Talk:Vote for the Worst
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 18 May 2007. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
Is is Just me or does anybody else feel it weird that only Sanjaya has his race listed next to his name. Also it serves no purpose as far a i can tell 69.122.66.33 03:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC) BB 69.122.66.33 03:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why there's a references and sources tag on this article. References are cited throughout the article. I'd like to remove the tag unless there's discussion and disagreement here. I just don't see how the tag is relevant to the article as it now stands. Thanks! Moncrief 14:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
That being said, on a further look, the eight cited references are not showing up at the bottom of the page, and the "History of VFTW picks" is shocking unencyclopedic and POV and should probably be deleted until the POV adjectives can be taken out. The whole section is POV because what was the "best VFTW" performance/moment of a season is totally unverifiable and POV. A Wikipedia embarrassment! Moncrief 14:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] In need of clean up
This page has a few problems. I had heard about this website on the radio and came to this article to learn about it. Right now, it is really in bad shape. I agree that the "Best VTFW" cannot verified and is a matter of opinion. Remove it if you so desire. Perhaps one of the people who created the article should work on the cleanup. As it is now, it's not even close to Wikipedia Standards. --Cyrus Andiron t/c 15:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- A few problems? Understatement of the year. Moncrief 15:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Deletion
This article should be deleted until we can find some more verfiable facts other than the website i'm pretty sure these people don't even accumlate over 1,000 votes. So this should be changed to a smaller article rather than just an advertisment written by the people at this website. --Casey S (talk) 00:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] work to be done
I agree the page needs work! Deleted the remarks on Dave Della Terza sexual orientation for that is not relevant to the article. That would go on a Dave Della Terza article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.114.232.78 (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Written like an advertisement?
I don't see it. In what way is this written like an ad? --Stacecom 15:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone said it was an ad. I mentioned that the article is very poorly written and in need of cleanup. --Cyrus Andiron t/c 14:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] cannot be accessed
As of 12:30 The Site cannot be viewed, at the moment reasons are unknown, if you are aware of the reason please post it in the TALK page and not the main article —BYMAstudent (talk • contribs) 16:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Citation
There needs to be uniformity in the citations used... there is a mixture of external links and links to internal footnotes.
[edit] Howard Stern
Would this, http://howardstern.com/archive.hs?h=1028, be a good cite for Howard Stern talking about it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.252.45.197 (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] ???
Would this be a good line: The contestants the website supports are technically not any better or worst than the others, but are usually the ones who they believe are the least likely to win the majority support of the mainstream public.
? It seems POV. Elle Bee 18:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category
I've removed "Practical Joke". This isn't a practical joke by any real definition of the term and the category isn't relevant here.--Isotope23 13:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Real definition of the term: "Practical joke – noun. A playful trick [promoting the worst contestant], often involving some physical agent or means [phoning in votes], in which the victim [American Idol] is placed in an embarrassing [Sanjaya wins] or disadvantageous position." (Dictionary.com) Since it fits the definition in every particular, please stop rv'ing the categorisation. --TheEditrix2 16:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- I completely disagree with your interpretation. The whole point of VftW is to show the ridiculousness of the idea that AI is in any way a "talent competition". Regardless, I'd welcome a WP:RFC here because I think you are completely wrong.--Isotope23 16:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Opened an RFC here.--Isotope23 16:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Then allow the RFC to run its course. In the meantime, since it's a good-faith edit, and its validity has been demonstrated, leave the edit alone or start mediation. Repeatedly rv'ing an edit with no basis other than your power to do so is egregiously bad behaviour. -- TheEditrix2 17:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not going to revert again as I've opened the RfC, but my basis isn't "my power to do so", my basis is simply that you've added what I consider to be an incorrect category and I'm cleaning up after you. You are free to have your opinion, but WP:AGF is a two-way street here.--Isotope23 12:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think it fails completely as a practical joke because it's not a "joke". It's a reproachment of corporate popular music. The attempt to fit it into the stated definition fails on the second word, since it's not at all playful in its intent. The involved producers, sponsors, hosts, contestants, and fans are not amused by the derision or mockery inherent in VFTW and its possible effects. Similarly, if it achieves its goal, it can hardly be said to be merely diadvantageous to those against whom it's directed. Unlike a practical joke, it is neither intended to amuse its victim nor will its effects dissipate soon after the reveal. VFTW is an attempt to undermine the integrity of the show's results in order to render pointless its reason for being. In achieving this, they are making a political or social statement; they are not making a joke. Joevanisland 23:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- This is most definitely not a practical joke. The intent of the website is not to place Sanjaya in an uncomfortable position. By all accounts, he would love to be the next American Idol. As a result of that, your definition fails. All that the website is trying to do is make him the next American Idol. Some people might consider this a malevolent cause, but that doesn't make it a pracical joke. TheEditrix2, to rebuke someone for reverting, when you were doing the same thing is incredibly hypocritical. You exercised your "power to do so" just as much as Isotope23 did. You have conflicting viewpoints. That does not translate to not assuming good faith--Cyrus Andiron 12:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to have to agree. Although it is humorous I don't think it's a practical joke. If there is a category for satire I think that would be more appropriate. "Satire (from Latin satira, "medley, dish of colourful fruits") is a technique used in drama, fiction, journalism, and occasionally in poetry, the graphic arts, the performing arts and other media. Although satire is usually witty, and often very funny, the purpose of satire is not primarily humour but criticism of an event, an individual or a group in a clever manner."--Whatfor999 15:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- This is most definitely not a practical joke. The intent of the website is not to place Sanjaya in an uncomfortable position. By all accounts, he would love to be the next American Idol. As a result of that, your definition fails. All that the website is trying to do is make him the next American Idol. Some people might consider this a malevolent cause, but that doesn't make it a pracical joke. TheEditrix2, to rebuke someone for reverting, when you were doing the same thing is incredibly hypocritical. You exercised your "power to do so" just as much as Isotope23 did. You have conflicting viewpoints. That does not translate to not assuming good faith--Cyrus Andiron 12:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think it fails completely as a practical joke because it's not a "joke". It's a reproachment of corporate popular music. The attempt to fit it into the stated definition fails on the second word, since it's not at all playful in its intent. The involved producers, sponsors, hosts, contestants, and fans are not amused by the derision or mockery inherent in VFTW and its possible effects. Similarly, if it achieves its goal, it can hardly be said to be merely diadvantageous to those against whom it's directed. Unlike a practical joke, it is neither intended to amuse its victim nor will its effects dissipate soon after the reveal. VFTW is an attempt to undermine the integrity of the show's results in order to render pointless its reason for being. In achieving this, they are making a political or social statement; they are not making a joke. Joevanisland 23:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not going to revert again as I've opened the RfC, but my basis isn't "my power to do so", my basis is simply that you've added what I consider to be an incorrect category and I'm cleaning up after you. You are free to have your opinion, but WP:AGF is a two-way street here.--Isotope23 12:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Then allow the RFC to run its course. In the meantime, since it's a good-faith edit, and its validity has been demonstrated, leave the edit alone or start mediation. Repeatedly rv'ing an edit with no basis other than your power to do so is egregiously bad behaviour. -- TheEditrix2 17:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
-
It's satire, but not very good satire. Their choices are more based on a general perception of oddity than a lack of talent. If they are trying to make a political statement, then they are hypocrites. The Legend of Miyamoto 17:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Why was the history section removed?
Weeks ago when I accessed this page, there was a table describing the history of the various VFTW picks, including the season of each contestant, how long the contestant stayed in the competition, and how long VFTW had been supporting him/her. I found it very helpful. It turns out it was deleted and replaced simply with a list, which is not nearly as helpful. Is there any particular reason why?--Benfergy 23:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] About the AFD nomination (see link at top of this page)
Sorry, folks. I should have known better. YechielMan 20:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "longest running Pick"
I'm a little confused by the inclusion of the tag that Sanjaya is VFTW's "longest-running pick". I saw the link to their site, and I agree that it definitely states that, but by my count, based on the data in this article, Sanjaya and Constantine were both VFTW candidates for the same amount of time. Are we missing someone from the Season 4 list then? If not, is it possible that VFTW meant that he was now tied for longest running pick? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- They must have had him picked for a day or two longer. I'm sure they know about what they're talking. hmwithtalk 16:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- VFTW had Constantine from week 10 to week 6. They had Sanjaya from week 12 to week 7. Sanjaya lasted longer. (and in case anyone is interested, the second longest running VFTW contestant is Corpsey from Canadian Idol.) Darrik2 02:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Actually VFTW voted for Sanjaya for 6 weeks (top 12-top 7) while we only voted for Constantine for 4 weeks (top 22, top 20, top 16, and again during top 10 once Mikalah Gordon was gone). Scott Savol was the VFTW pick in the top 9 (until the top 5). --TheFunniestone 10:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] On the lot
Thought I'd add it in because Professor Chan returned my e-mail on his most recent episode reviews. It really isn't a bad show, it's just tooled so incredibly wrong and wow, are the ratings low... Badgergrl04
[edit] Vote for the Worst Talent.com
Way to take it down, guys. I was bemused that whoever created that site wanted to try to cash in off the original's popularity, and then tried using Wiki to promote it! If a lawsuit gets filed, it would be a cool add-on to the site, maybe a "ripoffs" section or something. Badgergrl04 19:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Chris Sligh
Should it be mentioned that Chris Sligh was an honorary VFTW pick? (or something to that effect) Darrik2 02:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Is there a source? hmwithtalk 12:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Here's one. -- Kip the Dip (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Vftwlogo2.png
Image:Vftwlogo2.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Vftwlogo2.png
Image:Vftwlogo2.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Actual VFTW influence
"The website is also widely credited for the victory of season 5's Taylor Hicks.[5]"
Can you really state that certain contestants lasted longer than they should've (or won the competition) without raw voting data? Using votefortheworst.com as a source/citation for these claims also seems like a bad idea.201.172.230.226 (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah definitely a bad idea. There is no way to determine if an outcome would've been different without VFTW in the picture. Going by the activity on their site, I doubt their members and supporters account for even 1% of the total votes. 62.131.85.211 (talk) 20:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
