} 18:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::Gosh! I thought he was talking about the "[[Talk:do_over#Change_of_Pace_(ACCEPTED)|Change of Pace]]" Family Guy reference! -- [[User:tomstiff|tomstiff]] 18:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::"Change of pace" was the old system. "Doyng" is on the new system and has three sysops in the "accept" column. (I was the one who originally stuffed and defended it.) {{User:Homestar Coder/sig}} 18:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::Strictly speaking, I didn't accuse you of having NO sense. Anyway, I just needed to rant. --{{User:Jay/sig}} 01:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::That's true, that's true. You wouldn't be the first though. :p {{User:Homestar Coder/sig}} 02:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==Neutral Voting==

I'd like to see a column for neutral votes. Sometimes I'd like to be able to express my opinion on an item, even if my opinion is just "meh". -- [[User:tomstiff|tomstiff]] 18:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:No. Take a stand, one way or the other. A neutral vote is no vote at all, and just takes up space. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 18:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::With the new format, voting doesn't take up nearly much screen space. You're correct when you state that a neutral vote is no vote at all. But it does express an opinion. -- [[User:tomstiff|tomstiff]] 18:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::An opinion of "meh" is not useful. Nobody cares if another user doesn't care, you know? {{User:Homestar Coder/sig}} 18:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::Shrug. Personally, I thought neutral voting was an interesting and useful part of the old STUFF system. -- [[User:tomstiff|tomstiff]] 18:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::::BTW "neutral" doesn't necessarily mean "I don't care". If you don't care, don't vote! To me Neutral meant "I'm interested but I'm not sure" or "I'm thinking about it" or "Convince me". -- [[User:tomstiff|tomstiff]] 18:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::::That's a reasonable point. {{User:Homestar Coder/sig}} 18:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::::The arguments are there to convince you. A couple of times now, I've made up my mind (and even changed it) based on some good arguments. But I don't think we should have to write ''more'' arguments to sway those on the fence. For one, if the vote is close, there will be plenty of arguments to read, and if it's not close, one vote in the other direction isn't going to make that much of a difference. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 18:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::::::Lawmakers (as an example) don't have to vote only "Yea" or "Nay" on a given subject . They have two other options. They can choose not to vote or they can abstain. You could look at a "neutral" vote as an abstention. -- [[User:tomstiff|tomstiff]] 18:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::::::That's a distinction without a difference. Not voting and officially abstaining have exactly the same effect: '''nothing'''. In our system, one must truly ''decide'' what his or her vote is, and only then does it go on record. I'll say again: you gotta take a stand. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 19:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::::::::The difference is that abstaining is not anonymous. You've gone on the record, albieit blandly. Personally, I like to know who is on the fence (although you didn't always know that with the old system either). Obviously, the new system works fine without neutral voting. I just miss it a little. -- [[User:tomstiff|tomstiff]] 19:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::::::::As far as caring who the neutral voters are, I'll just say this: Meh. ;) &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 20:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
: Neutral votes in the old format were meant for adding comments without the comment being counted as a vote. But we can do that with this system anyway. Since you can just elect not to vote, there really doesn't seem much point for a "Neutral" vote. --{{User:Jay/sig}} 19:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:: I agree, what's the ppoint of a neutral vote? Anyone who hasn't voted is a neutral vote. There's no reason to have it. If you haven't chosen a side, don't vote! If you haven;t chosen a side but want toi state a comment, use the super handy ultra cool comments section. [[User:Ju Ju Master|Ju Ju Master]] 01:26, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)
:if you really feel neutral vote on both sides. or if you fell strongly neutral vote twice for both sides. this is the only option that makes sense. {{User:Csours/sig}} 22:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
::Um, this discussion is months old. And don't vote twice. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 22:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

==How Did I Get Here?==
Is there an easier way to get to the main STUFF page? I have to search it every time I want to come here. If not, can we put a link on the [[Main Page]] or the sidebar under navigation so we can vote on our lovely STUFF? [[User:single deuce|single deuce]] 00:06, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)
* [[The Stick]]. --{{User:Jay/sig}} 00:09, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)
** Not bad, not bad. Clicking two links vs. typing one search. I'll have to decide. Thanks, Jay.  [[User:single deuce|single deuce]] 00:51, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)
***Plus, [[STUFF]] redirects here. That's only five letters! - {{User:Kookykman/sig}}
****Incidentally, so does [[stuff]]. That doesn't even require ''shift''. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]]

== Fake User Names or Unlogged Regulars? ==

I haven't been deleting votes from some IPs because they use the User Names of regulars. But now IPs have been voting with user names that don't seem to be real (for instance, [[User:Mix Ma$ta'|Mix Ma$ta']] has made [[Special:Contributions/Mix Ma$ta'|zero edits]].) What to do? --{{User:Jay/sig}} 21:42, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)

:I've been noticing this, and been thinking, "uh oh." I think all anonymous-ip votes need to be deleted, even if it is the known ip of a regular user. We should draw the line at "Must be logged in." Period. This would take a lot of work to maintain, though. But it would be worth it if we could stop any exploiting of the system. -[[User:BazookaJoe|BazookaJoe]] 21:46, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)

::"You must be logged in when you vote" was one of the original instructions I wrote for the page, but I haven't been enforcing it for known users because I didn't want to come across as too strict. It always peeves me a little, though, when users don't log in. (I usually just ''stay'' logged in, although I know all users don't have their own computer and thus can't do so. But signing in seriously takes about 6 seconds, so there's no good excuse for not.) Concerning Mix Ma$ta', it seems an anonymous IP created a userpage but not an account. That's... unusual. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 23:50, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)

::: I'm not so sure that it IS that unusual... --{{User:Jay/sig}} 04:35, 7 Jul 2005 (UTC)

:: Sorry for being late, but... "Mix Ma$ta" is actually a nickname for "[[HRFWiki:The Mu|The Mu]]," a common fanstuff wiki user. - '''''[[User:Joshua|<font color=green>Joshua</font>]]'''''

== I have a question ==

Is there a link to the stuff pages, because it's kinda tiring searching for the stuff'd things.

:I think what you are asking for is all here: [[HRWiki:STUFF]] -[[User:BazookaJoe|BazookaJoe]] 14:09, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)

No, I mean like let's say the new strong bad email, I wanna link to the page of the strong bad email stuff'd facts.

== End of witty comments ==

Thank god for this new system. Finally, I don't have to put up with people who type "DECLINATION TO THE MOOOON!!!!!!" rather than just "Decline." That stuff can be annoying after awhile. {{User:Gafaddict/sig}} 07:02, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)

== I think I know why some people write stupid Fun Facts. ==

It's just that they are so exicted to see their addiditons to the Wiki. -Kinsey
:That's very true. (But we've still gotta weed 'em out.) &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 21:10, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
:P.S. I mentioned this earlier, but it might have gotten lost in all the hustle and bustle: A quick tip: You can sign your name on talk pages simply by typing four tildes (<tt><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></tt>). That will automatically create a link to your user page and a timestamp.

== Clean Up ==

It seems like there are too many completed fun facts on the STUFF page. It needs to be cleaned out. -- {{User:Super_Sam/sig}} 11:51, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)

:They get cleared about every two weeks or so. I went ahead and did it this morning. I must say, though, that even though there were a lot of closed items on the page, thanks to the new format it was still quite tidy. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 16:58, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)

== Table of Contents ==
I used the wonder of "show preview" to see what this page would be like with a table of contents. What I found was a useful and non-obtrusive link to all the fun facts. Maybe we should add it to the page? - '''''[[User:Joshua|<font color=green>Joshua</font>]]''''' 03:47, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)
: I checked it out too, and I agree. --{{User:Jay/sig}} 03:58, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)

::Two reasons not: First, the page is designed to make you, or at least hopefully a new user, read the instructions. Second, it's designed to make users scroll across various items. That way, if anything is new (like a revision) or if they forgot to vote on an item, they'll notice it.<div style="text-indent:1.5em">If you've already voted on older items, that's okay, because the newer items are always at the top, and scrolling past the instructions really isn't that far. Also, whenever you reach a STUFF subpage from an article, it always takes you directly there. Then, when you click "back to STUFF index", it takes you to the top of the items, not the top of the page. Finally, because we are doing a better job clearing out items, there often aren't very many on the page (in fact, a couple of days ago there were only ''two'' open items). &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 03:59, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)</div>

:::Okay, sorry for bringing up an old topic, but if the purpose is for people to read the instructions, why don't we put the TOC ''below'' the instructions? - {{User:Kookykman/sig}}

::::Well, that wasn't the only purpose listed above. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 17:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

== My eyes! ==

Ahh! What;s with the new STUFF colors? They are blinding! Please, reconsider your choice of colors,at leat maked it match with the wiki's colors (which seem to be blue and white, or grey maybe) Thanks for reading, have a nice tray-er.. day. - [[User:Ju Ju Master|Ju Ju Master]] 00:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
:Where are you talking about, exactly? &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 00:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
::The bright yellow tables, in my opinion they do not go well with the white background.. - [[User:Ju Ju Master|Ju Ju Master]] 22:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
:::I'm afraid I still don't know which ones you mean. If you're talking about the ones that show you where to put arguments and votes, then that's the way it's always been since the overhaul several months ago. If you're talking about the headers, then I must disagree with you. They look way better than they used to; they're actually legible now. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 23:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
::::I'm tlaking about the tables at the top, with the links to how to STUFF a fact, how to votew, and those things. Couldn't they be light blue? Yellow just clashes with the blue and white theme of the wiki. - [[User:Ju Ju Master|Ju Ju Master]] 16:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
:::::I'm agreeing with Ju Ju Master here. They don't look very...wiki-ish. - {{User:Kookykman/sig}}
::::::Not "wiki-ish"? Maybe you should look at this [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Introduction|Wikipedia page]], which has exactly the same format. At any rate, the yellow of the tables was chosen specifically to ''contrast'' with the blue of the links and the highlights, and also to draw attention so that people might actually see them. As for that particular yellow, it has been in use here for months, and it's a muted yellow&mdash;hardly what someone could call blinding. If you want to see light blue and gray, just scroll down to the items. ;) &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 21:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
:::::::This was a long time ago, but yeah, I 'gree with dot com. It looks fine like this, and now you can read it. {{User:Bubsty/sig}} 03:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

==Edit links for every voting list?==
''{copied from [[Template:STUFF/Fall_Float_Parade]]}'':<br>
Would it be too much to alter the template so that revisions also have their own edit button? I think it would be much helpful and less confusing. EVEN BETTER: have each vote section (for and against) have their own edit buttons so that people can be sure to be voting in the right section.) I know this belongs in some talk page somewhere, but I don't know where and I do not feel like looking for it right now. Thanks! &mdash; [[User:Stux|Stux]]
:'''Strongly''' seconded!! When a fact gets three or so revisions, and say you want to vote for the second one, scrolling through all the code and still getting your vote into the right place can be frustrating at best, and potentially bewildering for the inexperienced! &mdash;[[User:AbdiViklas|AbdiViklas]] 22:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
::I've always wondered why we don't have an <small>[edit]</small> tab for revisions... Tis frustrating sometimes. Full support here. --[[User:DorianGray|DorianGray]]
You must grant, however, that a fact with two or three revisions is quite unusual. And often people need to switch their vote in order to vote for a revision, or they may need to decline more than one revision at once. That said, I will look into adding this feature. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 22:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
:P.S. An edit button for each column (accepts and declines) seems excessive. If people can't review their vote after it's been cast, then they'll be no better off than the Floridians who couldn't tell whether they had punched a chad on their ballots or not. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]]
::'''Second''' It would be quite simple, really. Just replacing the &lt;big&gt; tags around the code with ''<nowiki>=====</nowiki>'' would do it. Perhaps a note should be left [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=Template_talk:stuffrevise&action=edit here]? &mdash; {{User:Lapper/sig}} 22:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
:::That didn't work. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 22:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
:Actually, I'm ''not'' so convinced of the rarity of multiple revisions; seems like the STUFFs for most of the last few major 'toons have included them. I agree, though, that it would be unfortunate to lose the ability to edit multiple revisions at once. Maybe it could be like Fun Facts, where there's one edit link for all of Fun Facts and then individual ones for the sub-headings? &mdash;[[User:AbdiViklas|AbdiViklas]] 22:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
::Looking over the archives, even for recent toons, it's not that common, although it has happened a bit more because people have been a little haphazard with the revisions. Making the revision into a subsection was exactly what I tried to do, but it screwed up all the sections, such that when I clicked on edit all I got was a blank screen. I'll research it more when I have some time to concentrate on it. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 22:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
:::The headers did not work correctly? Strange.  I do remember encountering some time ago a page that, when rendered, had the edit buttons point to the wrong section?  Perhaps the fact that we're using templates to introduce the indices and in reality cannot edit the template'd code without a <Code>subst</CoDE> may be the reason why you're getting empty pages. --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 16:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

== Stuff Voting Procedure ==

I've noticed for some time now that the current voting procedure is rather biased when we are dealing with facts that have proposed revisions.  What I mean is that when a fun fact in question has a revision posted for voting, the vote is humongously biased against declining both votes.
What do I mean by this?  I we see [[Template:STUFF/Fall_Float_Parade|the vote]] for the first fact '' Ouch! Buzz Buzz Buzz'' and its two revisions. Anybody can vote to decline all three revisions. 

That is one voter can affect the decline vote of all three revisions. However, that same voter can only vote positively in one of the three revisions listed. They do have the option to decline the other revisions, but can only accept one.  Here is the bias: suppose we have 10 voters voting for the aforementioned revision.  Each revision can each have up to 10 decline votes. Thus making it look like 30 people voted. However the accept votes must be (understandably) divided by the 10 people voting. This makes it *really* easy for a fun fact to be completely declined by a minority of voters.  Yes voters can change their votes to other revisions, but they must generally be actively notified of such need by other interested voters (in a form of ''voter's activism''). If you add up the number of accept votes, it is clear that the voters want some form of the fact to be accepted.  But like i said the bias will likely land the fun fact declined.  Don't you just love politics?
I couldn't think of a reasonable voting scheme alternative until now:  we could make the declines vote an alternative "revision".  That is if we have a fun fact that has a revision, then we'd have: 
#the original fact (vote only to accept)
#revision 1 (vote only to accept)
#revision 2 (vote only to accept)
#decline votes (all votes of people who decline all 3 revisions)
Voters would only be allowed to vote on one of these 4 categories.  Thus the vote is evenly divided between the 4 options. Actually, even this proposed revision has bias in it. (a 1/4th majority would only be needed to decline the revision). A better tally would be to have the decline votes outnumber the sum of revision votes (i.e. 1/2 of voters have to vote to decline). ''Optional:'' If the revisions win, and the decline votes have a majority (i.e. less than 1/2 voters, but greater than the votes for any of the other 3 revisions), then a revote can be made so that those who declined the fact can vote for whatever revision they deem best. (Or they could do so preemptively, have a "secondary vote" in case the declines lose). ''end optional section.''

It's a mess, I know.  ''Fair'' voting isn't easy to achieve, and is still being [http://www.electionline.org/ hotly debated] by many scholars and politicians alike.  Some real-world proposals range from a staggered voting scheme (everyone votes for their #1 candidate choice, their #2 choice, and so on; ties are broken by the #2, #3 choices, etc.), a weighed voting scheme (like the staggered, only that the #1 choice has a certain amount of points, #2 has less points, etc. and the winner would get the sum of points -- much like the way racing videogames determine the winner of a circuit), and the "let it be" scheme (that is, the way the US system works and many other countries). Some of the newer schemes have been implemented in countries in Australia and England if I remember correctly. Every system has its own inherent bias unfortunately. Not many people realize that the vote can be influenced simply by choosing a different voting scheme that "seems" fair.  Personally, I don't mind the US voting system at all, recent controversies and all. The recent german vote, to me, seemed stranger than anything. (''Wow, what a tangent!'', anyway back to the topic.) You may say that the current STUFF scheme resembles the US system, but it does not: the US system does not have a "decline" option to where you couldn't have a president or senator or governor take office.  You must choose "one of the lesser evils".  With STUFF, things are different.  The ''decline'' option introduces a whole new set of complexities that must be appropriately dealt with. <br>
--[[User:Stux|Stux]] 16:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh and I forgot: on the technical side of things,  if the above proposition, or one similar to it is adopted, we may likely need to create new templates so as to not mess our current vote archives since their inherent structures are different. --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 16:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

:It took me a lot of reading and re-reading, but I think I finally got my brain up to speed with what you're saying. My first response was "Of course someone can vote against all but only for one! What if someone doesn't approve of ''any'' of them? But we can't have multiple versions of the fact on the page, so someone can only ''approve'' one." But then I tried harder to understand your proposal: You're saying that voting for a given revision ''assumes'' a decline for the other revisions, right? I.e. if I vote for #3 I don't have to explicitly vote ''against'' #s 1 & 2. Thus the "vote only to accept" stuff; at the end we'd just award it to the revision with the most votes. You lost me with the part about the 1/4th majority; wouldn't it only take one voter more than the winning revision had to decline it? I.e. if the voting breaks down 1-3-2, then it would only take the remaining 4 voters to decline it.
:But moving on from understanding your concerns to critiquing them: This would involve difficulties of notifying people who've already voted as well. Every vote with revisions starts its life as a simple "up or down vote" (to use a trendy phrase). Presumably some will start voting for it and some against it. Now a revision's introduced. We change both to "vote only to accept"&mdash;and do what with the existing declines? They can't be assumed to be decline-alls. We'd have to notify them and ask them to come back and take a stand on the current revision; either vote for the new one or decline all. This would have to be ''repeated'' with each new revision!
:Mightn't a simpler answer be to keep the current system and somehow automatically notify previous voters when a revision is made? (Or make the reviser manually do it, but I don't like that idea.) But also there's a compelling argument for simply letting ''voter activism'' and ''voter apathy'' take their natural courses. After all, we're not electing the next president; outsiders have more than once marvelled at how deathly serious we take things around here, for fans of '''a cartoon'''. One could argue that if one cares enough about their vote they can jolly well check up on it, or conversely if someone can't be bothered to log in more than once a month and their vote gets wasted, tough cookies to them. &mdash;[[User:AbdiViklas|AbdiViklas]] 03:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance, but why vote at all? Just add it the same way everything else is. If a single item is disputed then "vote" or discuss it if necessary. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 04:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

:Good question, Broken Segue. The reason, as far as I can tell, is that we have disputes about our Fun Facts ''all the time''. I don't know what it's like at Wikipedia, but people debate whether or not x is a reference to y on a regular basis. Originially, STUFF was largely just a vote/discussion (look at the votes archived on talk pages before this summer for examples). It was changed because we had trouble with things like ''ad hominem'' attacks on people during the voting and because the votes and arguments were getting confusing (for the most famous example of this, see [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php/Talk:do_over#Change_of_Pace_.28ACCEPTED.29 this infamous debate]. The newer procedure is cleaner and, IMHO, easier to use. I suppose if we didn't have disputes about Fun Facts so often, it wouldn't be necessary, but as the situation here is now, I find it useful. [[User:Heimstern Läufer|Heimstern Läufer]] 04:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
::wow, you are right. Sounds like some people need to take some chill pills. That's the problem when not all facts need to be verified from a source...it's all just speculation. Still, you could approve the general idea of a fact and iron out the wording later. It seems silly to have 3 alternate versions with different wordings. The issue is, is the fact true. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 04:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
:::First off, thank you all for your thorough and well thought out responses.  I know it presented a lot to digest. To clarify things: I realize now that I made a mistake when I stated thr 1/4th majority for the decline votes. I mistakenly assumed that the other three votes were evenly distributed, then a 1/4th majority in the declines would work, but that may not always be the case of course. Abdi's example makes more sense: all you need is one more vote than the leader to decline: so if the accept revision vote is 1-3-2 and the decline vote is 4, then all three revisions get declined even though there are 6 voters in favor of some sort of revision.  

:::You can see that this is exactly the same thing that is currently going on:  take the same 10 voters, those who voted accept voted 1-3-2 as in the example before, and suppose they abstained from declining the others. Now suppose just 4 ''different'' voters voted decline on each of the three revisions.  All three revisions will easily get declined.  The votes would be worse if those who voted accept for some revisions vote decline for the others.  See what I mean?  Not even ''voter apathy'' is required to turn down revisions, those who want to see revisions passed must actually fight an ''uphill battle'' to do so (they'd have to convince all the other voters to "switch to their side" and "gang up" against the naysayers).

:::You are right though Abdi, it is a hassle in ''any'' case to have to have people come back and vote again on the same thing twice (unless a new revision was proposed between the time they voted and "now").  However, their vote should not be ''weakened'' simply because a new revision was proposed. The original Wikipedia voting system (from which I assume this was derived) does not quite have the problem since i've only seen it being used for keep/delete votes for pages.  They have no need to make revisions and so they don't run into this problem.

:::BrokenSegue's idea is a very good one (I was thinking about something like it but couldn't come up with something decent): have two different types of votes within the same topic.  One would be wether you want to accept the fun fact ''or some sort of revision for it,'' or just decline it altogether.  The second vote would be for what revision you would vote for, including the original version (you could abstain from voting for any revision). The revision with the most votes would win, ''only if'' the accept votes defeated the decline votes. And it would be all done in one fell swoop. --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 16:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't read this whole discussion (because it was too darn long), so tell me if I didn't get the gist right. It has been evident to me for a while that we need to be able to accept the ''idea'' of an item separate from the actual wording. When the system was set up, it was pretty much unheard of to propose a ''revision'' to an item that was already on its way to being accepted. Revisions were a last resort when the original item was going down in flames. Lately, however, revisions have been a little more willy-nilly, to use a techinical term. What would be the fairest way to implement a change? A third column, perhaps? (Forgive me if this is already mentioned above, but I'm really in a hurry and am not going to read it before I post this reply.) "Accept if revision fails", or something like that? Or should we allow users to accept more than one revision? Somebody work up some mock-ups. I will when I get a chance later tonight or tomorrow. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 22:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::'''(Edit conflict)''' That [Stux's new proposal] has promise. I still can't quite imagine it in action, largely because it assumes that fairly often people will be strongly for or strongly against, but not care that much about the differences between revisions. On the contrary, taking the current STUFF as an example: the one about Marzi & bees and the one about Marshie both have three revisions, and I'm definitely in favor of ''one'' specific revision of each and very much against the others. I'm still not convinced that the inequity you're perceiving is really that inequitable: Without revisions, each vote is simply up or down. If we consider each revision individually, it still stands or falls based simply on votes for or against. If the accept votes have less agency, it's because they're disunified; they may ''or may not'' prefer a different revision to no fact at all. And again, if they ''are'' willing to switch their vote in order to see a revision win, the ball is in their court to do so.
:::::Now wait, a minute; for what I'm saying to be true (and I do think this is a possible solution), there would have to be a clearer statement of when a STUFF vote expires. I would probably hold out on my favored revision until the last minute, then switch to a secondary choice as the deadline got close. Without knowing ''when'' the last minute is, though, I'd probably sit tight. For it to really be equitable, we should have an automated system that notified people when facts they had a vote in were drawing to a close, since it's pretty naive to expect anyone to keep track of all of them (when you're putting STUFF deadlines in your DayPlanner, you know you're ''too'' involved with the Wiki!).
:::::But on another note, I'm not so concerned about it being hard to get a fact accepted. As BrokenSegue pointed out, pretty much every STUFF vote deals with issues that can't be proven evidentially (if, for instance, TBC say something about it in a commentary, then it would be silly to STUFF it). This ''is'' a knowledge base, and the goal should be to keep it as accurate as possible. While I think all these "maybes" and "possiblies" ''should'' be documented, since it's edifying to know about them, even if they're not proven, that already happens through the STUFF process itself and Talk page entries (like [[Talk:Arcade Game#fonzie?|this one]]). (Arguing against myself, though, if a majority of users like a fact and it still gets voted down, and can't subsequently be added since it's "been through STUFF," is that really the Wiki Way? I'm not sure I understand the Wiki Way. Which is more important, accuracy or equity?) &mdash;[[User:AbdiViklas|AbdiViklas]] 22:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::<span id="DC"></span>You guys are making this too complicated. There have been 202 items that have gone through the process since we adopted the new format, and every last one of them has been closed according to a consensus of voters. (Some votes, naturally, are closer calls than others.) The standard voting period is two weeks. This is usually twice as long as is necessary to determine the will of the community (sometimes it's ''fourteen times'' too long). After a week or so, I feel comfortable closing an item if it is currently enjoying a 3 to 1 ratio (either for or against) and has a minimum number of total votes. If something has been open only a few days, I use a standard of 4 or 5 to 1, depending. Items are usually closed immediately when the ratio reaches 20 to 1. At that point, if someone were going to propose a revision, they would have by that point. When deciding when to render verdicts, I also use common sense, such as the relative speculation in the item and whether heavy contributors have voted for or against it. I am quite confident in how things are going and believe that the process works. If there is ever a gray area (which is most rare), I leave a note on a talk page. If anyone believes the wrong verdict has been rendered, he or she can bring it up for appeal. Let me clarify that last statement. An appeal cannot be brought simply because one disagrees with the verdict; it must be shown that there was something wrong with the ''process''. Possible reasons would include new evidence not available at the time of the vote, a belief that the majority of voters misunderstood the question, voter fraud (unlikely but technically possible), or if the vote were closed too early (although, as I explained before, votes that are even remotely close are not closed before two weeks (and some are even held over a couple of days, just in case there are any stragglers (which there never have been (I believe due to the attention spans these days (okay, there are too many open parentheses here, so this will be the last nested one))))). There is only ''one'' item, by the way, that I myself would appeal, and it's from the old format days (and it's not even "the infamous one"). I just haven't gotten around to it. In the case of revisions, I am again confident that the best revision has made it into the articles. Also, note that there's nothing stopping people from discussing the wording of an accepted item and tweaking it later, so long as the ''essence'' of the item doesn't change (this has happened, incidentally). Goodness! I've written a novel here! &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 02:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::::Hey, everybody's doin' it! And yeah, I lean back to my earlier statements that, while I see the math of your original concern, Stux, I'm not sure it's actually an operational inequity. If "accept" voters ''really, really'' wanted to overcome the free-ranging power of the decliners, they have simply to contact each other and move their votes to a popular candidate. If they can't conscience the popular version, or if they don't care enough about their vote to check on it within two weeks, then it's perfectly right for it to be declined. &mdash;[[User:AbdiViklas|AbdiViklas]] 02:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::::Just one more question, Dot com: we ''have'' stopped using butterfly ballots, right? ;-) Seriously, though, I wanted to thank you for writing that novel; it answered some questions I've had for a long time but never gotten around to asking. I also wanted to weigh in and say that I, too, feel that the current system is a good one and probably doesn't need much tweaking. (Although I ''still'' can't decide how to vote on the "sensitive to bees" fact...) [[User:Heimstern Läufer|<span style="color:#008000">Heimstern Läufer</span>]] [[Image:heimstern101.gif|22px]] 02:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

::::::::I know you were just joking, but the old version was ''very'' much like the type of confusion butterfly ballots (supposedly) caused, and the current system of clear-cut accepts/declines was devised to make things simple. Admittedly, revisions do make things sticky on occasion, which is why we have people watching out for the system. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 02:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

:::::::::Oh, I'm definitely aware of the old system: If you look a little higher on this discussion, you'll see that I referred Broken Segue to the most infamously convoluted STUFF vote on the old system. I may not have been around at the time, but I have read a ''lot'' of old talk pages. And whenever I did, it was so freakin' confusing to read those cussed STUFF votes! Thus, I know that there was some truth behind the butterfly ballot joke. And I definitely prefer the new system. [[User:Heimstern Läufer|<span style="color:#008000">Heimstern Läufer</span>]] [[Image:heimstern101.gif|22px]] 03:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

==Another idea==
I don't mean to make the situation more complicated by adding more thoughts, but I think this idea is worth considering. I think this way is more wiki-ish and less bureaucratic. Why not let people create these votes only in opposition to already existing facts. It would work like this.: Person A adds Fact X to the article. Person B likes it, but rewords it slightly. Person C hates X and starts a vote to get it removed. The vote is, "should we keep this fact? yes or no?" During the vote people may reword it as they please or propose secondary version but there is just one vote for the fact. If X is voted down then it is removed never to be added again otherwise it stays. Terrible facts could be "speedily" removed without a vote. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 00:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
:Except for the "one vote for the fact" (if I'm interpreting that correctly), this is ''exactly'' how the process already works. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 01:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

== Source Code ==

I just tried to add a new section, but the source code provided a rather sloppy syntax. I think it needs to be cleared up. It's possible to use other templates and edit them to avoid this problem. However, the course should still be fixed in case there ever aren't any. --[[User:AnarchyBalsac|AnarchyBalsac]]
:I think perhaps you need to look more closely at the [[HRWiki:STUFF/Newpage|instructions]]. If that doesn't work, I need more information: What were you trying to do? What were the steps you took to do it? How did what happened differ from what you expected? &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 05:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

== Please improve code previews to work with link code ==

I briefly skimmed over the discussions above, so it's possible this was already mentioned, but I'd like to formally request that when you use <nowiki>{{stuffnew}} and {{stuffrevisecode}}</nowiki> and then press "Show Preview", the text inside the code is enclosed in &lt;nowiki&gt; tags.  So, for instance, if I type:

<pre><nowiki>{{stuffrevisecode|The [[Wikipedia:Blue Angels|Blue Angels]] flew right past us}}</nowiki></pre>

...the code shown would look like:

{| style="background:#fed; border:none;"
| <nowiki>{{stuffrevise|The [[Wikipedia:Blue Angels|Blue Angels]] flew right past us}}</nowiki>
|}

...and not:

{| style="background:#fed; border:none;"
| <nowiki>{{stuffrevise|The</nowiki> [[Wikipedia:Blue Angels|Blue Angels]] flew right past us<nowiki>}}</nowiki>
|}

This would make the STUFF process much easier, IMO.  (Note, my use of &lt;nowiki&gt; in the source code for this comment is for display purposes only.  I don't know how the STUFF code itself actually works.)

{{User:KieferSkunk/sig}} 06:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

:I have already tried to do that. As far as I can tell, there isn't a way to automatically do it. But see the last tip on [[HRWiki:STUFF/Help]]. (Does nobody read those pages?) &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 06:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

::Ah, sorry - had not read the page.  Thanks. {{User:KieferSkunk/sig}} 06:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

== Resource Prominence ==

I was wondering if the "Resources" tab in the [[Template:stuffinstructions|protected template]] could be renamed "Important Resources" or even "Step by step guide" to bring a little more attention to the importance of the tab.  The [[HRWiki:STUFF/About|about page]] could be linked again from that section too. --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 18:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:I have changed it to "Technical instructions". There are already ''two'' links to the About page in "What is this page and when should we use it?", which itself is set in <big>'''big, bold type.'''</big> I don't see how another link would do any good. The fact is that certain people will ''never'' read instructions, even if you set them in 100pixel-high type and make them red and blinking. Every one of those links has been there since day one of the new format, highlighted in gold (the easiest color for the eye to see), and yet I ''still'' see people who copy and paste old items to try and make new ones, or who go through process backwards (they begin by editing the STUFF index and finish up by editing the article, instead of the other way around). &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 00:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
::I did, however, put a link to the About page on both the Help and Quickref pages. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]]
:::Yeah I was kinda hoping for 150pt font size in '''bold''' with those red blinking letters you mentioned and not only that, a feature that would not let them do anything with STUFF unless they actually read the instructions and provided proof of such reading by submitting and page long essay. That or $5. Yeah... even then they'll ignore it. Oh and great idea about adding links to the About page! --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 03:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

== When does it end? ==

Is it arbitrary? Are there rules? How does a STUFF end? {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 08:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
:Normally they close two weeks after being opened, but if the voting is one-sided it may end early, see [[#Candidates for speedy verdicts]] above. {{User:Phlip/sig}} 11:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
::Well, those guidelines were proposed early and are more formal than our actual practice. A better section to read would be [[#DC|this one]] above. Suffice it to say, however, that nothing is ever closed early if the majority isn't overwhelming (unless the item can be shown to be patently false, of course). Out of curiositiy, why do you ask? &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 15:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
:::Out of curiositiy. :) {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 17:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

== Altering the STUFF'd fact ==

Earlier I reverted an anony's change to a STUFF. Someone (I'm sure in good faith) reverted me and I can see where the confusion is.

In the STUFF instructions here, we're told that we must be logged in to vote or edit arguments or offer revised STUFFs. But it never explicitly says we can't alter the STUFFed fact! I mean, it stands to reason you cannot alter the proposal, but shouldn't that be explicit in the instructions? I'd vote to '''add''' that prohibition to "notes about voting". {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 20:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
:Well, under certain circumstances, you ''can'' alter the STUFF'd fact (although you must be logged in to do so). I know I've written about this somewhere else, but now I can't find it. Oh yeah, [[HRWiki:Glossary#R|HRWiki:Glossary]]. You can ''reword'' an item (especially in the early part of its existence) without having to completely ''revise'' it. Also, in many cases it's best to leave a note when making a change like that. As for the edit in question, that was a substantial change to the meaning of the item, and if it were to move forward it would have to be proposed as a full revision. I see no reason to proceed with it, however, because it's just adding more speculation to something that's probably going to be declined anyway. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 21:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
::Ok, so basically 1) No interaction with STUFF when not logged in, aside from posting arguments (but not revising), 2) No alterations to proposed item unless it improves, or at least doesn't change, the meaning. Do I get it? {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 21:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
:::(1) No anonymous interaction at all, including posting arguments (although if all an anonny does is add an argument or comment, I'm loathe to remove it for fear of appearing to be limiting speech). (2) Right, if the item just needs a little tweaking, then it's okay to fix it. Or, for example, if part of the item is patently false and yet the accepts are somehow leading, it can be changed to make it true, so long as a clear note is left for everyone to see. If it really got crazy then I suppose we'd have to start the item over completely, but so far we've been able to prevent that. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 21:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

== POV STUFF? ==

From comments for [[Template:STUFF/candy product]]:

:Should the title of this section be made more NPOV?
::No. 
:::Yes. {{User:Qermaq/sig}}
::::No. Let me explain. The STUFF page is, by definition, all about opinions, and, thus, POV. We've had clearly POV STUFF titles before and no one complained then.
:::::Yes, as the wording of a STUFF item can certainly color one's perception of the fact. A more balanced title might lead the reader less, and should ideally always be strived for. {{User:Qermaq/sig}}
:::::Leaving the heading is like a voting booth saying "Vote for Senator Bob Statesman" in big letters.  This is a place for voting, and nobody has the right to try to influence a vote.  Yes, this page is all about opinions, but they belong under the clearly defined headings "arguments for" and "arguments against."
::::::This isn't the place to discuss this. Go to [[HRWiki Talk:STUFF|this page]] if it bothers you so much. As I've said, we've had STUFF facts with clearly POV titles before, and no one complained then.
:::::::no one even complained with "worst reference ever" {{User:Invisible_Robot_Fish/sig}} 22:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::::That's because the "worst ever" part was a reference to something else.
:::::::: And, heck, there was a fact called "[[HRWiki:STUFF/Archive/secret identity#Similarity? I think so!|Similarity? I think so!]]" that got a unanimous decline! --{{User:Jay/sig}} 22:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::Point is that even if POV was overlooked in the past it's still not a fair way to present STUFF. We used to keep slaves, too. Do we stick to that precedent? {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 22:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::::: Um, let's keep the scope of this discussion relevant. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 22:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::As long as no one complains, then it's not a problem to have POV titles. But if someone complains, then for crying out loud by all means find a compromise and make the title NPOV. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 22:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, while the 'slavery' comment isn't on the same level as voting on a cartoon fact, it remains that the policy should be to present STUFF in a manner that is fair and balanced, even if it hasn't always been done that way. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 22:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
:What does NPOV mean?
::No Point Of View. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 22:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
:::Neutral, actually. --{{User:Jay/sig}} 22:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
::::Seems like either would work. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]]
:STUFF titles get changed quite a bit. Well, not often, but certainly not never. (Usually the case is that the title isn't clever enough and some thinks of a cleverer one.) If there's a title you don't like because it's POV, then change it. But for truly horrible facts that just get STUFF'd to make an anonny see reason, the the STUFFer's first title is probably fine. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 22:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
::I would agree with that. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 22:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
:::Don't get me wrong, I don't care all that much, but I'd like to raise a counter argument: what one person sees as unreasonable may not be what another sees as unreasonable. -[[User:Unknownwarrior33|Unknownwarrior33]] 22:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
::::Well, some things are clearly biased. If it is in the gray area where one person sees bias and another does not, it should be changed so no one sees bias. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 22:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::Agreed. Sorry if I misunderstood you. -[[User:Unknownwarrior33|Unknownwarrior33]] 22:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

== Suggestion ==

After you vote on STUFF< you're on the toon's STUFF page, not back at the full STUFF page. So let's say I vote on a STUFF from one toon, and I want to vote on another. I have to navigate BACK to the full STUFF here and then I can vote. Is there a way to have a link to return us to the full STUFF? {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 01:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
:That's exactly what the "Back to STUFF index" links at the bottom of every disputed fact are for.  {{User:Kilroy/sig}} 02:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
::Well, see what you learn around heee! (In my defense, that's ant-poop small in Opera.) Thanks. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 02:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
:::Heh, I didn't exactly put that two and two together either, and it's bothered me many a time. So at least you're not along Qermaq. ;) {{User:Thunderbird L17/Siggie}} 17:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

== Statistics ==

As of this date, just over 300 STUFF items have been processed under the current system. The decline-to-accept ratio is almost exactly 2 to 1. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 05:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

== STUFF Titles ==

I think this needs to move to Talk.

1) Not every STUFF title has to have STUFF in it, and constantly using STUFF in titles might signal a lack of creativity or some other something wrong with you.

2) That said, there's no real excuse to change a perfectly good STUFF title based solely on it including the word STUFF that I can think of.

Can we discuss this rather than edit-war about it every freakin' time? {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 23:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

: I think changing a title that has STUFF in it is perfectly legit if you can come up with ''anything'' else. It's not required&mdash;or even desirable&mdash;that you title these items, "STUFFfully yours," or, "With a bunch of STUFF," or, "STUFF in the times," or, "STUFF is so great," "Everything is STUFF," "My middle name is STUFFerson." Come on, guys. Come up with something clever. We'll still vote on them. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 23:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

::"Something brief, yet catchy" is the sum total of the rules of titling STUFF items. Unless you're arguing that using STUFF in the title is either non-brief or non-catchy, I'd argue your contention that they should be changed is meritless, Dot Com. That said, I'm not saying they should be immutable from the outset either. Still, if we as a community discuss and agree on a different set of rules than "brief, yet catchy", that should be incorporated into the STUFF guidelines. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 23:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

:::What the heck? Why would you use such a charged word as "meritless"? I ''wrote'' the sentence above; I know what it says. If you want, I can put in something about not using the word "STUFF" in the title. I don't see any reason to do that, though, because it shouldn't be a rule per se. I am, however, going to change each one I come across, because I think using that word in the title is a lazy habit that we've gotten into. I was trying to draw a parallel to the overuse of the word "[[Crapfully Yours|crap]]" by senders of Strong Bad Emails. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 23:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
::::('''written before It's dot com's above''') How 'bout "Using 'STUFF' is ok; changing an item's title once is okay; changing it more than that (i.e. edit war) isn't." (And no, I'm not actually proposing that as an official rule, I just mean...) Creativity is a good thing. But hey, the point of these items is what's ''in'' them, not what they're called. Let's save our controversy-energy for that. &mdash;[[User:AbdiViklas|AbdiViklas]] 23:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

:::::We don't need official guidelines about this. We just need to get out of the bad habit. People have seen the word in so many recent titles that they think it's what you're ''supposed'' to do. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 23:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

::::::Is it a "bad habit"? Or is it a difference in taste? I see the use of STUFF in a title at best clever, at worst cute. Clearly your tastes are different. Should a user make changes based on their taste? {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 00:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

::::I chose the word "meritless" because in my view it's the correct word. I'm sorry if you took offense, but for an action to have merit it must be positive and be worthy of support. It's my view that changing STUFF contributions for factual errors or clarity is quite meritous, but changing them simply based on a word that recurs (and in a crusade-like fashion, as you espouse above) isn't entirely positive, and so to me fails to bear merit. All users are allowed to do whatever they like here so long as the community accepts it, and if the community accepts your removal of the word "STUFF" from any and all STUFF titles, then so be it. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 00:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

:::::Yes, it's a bad habit. No, it's not clever or cute. If your tastes are different from mine, then by definition it's also a difference in tastes. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 00:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Jiminy H. Cricket! I find this whole discussion a little bizarre. Granted, I haven't been looking at STUFF titles as long or as often as It's dot com has, so I can imagine how he must have gotten progressively bored, and then mildly irked, and finally kinda touchy about it. On the other hand, I ''do'' think it was clever (at least) the first time it happened, and of course many continue to encounter it for the first time. But the whole thing just seems like such a strange thing for a conversation this long, using words this loaded/and/or/stiltedly civil. On the one hand, I don't personally feel the need to change them. On the other, I don't see why it's a problem if someone does. Your ominous (and seemingly sceptical?) concession, Qermaq, that "if the community accepts [it], then so be it," strikes me as a little odd: I find it really hard to imagine why the community should particularly care. &mdash;[[User:AbdiViklas|AbdiViklas]] 00:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I can understand both sides, I know I'd probably get tired of it if I'm doing the paperwork and every title has "STUFF" in it, even if it doesn't really fit that well. On the other hand, I think I'd also be a bit annoyed if I came up with what I thought was a clever STUFF title, and then have somebody come along and arbitrarily change it to exclude "STUFF". {{User:Thunderbird L17/Siggie}} 00:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

{| border=1 cellpadding=5 style="border-collapse:collapse"
|- style="background:#EEE"
! TITLE !! DATE
|-
| Oops, I STUFF'd it!  || 6/11/2005 4:47
|-
| I'm sorry, the correct answer was STUFF'd  || 9/27/2005 23:04
|-
| Wine, Women, and STUFF  || 10/24/2005 20:39
|-
| What I'm supposed to do with STUFF?  || 11/2/2005 2:07
|-
| Oh-STUFF'd hundred hours  || 11/3/2005 21:00
|-
| You say tomater, I zader STUFF'd  || 12/10/2005 23:45
|-
| V! V-O! Vote in Stuff!  || 12/17/2005 17:22
|-
| First Song on Our STUFF'd Album  || 2/5/2006 21:45
|-
| Gonna have a good STUFF tonight!  || 2/8/2006 18:34
|-
| A Dirty Hippie Without the STUFF  || 3/3/2006 22:46
|-
| This isn't dirt! It's STUFF!  || 3/3/2006 23:12
|-
| I STUFF 'em, you vote on 'em  || 3/22/2006 17:46
|-
| Jim Henson's STUFF Shop  || 3/27/2006 22:06
|-
| Rhythm n' STUFF  || 3/28/2006 1:18
|-
| A tuff STUFF  || 4/4/2006 20:39
|-
| No problem STUFFing this one  || 4/5/2006 4:33
|-
| I'm legally required to STUFF this  || 4/11/2006 0:34
|-
| STUFF is no place for a Corn Army! || 4/16/2006 20:20
|-
| More Corny STUFF  || 4/16/2006 20:20
|-
| Back to the STUFF || 4/20/2006 16:43
|-
| DEUTSCHSTUFF! || 4/27/2006 13:54
|-
| The Cartman stole some STUFF! || 4/28/2006 0:05
|-
| Uh...Crapstuff? || 4/28/2006 3:22
|-
| I said, come on upside the STUFF* || 5/2/2006 9:25
|-
| The last email that ever was STUFF'd  || 5/3/2006 3:41
|-
| STUFF, Gah!* || 5/4/2006 2:59
|-
| It's a common STUFF, see?* || 5/6/2006 21:47
|}
<nowiki>*</nowiki> has since been changed

Notice that half of the items in the list are within the last month. This is the trend I don't personally care for and am trying to curb. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 00:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

:Well, just because people don't care for it doesn't mean it does harm. It seems to me that the side that doesn't want these headings thinks of the argument as "why?", whereas the defense thinks of it as "Why not?" This said, we can't really decide which one is right unless we turn to the faithful rule of, um....faithfullness. I guess. And that rule is "If something ain't broke, don't fix it". That said, why would anyone really care? &mdash; {{User: Seriously/sig}} 00:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

::Wow. This is apparently a pet peeve of mine, but that's fine since I'm the one who is willing to put in the effort here. If you don't care, then you don't need to do anything. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 00:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
:::I'm not saying that I'm lazy, and I don't feel like doing it. I don't want to be pictured as that. |What I'm saying is that doing this would be useless, not that nobody would want to do it. Also, wouldn't we normally recieve discussion from the wiki community before we do something like that so quickly? &mdash; {{User: Seriously/sig}} 00:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
::::Um, that's what ''this'' discussion is. As has already been pointed out above, this is not an earth-shattering decision for the wiki; therefore, there's nothing wrong with my simply being bold absent anything to the contrary. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 00:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::Personally, I don't think we should use STUFF in ALL TITLES. CAPS LOCK IS NOT A HAPPY THING. I mean, it was kinda funny the first time, but, it's old, and REALLY annoying. Why not make titles that inform what we're voting for, not to see who can create the coolest title. {{User:Bluebry muffin/sig}} 01:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
::::::STUFF is its name. See [[HRWiki:Glossary#S|HRWiki:Glossary]]. It's a holdover from when it was an acronym. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 01:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Well Bluebry, the titles usually ''do'' inform you, even when they have STUFF in them. If they don't, well, title's aren't everything. We're not expecting everyone to vote on a fun fact solely based on the info from the header. The actual fun fact at hand is what matters. And y'know, that's what I've been saying all along. '''Why bother'''? Is there really anything bad about these headers other than it's annoying to some people? I rest my case. &mdash; {{User: Seriously/sig}} 01:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Is there anything wrong with having a title that doesn't annoy anyone? I didn't think so. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 01:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::Meh, for something as big as STUFF I think we'd have to have more than just a few people thinking it's annoying to change it. But I'm not the person to decide that. You, as part of the admin team, are to decide that. &mdash; {{User: Seriously/sig}} 01:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::Just to voice my opinion, I've also noticed this growing trend in STUFF titles. I admit that I've put the word "STUFF" in a title because I was in too much of a hurry to think of a catchy and clever one. But I just figured that no one would really care about the title, just the fact being voted on, which is doubtless the most important part of the STUFF process. However, as time has passed I've gotten a little annoyed at these (to me) seemingly uncreative titles that a person (me included) can just whip together in 5 seconds without even trying. But then again, not all of us have a great sense of humor. For the most part, I don't care about what the titles are, as long as they relate to the fact. But if you want to go on a STUFF-removing crusade to rid the wiki of this deadly and humorless menace, then by all means do. I just hope this doesn't become like the British English vs. American English debate at Wikipedia. {{User:Has Matt?/sig}} 01:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::While they ''are'' humorless, the title doesn't matter too much. Like you said, Has Matt?, the title doesn't actually matter as much as, say, the fact at hand. If we really want to go on a STUFF rampage (I'm on a [[rampage]]!) just to make something slightly funnier, than we can. But shouldn't we be as encyclopaedic as possible, and try to use the least humor we can so this place doesn't look like an online playground for kids? Even if we're documenting, well, a cartoon, we should remain dignified, and not care about these things. &mdash; {{User: Seriously/sig}} 19:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The problem is that whether something is "humorless" is a personal opinion, and it wouldn't exactly make sense to have a policy based on an opinion.  Plus, it's sometimes hard to come up with something that's clever.  I wouldn't really care all that much if someone wanted to spend his/her time changing the STUFF titles, but I don't think it's a good candidate for an official policy.-[[User:Unknownwarrior33|Unknownwarrior33]] 01:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Yes, that is a succinct way to summarize last week's discussion. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 04:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

== Strongest STUFF in the World ==

Why was [[STUFF:Strongest Man in the World]] deleted? --[[User:Trogga|Trogga]] 13:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
:From the deletion log:
::''unanimous consensus to delete outright the item about "believe in yourself and you can achieve anything" being from [[Wikipedia:Rocky|Rocky]]; will restore if anyone comes out in *support* of this item''. <small>(by [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]])</small>
:&mdash;[[User:BazookaJoe|BazookaJoe]] 13:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

== Assuming TTATOT wrongly ==

I believe that the Coach Z "Oliver" fun fact on [[No Hands On Deck]] is being voted incorrectly for the only reason being that someone tried to create a TTATOT just by trying to draw a connection between Oliver and Annie, two of the more famous movie musicals, without voting on whether the fact is valid. I have said this much on the page, and if this fact is voted down I reserve the right to contest the decline, based solely on the fact that someone created a TTATOT when one didn't exist, and the point that the factual basis for the entry was not taken into consideration when the decline votes were cast. --[[User:ISlayedTheKerrek|ISlayedTheKerrek]] 16:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
:I don't see anything irregular about the vote. I don't believe support for either side of the issue is snowballing based on any one argument, but even if it were, people are within their rights to decide whether a particular argument is legitimate or not and vote accordingly. None of the arguments are unreasonable, even if you don't agree with them all. Given that the vote is still open, you should be concentrating your efforts in persuading people there instead of here. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 18:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
::I said all that could be said on the page, dot com. I notice, for now, that the accepts have it for the moment. And I think that two of the three arguments against are valid. The first one (the one that created the TTATOT) had nothing to do with the perceived legitimacy of the fact, and should not have had anything to do with how people voted. I believe it had more to do with the no votes than any of the others, and I'm not changing my mind on that. --[[User:ISlayedTheKerrek|ISlayedTheKerrek]] 12:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
:::I disagree that you have said all that you could say, otherwise you wouldn't have posted here in the first place. Moreover, whether or not you agree with the argument, it is still a legitimate argument, and people have the choice to believe it or not believe it as they see fit. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 15:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
::::How is it a legitimate argument if it has nothing to do with the basis of the fun fact? The other three (since there's been one added) do. This one doesn't, as it discusses the fame of ''Annie'' and ''Oliver!'' rather than discussing the fact itself. That has nothing to do with the "factuality", for that matter, of the fact. Just because an argument is considered legitimate by some doesn't mean it is. --[[User:ISlayedTheKerrek|ISlayedTheKerrek]] 12:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::This talk page is for discussing the general STUFF process, and we have done that. If you would like to discuss the specific merits of that particular argument in detail, then you need to take it to the comments section of the STUFF item. You should also note that just because you don't think the argument is legitimate doesn't mean that it ''isn't''. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 12:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::And just because you think it is doesn't mean it is. Most STUFF arguments are legitimate. Most stuff arguments have something to do with the factuality of the fact. This one doesn't. --[[User:ISlayedTheKerrek|ISlayedTheKerrek]] 17:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Again, I would be happy to discuss that with you, but ''here'' is not the correct place. Take it to the comments section of the STUFF item. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 13:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

== Numbering arguments ==

I numbered the arguments on [[STUFF:Marzipan's Answering Machine Version 14.2#From my cold, dead panda!|this item]]<!--please update the link to the archive when appropriate--> to make it easier to follow. Is this a worthwile permanent change? &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 19:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
:Yes, I think so. It's not uncommon to have arguments or comments start with "re arg against 1", so numbering them is useful.{{User:Loafing/sig}} 20:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
::Hey, yeah! I'd thought of doing something like that myself a while back, but for whatever reason never got around to actually devising how it would have been done other than that it would have been with colors, but numbers work too. Makes it much easier to follow than having to click through all the past revisions to see what's being said in reference to whom. {{User:ACupOfCoffee/sig}} 20:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

== Archives ==

Shouldn't the STUFF archives be in the STUFF namespace rather than HRWiki? {{User:ACupOfCoffee/sig}} 10:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
:Possibly. Remember, the STUFF namespace didn't exist when we first set this up, so we did the best we could with what we had at the time. I also don't think we should look lightly on the headache it would be to move them (though, ultimately, that can't be the only consideration). In fact, I can see pros and cons for both moving them and leaving them like it are. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 16:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
::It just seems kind of silly to have a namespace for (at current) nine pages. I guess they are "meta" pages, so they fit in HRWiki as well. As far as moving them, couldn't that just be run through GrapeNuts? {{User:ACupOfCoffee/sig}} 20:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Well, it might could be done by bot, but probably not GrapeNuts, which has been offline for a while now. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 20:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
::::D'oh! I should've known that. Hmmm... then I wonder whose, if any. {{User:ACupOfCoffee/sig}} 22:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

== What section ==

I'm thinking maybe underneath Posted on we could say Posted in: (the section it was in) so we could know what kind of fact we're voting on in case someone thinks a remark is an inside reference (example:[[Stuff:Eggs (toon)]]) --{{User:Super Martyo Brother/sig}} 20:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
:Or maybe there should also be a vote for which section... (i'd think that optional though, as some facts are more clear cut than others.) But i like the idea. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 20:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
::In the case you mention, it was {{p|l=http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=Eggs_%28toon%29&diff=449482&oldid=444446 added as a remark}} and then moved twice without much notice, largely because of the relative obscurity of the toon itself. Obviously, it should not have been moved, and we could have saved a lot of trouble by taking it to the toon's talk page first instead of throwing it right into STUFF. In fact, if the question is ''where'' to note something (as opposed to ''whether'' to note it, then the talk page is almost always a better place to have the discussion. As for STUFF, in cases where it's not clear, it's usually noted in the comments what section an item is supposed to go in. The vast majority of the time of the time, though, it's pretty clear where something goes, so it's not really necessary to change the whole format to note it for every item, and continuing on a case-by-case basis is still probably easiest. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 21:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

== Change in practice ==

Of late, our practice as it relates to STUFF has clearly changed, in that we now tend to use it as a last resort if talk page discussion fails to produce a clear consensus. I think this is a good thing, as discussion is better than voting in collaborative projects like this. I think it would be wise to note this on the project page so that people are aware of how we're using STUFF these days (after all, it's a real pain to make a new STUFF page and then have it moved to the talk page). {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 21:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

:It was {{p|l=http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=HRWiki%3ASTUFF%2FAbout&diff=438035&oldid=395876 changed a few months ago}} on the [[HRWiki:STUFF/About#STUFFing vs. Deleting|when should we use it?]] page &mdash; do you think it should be stated prominently on the [[HRWiki:STUFF|main STUFF page]]? {{User:Trey56/sig}} 21:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
::It would probably be good, but where exactly to put it I'm not sure. I'm also thinking that About page might still need some tweaks, too. Parts of it seem to imply that you can either add/remove a fact or put it to STUFF, with no mention of talk page discussion. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 00:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

== Only bottommost vote counts? ==

Umm, I don't see why that should be. Imagine a case where both revisions are acceptable, and the person doesn't particularly care which one it is, because the wording doesn't matter, all that matters is the substance. if s/he votes yes on only one, and that one gets voted down, there's now one less vote on the other one, when s/he would accept the other one also. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 20:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
:If the substance is the same, then there's no point in creating a whole new revision. In those cases, the item just gets reworded as discussed in the comments section. Revisions are for when there is something substantially different about the way an item is presented. If you truly do not care how it is written, then you should pile on to the one with the most support. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 16:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
::Meh, that's how it ''should'' be, but there have been cases when the "keep" vote has been split between similar items. Not that I have a solution. :p {{User:Homestar Coder/sig}} 16:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
:::Well, it's not like we don't watch out for this. If there is ever a case where it really matters (and there hasn't been one in a long time), where it's obvious an item would be accepted if the two sides could get together, then we try to hash out a compromise version or sway opinions to one or the other or something. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 16:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

==Titles==
What's with those humorous titles? [[User:124.176.190.64|124.176.190.64]] 05:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
:Just for fun. Also makes it easy to identify a particular STUFF discussion. --[[User:DorianGray|DorianGray]] 05:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

== Tagging this as a "last resort" ==

In recent months, we've tended to use STUFF less and less. This is a good thing: more talk page discussion and less straight voting is much more consistent with the wiki way of consensus-seeking. I suggest that we consider making this a guideline for the page by adding something to the effect of "This page should be used as a last resort. Before using it, attempt discussion on the talk page." {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 23:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

== STUFF ==

You have a "STUFF:" namespace, but it is unused. I am going to move all pages from the HRWiki: namespace into the STUFF: namespace. --{{User:Dagoth/sig}} 06:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
:Why would you do that?{{User:Loafing/sig}} 06:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
::I think he may mean such pages as "over STUFF'd" and "Old STUFF" and the like, that exist on the HRWIKI namespace. {{User:Flashfight/sig}} 06:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
:The STUFF namespace is where actual open STUFF'd facts go. Since there are none currently, it appears unused. --[[User:DorianGray|DorianGray]] 06:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

== Decommission ==

STUFF had a good run. As a wiki, however, we've matured to the point that fun fact discussions can be handled where they should be: on the toon's talk page. For a long time now, we've been encouraging discussion there rather than invoking the STUFF process, and it's been several months since STUFF was last used. I think the time has come to officially decommission it, and I move that we do exactly that. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 21:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
:Normally, I would agree with you. We have started to avoid using this page and just talk about the facts until we reach a consensus. But, I am afraid that as soon as we decommission this page, it will be needed again. --{{User:Super Martyo Brother/sig}} 21:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
::We haven't needed [[HRWiki:WikiTroll]] since we decommissioned it. It's hard to imagine a wiki without STUFF, but if you look at it, that's exactly what we've had all this time the past few months. I can't really conceive that there'd be a sudden need for STUFF any time soon. As is said, we've moved beyond the STUFF phase, and now engage in true talk page discussion. --[[User:DorianGray|DorianGray]] 21:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

:::Sure, [[HRWiki talk:Select The Usable Fun Facts#I don't think we need STUFF anymore|I don't think we need STUFF anymore]].  Though of course, it's gone through quite a [[User:It's dot com/STUFF reform|change]] to get it where it is today since the last time I said that.&nbsp;-- [[User:Tom|Tom]] 21:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
:::To be fair, the reason we haven't needed WikiTroll is because we have more sysops who are online more often than when WikiTroll was in wide use. As for STUFF? It used to be the first resort; now it seems a last resort at best. Not sure exactly when that happened, but it did. It was essentially necessary when it was created. Now? Not so sure. --{{User:Jay/sig}} 21:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
::::We've progressed to the point that pretty much everything can be handled directly, and civilly, on the talk page, which has made a centralized STUFF obsolete. If a discussion isn't visible enough (because it's from an older toon, say), it could be listed on the [[HRW:OD|open discussions]] page. To address Super Martyo's concern, in some worst case we might have some fun fact where we simply cannot reach a consensus and have to hold a vote as a last resort, but even then the vote could be conducted on the talk page. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 22:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
:::::I completely agree with decomissioning STUFF. I've felt it's obsolete for several months now, largely per what It's dot com has already said. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 22:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
::::::STUFF has never been a constructive place. It has always been somewhat of a conversation killer, and even if people did post a lot of comments on a particular STUFF page, it was never a proper di'scussion. I'm all for decommissioning it.{{User:Loafing/sig}} 23:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Considering there hasn't been a STUFFed fact in months, decommissioning sounds acceptable. If stuff (heh heh) suddenly comes up, you can restore it then. — {{User:Geshmalderborgen/sig}} 01:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
::::::::I feel STUFF was a compromise from proper wiki behavior to start, and as its utility is no longer viable, its time has gone. '''Decommission'''. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 03:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::For me, STUFF voting and STUFF was a pretty big part of the wiki routine in it's time. You know, check new pages, check logs, check watchlist, check STUFF. As opposed to some of the replies here, I fully supported it, and you have to admit, 95% of the votes turned up on the good side. To say that we "matured" from STUFF is not all that true. We just moved the discussion to another place. So, yeah, decommission it if you want, due to lack of use. But only for that. I still think it was a good place to hold fruitful discussions and contribute to the wiki. {{User:E.L. Cool/sig}} 05:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I do believe that it's time for STUFF to exit stage right. Dot com is right, if we can't reach a consensus, just have a within-talk vote. STUFF has indeed had a good run, but consensus is better, if not more friendly. Votes just seem so... official. Consensuses are friendlier and make this wiki better. --{{User:Super Martyo Brother/sig}} 05:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
:I think that stuff was a more organized way to get consensus, however we've been fine without it. As for the aspect of alerting people to current discussions, well, [[HRW:OD]] can do that just fine, so long as people make sure to keep that page up to date. '''Support decommissioning so long as HRW:OD really does take its place in that regard.''' {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 17:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
::On second thought, i liked the organization that STUFF provided, really helped to see who was saying what. I would wonder if there was a way to simplify it somewhat and use a similar format on talk pages for fact discussion, merely for the organizational value. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 17:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
:::STUFF was organized all right, but its very design made it ''impossible'' to see who was saying what, as arguments and comments were not signed. STUFF didn't foster consensus by discussion, but rather majority rule by voting. I suppose on a few fun facts that's the best we could hope for, but on the whole it's not something to strive for. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 18:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
::::You miss my point, i'm talking about who said keep and who said don't keep. I was thinking a simplified thing would be the discussion at the top, signed and dated, like a normal discussion (instead of what stuff currently has which is all sorts of for and against conmments), but that we still have the voting box, just to have a list of who has what opinion. Basically, it'd be a regular fact discussion, but with the opinion tallying box. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 18:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::On second second thought, meh, we're doing fine without it, it'd just get in the way. scratch that. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 18:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope it's not too late to add my two cents. I wasn't aware STUFF was going away at all. Sure, I had noticed that there hadn't been any STUFFed facts for a long time, but I figured that was just a sign that fewer disputes were arising. I see no reason to get rid of it just because it's not currently being used. In my experience, the only talk page discussions that actually yielded a consensus of more than three users are those at the top of the page and that are brought up right after the toon is released. The other, say, 80% of discussions below that (which are just as important if not as noticeable) only get three or maybe four users involved. STUFF brings things to people's attention and, moreover, it makes it clear how many people support a given decision, which is not anywhere near as easy to do on discussion pages. I don't think it's at all less civil than Talk and I think it's way more organized, streamlined, and noticeable. Why get rid of it? Several people have proposed updating existing features to take its place. Why do that when the existing system works so well, regardless of how much it gets used? {{User:That Guy Over There/sig}} 18:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
:We've been doing fine without STUFF for months now. It's kind of a sweeping generalization to say that four out of five discussions are going unnoticed. Perhaps you could point them out. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 18:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
::<small>How did I not know this was going on for months? I hate being gone...</small> I agree with decommissioning STUFF. I don't know how much Open Discussions is being used, but hopefully it can fill STUFF's remaining niche smoothly and without mass chaos. -{{User:Brightstar Shiner/sig}} 19:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
::I'm not saying they go completely unnoticed, just that very few people participate (at least for those discussions farther down the page). In STUFF, generally a lot of people participate, which I think gives us a better and more accurate consensus. Anyway, that whole "80%" thing was just an opinion based on my observations. I'm not going to claim that it's a proven fact. That's just what I think and how it appears to me. {{User:That Guy Over There/sig}} 02:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Based on the discussion, I have now officially decommissioned STUFF. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 21:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

== Removing Links ==

Since STUFF has been gone now for a few months, should we remove the links to this page, or at least the ones that talk about the STUFF process like [[HRWiki:Standards#Fun_Facts|here]] and [[Help:Contents#Specific_Help|here]]? We don't want new users to be misguided, but we also don't want them to not have a way to know what STUFF was when they look at an older toon's talk page, so I'm not sure whether or not to be bold here. -{{User:Brightstar Shiner/sig}} 18:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)