Editing HRWiki talk:Featured Article Selection

==Talk==
To keep the main page cleaner, how do people feel about reserving the majority of the talk section for moving each five week section over here once they've run their course? Does this violate any Wiki standards, or would it keep the main part of this page simpler? {{User:Thunderbird L17/Siggie}} 04:50, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)

:Maybe we could make an Archive page. {{User:Homestar Coder/sig}} 05:32, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)

::Archives by groups of 5 weeks, perhaps. Don't want the archive to get too lengthy, either. &mdash;[[User:BazookaJoe|BazookaJoe]] 05:38, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)

:::I dunno, I think we could get away with at least 15 or 20 weeks at a time. Nobody really checkes archives all that often anyways. {{User:Thunderbird L17/Siggie}} 12:16, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)

::::Well I'm not really sure of the best way to go about archiving, so whenever we finish up with the first five week block, and move on, feel free to set up some kind of archive system, anyone. (And while you're at it, throw in the discussions at [[HRWiki:Da Basement]] if you want). {{User:Thunderbird L17/Siggie}} 22:35, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)

== Milestone emails. ==

This is just a list to keep track on what was featured and what should be.

*1. '''[[some kinda robot]]''' - The first [[Strong Bad Email]]. Start of the [[Tandy]] era
*2. '''[[homsar]]''' - Introduction of [[Homsar]]
*9. '''[[i love you]]''' - Introduction of [[fhqwhgads]]
*11. '''[[i rule]]''' - Introduction of [[Strong Badia]]
*16. '''[[band names]]''' - Introduction of [[Limozeen]] and [[Taranchula]]
*29. [[superhero name]] - Introduction of [[Strong Badman]]
*33. [[gimmicks]] - Explosion of the Tandy
*40. [[vacation]] - End of the Tandy era
*41. [[invisibility]] - Start of the [[Compy 386|Compy]] era
*50. '''[[50 emails]]''' - Email number 50
*53. '''[[comic]]''' - Introduction of [[Teen Girl Squad]]
*57. '''[[japanese cartoon]]''' - Indroduction of [[20X6]]
*58. '''[[dragon]]''' - Introduction of [[Trogdor]]
*80. [[stunt double]] - Introduction of [[Dangeresque]]
*92. [[kind of cool]] - Introduction of [[Senor Cardgage]]
*93. [[army]] - Introduction of [[Cheat Commandos]] and the [[Homestarmy]]
*96. [[lackey]] - Introduction of [[Doreauxgard]]
*97. [[monument]] - Introduction of [[The Thnikkaman]]
*99. [[different town]] - Collaboration with [[TMBG]]
*100. '''[[flashback]]''' - Email number 100
*117. '''[[montage]]''' - Predicted end of [[The Paper]] 
*118. '''[[virus]]''' - End of the Compy era
*119. [[animal]] - Start of the [[Lappy]] era
*125. '''[[rock opera]]''' - A mention of every email until then
*150. '''[[alternate universe]]''' - Email number 150
*159. '''[[retirement]]''' - Return/demise of both the prior computers
*173. [[the paper]] - Retirement of The Paper, and introduction of the [[New Paper]]
*200. '''[[email thunder]]''' - Email number 200
*201. [[hremail3184]] - End of the Lappy era
*203. [[independent]] - Start of the [[Compé]] era
You can add to the list emails you think should be featured as milestones. {{User:E.L. Cool/sig}} 10:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

:I added montage. This may be considered a stretch by some, but I think the chances of us featuring it right around email #172 is a strong likelyhood... {{User:Thunderbird L17/Siggie}} 15:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
::I've added army. Seems important to me as the origin of Cheat Commandos, if a bit less so for the introduction of the Homestarmy. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 11:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
:::As it turns out, perhaps as much so! Added a few timely additions. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 02:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
::::<s>Updated [[japanese cartoon]].</s>Going senile.  Apparently there have been no other nominations from this list fulfilled since then. --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 09:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::I've corrected my mistaken japanese cartoon coverage. --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 18:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::I added Email Thunder, it is important right? -[[User:Not Dennis|Not Dennis]] 22:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Can we remove e-mails from the list? [[User:RickTommy|RickTommy]] 05:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::::Why? {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 16:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::<s>Because I don't really consider I Rule to be that much of a milestone e-mail, due to its low page hits (it ranks #193 out of 200). And as for Different Town, how is the collabaration with TMBG a milestone? [[User:RickTommy|RickTommy]] 08:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)</s>
::::::::::OK, but clearly someone else thought these were. So please don't remove them. It's not like this list guarantees they'll be featured, anyway; it's just for reference if we're considering featuring an email. So let's just leave them be. 多謝。 {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 08:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::Alright, strike all that. My apologies if I was being a bit offensive. :-( [[User:RickTommy|RickTommy]] 09:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

==vote==
how do you vote? {{unsigned|Slipknot6477|02:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)}}
:Log in, go to the project page (see the tab above) and add your opinion to the sections. It's less a vote than a discussion. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 02:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

== Too early ==

Is it okay for me to leave my idea for the week of October 31, 2007 on this talk page until we reach the proper time to actually vote? [[User:Bad Bad Guy|Bad Bad Guy]] 22:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
:Can I add my idea to the project page now or should I wait til next week? [[User:Bad Bad Guy|Bad Bad Guy]] 19:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
::Considering lately we've been having more LATE votes... early is perfect. I'd go for yes. {{User:Bluebry/sig}} 02:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

==How to do the Lappynapping Saga?==
A question was raised on the project page how to link to something that doesn't have (or even necessarily) need a page&mdash; in particular, how to feature the Lappynapping saga.  Well, why not create a one off entry?  The FA would be a summary of the saga, with links to [[cliffhangers]], [[Lappynapped!]] and [[retirement]].  If [[DNA Evidence (running gag)]] didn't have it's own page, then something similar could be done for that.  But, TBC have often mentioned that it's unusual for them to have any continuity or even story arcs, so this would only be used very occasionally.  {{User:Wbwolf/sig}} 05:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
:Here's my question: Is it really a featured article, if it does not have a single mainspace article of which it is a writeup? of course, the idea behind a featured article traditionally has been that we take an article and put a bit of it on the main page, with a link leading to the complete article. Thus, it would be a substantial departure from our practices to make a feature that does not correspond to a specific article. 
:We could, of course, consider the possibility of actually having a mainspace article summarizing the entire saga. This would certainly solve the problem of how to feature. We'd have to decide if the idea of a summary article like this is something we like enough to have one. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 06:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
::Okay... how about we feature [[Lappynapped!]]?  It makes the most sense because it's a hidden page, so may not be commonly known.  Moreover, it can't stand on it's own, so the write up would have to refer to [[cliffhangers]] and [[retirement]] in order to adequately to explain.  It would be a de facto summary of the saga, while answering your concern about featuring a single article. {{User:Wbwolf/sig}} 03:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
:::That's... That's a really great idea. I am impressed by your planning ability. And your remembering this conversation! --[[User:DorianGray|DorianGray]] 05:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

== Dailies - consensus? ==

We need consensus on when is too often for dailies - evidence [[HRWiki:Featured_Article Selection#HRWiki:Featured_article for 2008, week 22 (May 26-Jun 1)|here]]. How can we determine how often they are appropriate? I'd suggest no more than once every two months, i.e. 6 or less times annually.

Also, how do we determine the worthiness of dailies? Do we throw in crappy articles? Clearly not. Do we throw in short articles? That's be difficult to do well. Do we throw in our best pieces of work? Perhaps not, if they deserve a mention as a weekly, but perhaps so, as what else can be a daily? I think dalies are a great way to break things up and feature a lot at a time, a theme if you will.

That said, another thought: should we tell in the FA writeup this is a daily week, so look each day for a new FA? I think so, otherwise, it's a waste and we might as not even do it.

All thoughts welcome. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 03:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
:Personally, I think dailies should be done as infrequently as possibly; probably no more than twice a year.  Dailies work best when they are thematically related, but honestly, how many groups of seven items of middle importance are there left?  The Tandy 400 emails or food related dailies have already been done.  As you note, either the remaining articles are either don't warrant featuring on the front page in the first place ''or'' are too important to left be left to a daily, and should be up for an entire week.  This would be true most of the landmark emails from the Compy 386 era forward, imho, for example.  I think it's something we have perhaps already exhausted the plausible supply of, and any future instances should be done rarely. {{User:Wbwolf/sig}} 03:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
::If that becomes consensus, I propose couching language on the main page to reflect that. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 03:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
:::Two to three times a year if we think of something what I've always planned on, assuming, that is, that we think of that many sevens, which we may not. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 04:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

== Other Possible Articles ==

A thought occurred to me that I thought would be a good discussion on the talk page: Are we limited to only the main namespace? I'm not suggesting we feature users or anything, but I have occasionally given thought to featuring [[HRWiki:A History]] someday (maybe if we can find what week the wiki was created on, and do an anniversary special). Naturally, we should stick to main namespace articles, but I don't think it would hurt to do our own history once. After all, we're also an important part of the H*R universe, and the Chaps rely on us all the time. Other people's thoughts? --[[User:DorianGray|DorianGray]] 20:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

== Holiday articles ==
When Halloween times roll around, can I be the first to suggest the ideas for those two weeks (that's when we usually do them)? And since we've done [[Summer Short Shorts]] at one time, can we do [[Decemberween Short Shorts]] when it's time for that? [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 19:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
:I don't think we really take reservations for first suggestion. From my perspective, I think it might be polite to only make Halloween suggestion and let someone else have a chance to make a suggestion for the other week. A thought. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 02:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
::Like you [[HRWiki:Featured_Article_Selection#HRWiki:Featured_article_for_2008.2C_week_28_.28Jul_7-13.29|mentioned]] in your own post, let's slow down a bit.  There's no need to go so far ahead or make reservations, when the time comes around we'll decide what's best.  Who knows, maybe TBC might make a new SBemail or Short that would be more appropriate for the occasion. --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 02:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
::Yeah, I know. Except I can't stop thinking about those ideas ahead of time. I had to explain myself somewhere. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 19:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
:::In 2010, for the week that April 30th is in, can I have dibs on picking the article of the week for that week?  April 30th is my birthday and 2010 is my golden year.  That'd be great, thanks.  Okay, I'll go read [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Sarcasm is really helpful|this article]] now.  =]  {{User:OptimisticFool/sig}} 03:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
::::Oh, boy. ''That's'' a good article {{User:Homestar-winner/sig}} 02:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

==tis true?==

I think the next should be [[Tis True, Pom Pom, Tis True]].

{{User:Ninja pom pom/sig}} 21:36, 10 December 2008

Yes! I agree. 
--[[User:Marzie500|Marzie500]] 22:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

== Future Writeup ==

Just so everyone's aware of its existance, I [[User:DorianGray/Featured Article: Gavin|took the liberty of doing a writeup]] for [[Gavin]], an article not yet selected, but one I would like to see one day. I've never gotten to suggest an article, but if you guys ever get stuck for time or something, here's one that's already mostly complete. --[[User:DorianGray|DorianGray]] 04:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

==Week 16, 2009?==
How come nothing for Week 16 has been put up yet? The article has been written and ready to go. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 06:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

==Where is everybody?==
Am I the only one who puts up anything here on the Featured Articles section anymore? [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 15:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

== Where do these summaries go, anyhow? ==

These main page feature articles often summarise the content they feature nicelessly, yet they don't appear in the body of the article. Maybe keep 'em around as a review or summmary of the article?
:[[HRWiki:Featured articles|We do keep them around]]. --[[User:DorianGray|DorianGray]] 04:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

== Queue ==

What if we had a queue for upcoming featured articles, so that a good article doesn't have to keep being nominated each week until it finds a home. I envision a list that is always about 10 to 20 entries long. Anyone can add something to the bottom of the list (but they should refrain if doing so if it means letting the list get too long). Things can be moved up or down, or even removed entirely, by consensus. A really great article can get moved to the head of the list, or one that's not quite ready could get pushed back a couple of weeks. I'm not sure how all the details would work. I also know that some of our featured articles are time-sensitive, so my suggestion here would need to incorporate them separately somehow. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 01:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

:I think this idea could make FAS a lot smoother.  I'm not really sure how it would ''work'', but I was playing with how it might ''look''.  Here is one thing I imagined: [http://hrwiki.org/index.php?title=HRWiki:Sandbox&oldid=653343 1].  The markup for that may look kind of hairy, but with some convenient row templates, it could be made very simple to edit.  I was going for something that would let people at a glance see what (if anything) had been agreed on for the next month or so, and then a list of a further 10 or so articles that were generally agreed FA-worthy but hadn't been scheduled yet.  And a prominent place to mark weeks that had a special timely consideration.  I imagined that the list could go at the top of the page, and detailed discussion for reaching consensus would be below it.
:Another idea I was toying with, was to have some "tags" to stick in the list that classified the article.  See [http://hrwiki.org/index.php?title=HRWiki:Sandbox&oldid=653344 2].  I abused the <nowiki>{{u}}</nowiki> template just as an example, but those aren't really the right kind of icons.  What I had in mind would be a different set of icons representing the "type" of article being featured.  Like "character", "toon", "tgs", "ccdos", and so on.  I'd guess any article could have more than one of these tags.  The only real reason would be to visually see what sort of things were planned to be featured in relation to when similar things are.  It's sort of superfluous and maybe just mucks up the list... I'm not sure I really like the tags idea after all. {{User:GreenHelmet/sig}} 14:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

== RE: HRWiki:Featured article for 2009, week 53 (Dec 28-Jan 3) ==

Are we absolutely sure we should show the date like that? We've never had a "week 53" situation before (I suspect that this situation will cause date problems). [[User:Jc iindyysgvxc|Jc iindyysgvxc]] 11:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
:Week 53 is based upon the [[Wikipedia:ISO_week_date|ISO week date]], which MediaWiki uses to keep track of weeks.  A "week 53" is not common&mdash; it happens 71 times every 400 years&mdash; but this year just happens to be one of those years. {{User:Wbwolf/sig}} 16:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

== Possibly Weak Propositions ==

Instead of writing them on the project page, I think that less prominent articles should be suggested here, so as to free up space in the main section.
I'll start. Is [[Strong Mad and Coach Z's Relationship]] worthy of being featured (ever)? --[[User:HRWiki Greg|FIFTH GREG! HRWiki Greg]] 02:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
:At present, the opening of the article is not nearly long enough. In terms of prominence, I've got nothing against featuring obscure stuff if it's properly fit to feature; indeed I rather like putting unusual stuff on the Main Page. So basically, if you want it featured, it could theoretically be done, but you'll need to expand the intro about tenfold. Currently, that's a dealbreaker. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 04:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
::I've extended the intro; Is it long enough now? --[[User:HRWiki Greg|FIFTH GREG! HRWiki Greg]] 06:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

== Potential revamp ==

Surgeon General's Warning: the following post contains large quantities of words, and may be hazardous to your health.

The discussion here has tended to go a bit off-track... with the way featured articles are chosen now, pages that would have consensus to be featured often never are, because someone comes in once the discussion's gotten going with a different suggestion, and the discussion switches tracks. Also, it's too easy for a vocal minority or even a single person to (even in good faith) completely overrun the suggestions, and drown out other contributors' voices... just by making a suggestion every week.

The major problem, I think, is that the discussions are grouped by the week... but most of the time, the week isn't important. If we had featured [[SBLOUNSKCHED! Bar]] next week instead of this week, it wouldn't really have mattered. And if there was something that was popular, and it gets one-upped by something that's even more popular, that first thing should still be considered a promising candidate for the next week... rather than having to be re-suggested from scratch many weeks later.

So, I propose: ditch the weekly sections, and replace them with one section per page that's up for discussion. Instead of a section for this week and a section for next week, and so on, have a section for [[SBLOUNSKCHED! Bar]], and a section for [[The Virus]], and a section for [[Gavin]], and so on.

New suggestions can be added by anyone to the list... this should help stem the ability for people to flood the conversation, since there doesn't need to be exactly one new suggestion per week... both removing the urge to post a suggestion every single week (since there's no empty section that "needs" to be filled) and also allowing more than one suggestion to be made in a single week (so just because you've made a suggestion doesn't mean I can't make one too). This will probably lead to a large influx of suggestions at first, but I think it'll be self-limiting, as people will add fewer sections when there's a lot of them there already. Then, when there's consensus to feature an article, it can be moved to a "queue" list at the top of the page (which would just be a list of links, say to both the page in question and the section where it was discussed, and also the main page template for that week - being the week following whatever is above it in the queue). Perhaps also a note added to the top of the section, saying it's been added to the queue, so people know they don't need to keep discussing it. Then, each week, the entry at the top of the queue will go live, automatically like it does now, and it can be removed from the list. Regularly (shouldn't have to be too often), the sections for all the pages that ended up being featured, all the sections that have consensus to not feature, and all the sections that ground to a halt with no consensus and haven't been updated in a sufficiently long time, would be archived, like they are now.

The idea being that a good suggestion won't distract from another also-good suggestion... and once a good page has been suggested and agreed upon by consensus, it will in due time be featured as it floats to the top of the list. Meanwhile, pages that could be good but need work can keep their section, and have the usual discussions in there about what needs to be changed to make it featureable (with discussions about specific changes going on the article's talk page, of course). Then, when it's dragged up to scratch, it can be added to the queue just like any other page. This will help drive eyes to pages that are OK but not great, and make them better (improving the KB in the process).

Some notes for special cases:
* Weeks where we feature 7 small articles on a daily basis, rather than one for the whole week (or even that time we featured 14 articles over a fortnight), can still be done - just create one section to discuss the whole block, and if it's agreed on, add it to the queue as a whole block. This should flow through the same as any other suggestion.
* On the occasion we do want to feature something on a specific week (like Halloween-themed articles around that time of year) then the queue can be tinkered with... if there's consensus in the discussion, the page can be inserted on the appropriate week, rather than just added to the end of the list.
* The process only covers the normal cases, but it should be made clear there'd be room for exceptions... so while the process would be followed 95% of the time, if anything exciting happened, TBC made some announcement and we wanted to feature an article in response to that, then we could certainly do it. No-one would be indef-blocked for suggesting queue-jumping, in exceptional circumstances.

So anyway, that's my proposal. Thoughts? Suggestions? Changes? This is only a first draft of the idea, feel free to point out any pitfalls or suggest improvements. {{User:Phlip/sig}} 13:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
:Seems not unreasonable. -[[Special:Contributions/132.183.140.208|132.183.140.208]] 18:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
::I agree with this idea. So much, in fact, that I had the same idea [[#Queue|a year ago]]. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 20:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
:I basically agree with this proposal. A potential hazard to consider: Without specified dates, anyone is effectively free to make however many suggestions they want, which could quickly make the page unwieldy. If we added a limit to how many discussions can be on the page at once, we have the same problem again: People try to rush to be the first to add a new suggestion once one is removed. One possible solution should this problem materialize would be a per-user limit on suggestions (even if no limit is adopted, I would suggest that under normal situations, users limit themselves to a reasonable number of suggestions on the page at once, perhaps only two or so). {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 13:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
::I think the idea is shot-worthy. Let's try it out and work out any kinks as we get along. Heimstern: How about before going "live", we can try it out for 3-4 weeks to get the queue filled up. If after that time the page is too unwieldy, we'll put one of the restrictions you suggested. {{User:Elcool/sig}} 19:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

:::I disagree with this idea, for three reasons:

:::#We've done it this way for over five years.
:::#Everything will have to be archived differently.
:::#The Wiki is not as popular as it used to be (we should not have a big change to something in a time of inactivity like this).

:::{{User:RickTommy/sig}} 04:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
::::Those reasons are entirely unconvincing.
::::#So? That kind of reasoning would mean we can never improve anything we've been doing for a long time.
::::#Minor detail. Not going to be a problem to work that out.
::::#While we may be fairly inactive concerning new content, FAs are chugging along just like normal. There's no reason not to do it now (indeed, a time of inactivity is a good time, since we're not spending our time elsewhere).
::::{{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 04:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::So I made a proof-of-concept of what the page might look like if we were to make the change today, in [{{FULLURL:HRWiki:Sandbox|oldid=704180}} the sandbox] ([{{FULLURL:HRWiki:Sandbox|diff=704180&oldid=704169}} diff]) &ndash; note that I tried to keep all the conversations together, and not delete anything, so that's not exactly how it would look after being in operation for a while... in particular, I've left in things where many suggestions are all made at once (which wouldn't be the focus after the revamp &ndash; rather than looking around for a good article to use in a given week, we'd be focusing more on the articles individually), or where references are made to "this week" (eg "I prefer this suggestion for this week over this other suggestion" which obviously wouldn't come up any more, as the articles aren't directly competing with one another). I also had to split up a couple of comments over two sections, but I think it still worked.
:::::In other news, replying to RickTommy:
:::::# If one way was just as good as the other, then tradition would matter... but when one way is better than the other, then it's worth doing it that way even if it goes against tradition. Tradition is an argument against pointless changes, but it can't be an argument against real improvements.
:::::# I don't see archiving changing that much. The queue itself doesn't need to be archived at all, since there's no information on it that isn't already on [[HRW:FA]]... and the discussions can be archived in the usual way, just move them to an archive page once there's a lot of dead discussions... same as [[Talk:Main Page]] and many other discussion pages.
:::::# As Heimi said, a lull is the best time to switch over, as it will cause less disruption while people are settling in to the new setup... people have a chance to focus mostly on this and getting it to work, rather than also working on other things at the same time.
:::::{{User:Phlip/sig}} 11:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::I've also thrown together [{{FULLURL:HRWiki:Sandbox|oldid=704185}} another example] for what it would look like with a longer queue... the format isn't fixed (neither is anything else, at this point) and could certainly be simplified with a couple of templates. For the purposes of filling out the queue for the example, I closed a whole bunch of the discussions that we wouldn't usually... that just had one or two people saying anything, and that was recently... that is just so that you can see what it would look like with more things in the queue, not saying we would close discussions that flippantly for real. Exactly how much discussion we'd need before closing a discussion is probably something we'll figure out over time, from experience... it will probably vary, based on how much of a backlog we have in the queue... if it's starting to dry up, we'll probably start closing things quicker to make sure we have some buffer in there. {{User:Phlip/sig}} 12:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to let the discussion on this die like it did last time this was brought up... does anyone else have any comments or suggestions? I'd like to hear from some of the other FAS regulars, even if only a "I do/don't like it" (though preferably more, of course). The other question that needs to be answered is how we switch over... I see a couple of options:
# We could switch over entirely one day (probably a Monday, just after the FA goes live), just replace all the discussion section with new ones grouped by toon... like I did in the proof-of-concept in the sandbox I linked before. This will let us switch to the new version more quickly, but we'll only have a week to start filling in the queue before the next FA needs to be ready.
# We could keep the discussions in their current form for the ones we already have, but put any ''new'' suggestions into the new format. So, in 10 weeks time, we'll have gone through the existing discussions and start pulling things off the queue. Means we don't have to do much to switch over, just add the new sections, but it'd mean a long time before the queue actually starts getting used.
# We could take a mix of both options - keep a handful (say, 3 or 4) weeks worth of the discussions in their current format, and convert all the later ones into the new format. So we still have a few weeks to start building up the queue, but we can still dive into the new system straight away rather than waiting for a long time for the current discussions to fall off the page.
I think option 3 is the best. Week 23 is currently live, and 24 will go up soon... we can keep, say, 25 through 27 up, and convert 28 onwards to the new format... and the first page to go onto the queue would go live on 12 July for Week 28 (a month from today). {{User:Phlip/sig}} 07:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
:I, for one, really like the idea and like {{pl|l=http://www.hrwiki.org/w/index.php?title=HRWiki:Sandbox&oldid=704180 Phlip's}} {{pl|l=http://www.hrwiki.org/w/index.php?title=HRWiki:Sandbox&oldid=704185 mockups}}. I may have a slightly altered mockup in mind but I'm not sure if I'll get a chance to present it.  Besides these mockup look workable enough.  As for the transition method I prefer #3: stick to the current method for the next week or two while the rest of the discussions are transformed into the new method.  I look forward to seeing the implementation! --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 00:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
::Tryin' to keep the conversation alive again... I'll take the silence from the other FAS regulars that they have no complaints... if there's no new suggestions in, say, a week, then I think this can be pushed out. At that time, Week 26 will be about to happen... and we can keep, say, 27-29 in the current format, and 30-32 can be changed into the new format. The discussion for week 30 (which will become a discussion for [[Everybody to the Limit]]) can be closed straight away, so the queue can be created with 1 item in it already. That's my current plan, at least, unless someone comes up with a better one. {{User:Phlip/sig}} 23:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
:::I'm not a FAS regular, but I had nothing to add, but kind words of encouragement. I think your idea is great :). {{User:Elcool/sig}} 06:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
::::It occurred to me, do all the regulars know about this discussion? It's not like you'd need this page group on your watchlist to keep up with the article selection. Should we put a notice somewhere on the project page? &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 01:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm a little late to the discussion, but I think this is a great idea. {{User:Power Pie/sig}}
:Another reason I think it's a bad idea: more often than not, there's a particular week of a year that I want a particular article featured. Now how am I supposed to say "I want article X featured on week Y"? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 06:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
::By saying "I think article X should be featured on week Y". {{User:Phlip/sig}} 06:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Okay, I have a better idea: how about using both formats? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 09:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
::::What would be improved by doing that? It would merely mean twice the work, for little (if any) benefit. {{User:Phlip/sig}} 09:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::Now that this has been in full swing for a while, there's two thingss i'm a tad confused about. First off, when a consensus is no, (as is the case of [[HRWiki:Featured_Article_Selection#Strong_Bad_Sings|Strong Bad Sings]]) can sections be removed? And also, there is as of now 19 suggestions on the page. did the 10 week limit get removed, or were people just excited about the change that they just began to suggest a lot more things? {{User:StrongAwesome74/sig}} 01:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

== Revamp'd format suggestion ==

Okay guys, so i have a suggestion for enhancing the new format: Given the less-than-linear format of the new FA system, and that a few of the FA articles have been written for potentially future FAs, why not utilize the HRW namespace to keep drafts of these ready for use when the FA comes?  So, for [[Gavin]] (for example) we'd have <code><nowiki>[[HRWiki:FA for Gavin]]</nowiki></code> or something like that.  We could then automatically link to those from the queue and/or discussion.  We could even ask that those who make suggestions can help write them as they make the suggestion. Once the articles make the queue, it's just a simple matter of moving or redirecting the page.  What do you guys think? --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 22:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
:I think it would be <code><nowiki>[[HRWiki:Featured Article for Gavin]]</nowiki></code>, but instead of that, how about <code><nowiki>[[Featured:Gavin]]</nowiki></code> or <code><nowiki>[[Featured Article:Gavin]]</nowiki></code>? It would also change to, say, [[Featured [Article]:2010, week 32]]. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 22:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
::I like the idea. A <code><nowiki>[[Featured:]]</nowiki></code> would be nice and it would make managing, finding and listing FAs much easier.  In addition to that it looks like we may need an intermediate process where we can debate and choose (perhaps vote on, even) which articles will be added to the queue.  Such a system shouldn't be too complex, but that coupled with the per-artcile FA writeups (and asking that suggestions also include writeups) would make short- and long-term FA planning and maintenance easier and less of a last-minute thing.  Opinions?  --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 20:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
:::I really think it should be something as simple as having trusted users decide which articles have consensus and add those to the queue. If necessary, this action could be restricted to only sysops to be sure only trusted users make the decisions, though I'd rather we allowed non-sysops capable of determining consensus to participate, too. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 00:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
::::Good idea. Pretty much every article featured since the introduction of the new format has not had consensus; I feel that this has been a conflict of interest. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 02:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

== My two cents ==

After about two months on the new format, I think I have a few things to suggest. I know I'm not a regular on this page, but I've been observing, and I think there are some issues that need addressing. Firstly, the new format all but eliminates the need for a [[HRWiki:Featured Article Nominations|nominations page]], since that was mostly used to give ideas for weeks when no article was already suggested. Since the current selection process is essentially nominating articles, the nominations page can probably go. Also, it seems to me that the current attitude towards this page is less about choosing articles that represent the community's work and more about choosing articles that cover topics important in the [[Homestar Runner universe]]. I don't think this attitude is the proper way to think about which articles deserve to be featured. If the community wrote an [[Polymascotfoamalate|awesome article about something that is only a minor part of the universe]], I'd say it is more worthy of a feature than [[The Reddest Radish|a classic 'toon with less than twenty fun facts]]. Finally, I think many users are taking too much of an egotistical approach to this page. I think this page needs to be less about being the one to suggest articles that get featured, and more about establishing group consensus on which articles in our wiki deserve the title. If we all limited ourselves to one or two suggestions per month, and concentrated more on discussing already suggested articles, we would establish much better consensus much faster and with less clutter. --{{User:Super Martyo Brother/sig}} 19:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
:I think the nominations page has been obsolete for years, not just since the format changed here. I'm all for featuring awesome articles ([[Crimes Committed by Strong Bad]] comes to mind as one that went from nothing to awesome very quickly was featured because of this), but I also don't have a problem with featuring a topic simply because it's important in the universe (assuming at least minimum standards for the article); after all, concerning an article, in our featured template we say that we "might just think it's cool". &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 19:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
::dc - if the nominations page is so obsolete, was [http://www.hrwiki.org/w/index.php?title=HRWiki%3AFeatured_Article_Selection&diff=707763&oldid=707761 this] [http://www.hrwiki.org/w/index.php?title=HRWiki%3AFeatured_Article_Selection&diff=707765&oldid=707764 edit] incorrect? Do you know if [[Answering Machine]] has been featured/if it is easy to look up if you don't know (which i'm not assuming you know)? {{User:The Knights Who Say Ni/sig}} 02:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
:::The nominations page isn't obsolete in the sense that it [http://www.hrwiki.org/w/index.php?title=HRWiki:Featured_Article_Nominations&action=history isn't updated]. However, the foolproof way of determining if an article has been featured ''should'' be to check the top of the talk page. --{{User:Super Martyo Brother/sig}} 02:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
::::Yes, i knew that. i just wasn't thinking. I also wasn't thinking about that when i linked the articles. {{User:The Knights Who Say Ni/sig}} 02:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Another thing I'm noticing: There doesn't seem to be a policy or guideline in place for when to ''remove'' a nomination. There are several on the page currently that haven't been commented on in months where the consensus seems to be to reject the article, but they're still on the page. Do they need to be archived in some way? Should they be removed, or should they be left open for when the article improves in quality? Should we assume that that might happen? I think that, if we decide they should be archived, we just move them to the article's talk page. --{{User:Super Martyo Brother/sig}} 05:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
:Are the discussions for articles that did get featured archived somewhere? If so, the rejected discussions could be stored in the same place. --[[Special:Contributions/93.207.89.147|93.207.89.147]] 09:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC) (That Anonny Guy)

== Protection ==

No one seems to do the protection stuff anymore; should those be removed from the checklist? [[Special:Contributions/119.252.166.26|119.252.166.26]] 05:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
:And even if they shouldn't, should we at least reword them for users who aren't sysops? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 07:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

== Change of pace ==

OK, FAS is totally neglected these days. I'm as guilty as the next person, but then, we are all volunteers. In this new world of very few site updates and a corresponding lack of user interest, I think FAS as we know it is no longer tenable. So, I suggest a revamp of some sort. The possibilities I see are:
#Scrap it completely. With the lack of interest, this really may be the best option, though we'd need to redesign the main page for this to work.
#Move over to monthly FAs instead of weekly. The main concern I have about this is that I'm not sure our drive to maintain FAS is even up to monthly FAs anymore.
#Instead of choosing new FAs, just repeat older ones. This could be combined with the above suggestion, and does reduce our workload a bit, though we'd still have to get enough drive to maintain it.

Please note that, regardless of what happens, I do not anticipate being heavily involved in maintaining our featured article process as I have been in the past. I've gotten tired of the job and the rubbish that comes with it, and real life is busier than it used to be.

So, let's talk about what should be done here. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 03:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
:I think rerunning old articles would be preferable to scrapping it or moving to a monthly schedule. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 04:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
::How 'bout a hybrid? New articles every first week of the month, reruns the other three. --{{User:Super Martyo Brother/sig}} 23:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

:::I suspect that this has to do with the change of format. The old format had more of a deadline for when the FA summaries should be created, so maybe if we changed back?
:::Heimstern: In response to the idea of a main page redesign, it would look something like this: [http://www.hrwiki.org/w/index.php?title=HRWiki:Sandbox&curid=49237&diff=718049&oldid=718046&rcid=679408]
:::Martyo: It would work better the other way 'round.
:::{{User:RickTommy/sig}} 04:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
::::Ha! We knew ''you'd'' say that. No, there's nothing wrong with the new format. We'd have this same problem under the old format, because the problem has to do with diminished interest. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 02:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

== Rule suggestion ==
I have noticed that many of the recent Featured Articles have been decided based on solely one or two people approving the article. I understand that we're in a bit of a crunch time right now in terms of the popularity of this page as well as the whole wiki, but I have a new rule suggestion: in order for a new article to be featured, at least two or three people, depending on the amount of input, must approve the article. Thoughts? [[User:Doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 00:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
:That'd be making a rule we can't fulfill, because very few people are actually participating in FAS. Adding a rule isn't going to drum up interest in this page. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 03:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
::I completely understand. Thanks for the input anyway. [[User:Doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 22:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

== Redirects ==

I've always hated the redirected FAs, but this week in particular has brought this issue into sharp focus: What if the FA being redirected to happens to contain outdated info (like this one does) or is a daily one instead of a weekly one? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 02:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
:This is a wiki, is it not? The old featured article is not protected, is it? If it contains outdated information, ''then fix it''. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 03:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
::So the issue is not archived, but protected? b/c i had a similar question [http://www.hrwiki.org/w/index.php?title=HRWiki_talk:Featured_articles&diff=prev&oldid=716922 here] that went unanswered, and i have since forgotten what i was going to do with the answer. {{User:The Knights Who Say Ni/sig}} 04:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
:::The old featured writeups are not protected. If you find an outright error, I don't see why it can't be fixed. As for this week's article, where it was correct back when it was originally featured but now is outdated, there's nothing stopping us from copying the old data onto a new page and then updating it. In fact, [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 45|I've now done that]]. Someone, please, feel free to make it current. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 17:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

== Sbemail write-ups ==

I have drafted write-ups for many Strong Bad Emails that have not yet been featured ([[User:RickTommy/Sbemailwriteups]]). But I'm very sure most of them need to be reviewed. Could someone please review them? Note that I have also made that page open to public editing, so as well as editing the write-ups I've already written, you can add your own write-ups if you want. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 02:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

== I don't understand ==

Seriously, why is everyone letting FAS die? I'm trying to ''save'' FAS here.

*Some of my write-ups get reverted due to lack of consensus. Because of the lack of users who participate in FAS these days, I don't think consensus is that important.
*What is with the redirected FAs, anyway? I ''really - do - not - understand'' why we have redirected FAs instead of just thinking of whichever article currently on FAS should be featured.
*We have not done a daily for over one-and-a-half years, and now we only have next week to do one before the end of the year. I ''really'' do not want this daily to be pushed to next year.
*I already have written several write-ups [[User:RickTommy/Sbemailwriteups|here]]; why not just pick one from that list?

Sorry for ranting, but I am really, really confused as to why everyone is letting FAS die instead of helping me revive it. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 04:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
:#Having a brand-new FA every week is not as important as having the community agree that an article is '''worthy''' of being featured. As such, '''consensus is more important than ever'''.
:#The redirected FAs are because those are articles that '''already got consensus''' of being worthy. It's like a tv show, they don't necessarily have a new episode every week, and during the off weeks, the stations fill that gap with reruns. They don't try to churn out mediocre, substandard episodes at the last minute. Also, in this situation, the majority of people who view the rerun never saw the original time it was featured (you yourself certainly weren't around then) and there's no chronology to the series, so it doesn't matter what FA you see in what order.
:#Once again, there's no requirement to do an annual set of dailies. If there is a good daily idea that receives '''consensus''', we'll do it, but the concept of dailies is actually much rarer than it is common. There's no reason to try to force through a set of dailies before the end of the year.
:#It's a nice Idea, but I'm not sure all those emails are worth featuring.
:no one's "letting FA die". There's still an FA every week, and the weeks we've gained enough interest in featuring a new article, we do. Having a lone user make unilateral decisions about a project without the support of the rest of the community is far more damaging to a project than lack of development in a certain area. I hope that helps. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 20:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
::Actually, maybe it's time to give FAs a rest for a while. We could use the space for something new or we could have the system load a random featured article from the archives. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 21:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
:::I'm going to second It's dot com.  With no new input from people on FAS, no new content from TBC, and declining interest in H*R due to lack of new content from TBC, it's time for FAS to be let go for now.  The question is do we want classic FAs on the main page or for the entire FA space to be archived in favor of putting the extra space on the main page to some other use (like HR Wiki news that could cover wiki and forum related news and announcements)? &mdash; [[User:Ngamer01|Ngamer01]] 19:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
::::I feel I should add, three sections up, it was suggested that the very rule you're using against me be implemented, but it was stated that it can't be fulfilled because of the lack of users participating in FAS. So what do you have to say about that? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 08:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
::::Also agree with putting FA to rest, possibly forever since TBC don't seem interested in coming back to making regular Homestar updates anytime soon. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 13:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It appears that this has been brought up again. Once again, what's the point in waiting for consensus when it's clear as day that we're not going to get any? If this is going to continue, then yeah, I think we should kill off FAS as well. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 23:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
:The fact that there is significantly diminished interest in FAs does not diminish nor does it eliminate the need to establish consensus when deciding what articles to feature.  Whilst there may be only a handful of people involved in the FA process, that serves as no reason to ignore and negate their feedback in order to serve the interests of an individual.  If the net effect of our actions is that no action is taken, so be it: disinterest in the process does not eliminate the need for the process.  There are reasons why it is there in the first place.  If the process leads us to eliminating FAs then so bet it: that is the decision; but that is a different matter that warrants a separate discussion <small>(to which I must comment: replace it with what? I personally I'm inclined to automatic redirects to the past)</small>.  That said, consensus must still be observed. --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 23:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
::Well, I'll say this again: three sections up, it was suggested that this very rule be implemented, but Heimstern said that it couldn't be fulfilled because of the lack of interest in this project. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 23:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
:::Let me see if I can clarify the issue for you.  The rule three sections up that was suggested required 2-3 users to support an article before it could be featured.  While ideal, this suggestion is impractical because very few people participate in FA selection these days, thus making the rule unenforceable.  What happened this week was that '''''you''''' pushed for an FA whose discussion included a suggestion for a different article.  What i mean by this is that the discussion had <u>established two different opinions</u> and so no clear consensus was established.  We have featured articles with less discussion in the past, but when it is clear that there is no consensus then it should be no reason to proceed unilaterally. (We're pretty much in maintenance mode for lack of a better term, and as I've mentioned before, the future of FA is an entirely different discussion altogether.)  --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 17:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
::::Stux - the [[20X6 vs. 1936|different article]] you mentioned in the discussion for this week ended up being used as the featured article last week (which was partly my doing). That said, I wasn't aware that Wormdingler had been nominated when RickTommy created the FA page. Somehow, i do remember the other article suggested against it and RickTommy asking why. <small>(maybe i didn't pay attention to the one-word post?)</small> Anyway, i was surprised to see Wormdingler's FA page for that reason. and when I looked it up on the FAS page, it wasn't blatant that it had been suggested, and it definitely didn't have consensus. {{User:The Knights Who Say Ni/sig}} 02:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::This is exactly what I mean by "letting FAS die". I am sick of the redirects! I am ''sick'' of them! Are there any articles here, at the moment, that have what you define as consensus? [[Special:Contributions/58.167.46.232|58.167.46.232]] 20:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC) ([[User:RickTommy]])