HRWiki:Featured Article Selection

From Homestar Runner Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(→Intro: shouldn't use relative references; no guarantee the thread you reference will always be the one above)
(with the notice we can also restore the old text, update notice)
(includes 509 intermediate revisions)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
<div style="background-color: #CCFFCC; border: 1px solid #009900; margin: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em; text-align:center">
 +
'''[[HRWiki:Featured article nominations|Nominations]] for [[HRWiki:featured articles|Featured article]] selection are closed.  This is an archive. Please do not add discussion here.'''
 +
</div>
{{shortcut|FAS||[[FAS]]}}
{{shortcut|FAS||[[FAS]]}}
-
Welcome to '''[[HRWiki:Featured articles|featured article]] selection'''. Please help us choose and create write-ups for our best, most interesting, or otherwise noteworthy articles to appear on the [[main page]]. For ideas, check out the [[HRWiki:Featured Article Nominations|featured article nominations]].
+
 
 +
[[Category:HRWiki History|{{PAGENAME}}]]
 +
 
 +
Welcome to '''[[HRWiki:Featured articles|featured article]] selection'''. Please help us choose and create write-ups for our best, most interesting, or otherwise noteworthy articles to appear on the [[main page]]. For ideas, check out the [[HRWiki:Featured Article Nominations|featured article nominations]]. For drafts, see [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Drafts|this page]].  
==Checklist==
==Checklist==
-
{{talkchecklist|Checklist for new Featured Article:|noeditsection=true}}
+
{{talkchecklist|Checklist for new Featured Article:|noeditsection=true|inactive=true}}
*Make sure the article is proof-read up to a high standard.
*Make sure the article is proof-read up to a high standard.
*At 0000 [[Wikipedia:Coordinated Universal Time|UTC]] Monday, [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=purge purge the main page cache].
*At 0000 [[Wikipedia:Coordinated Universal Time|UTC]] Monday, [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=purge purge the main page cache].
Line 11: Line 17:
*Update [[HRWiki:Featured Article Nominations]] with descriptive edit summary &mdash; see [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=HRWiki:Featured_Article_Nominations&action=history history].
*Update [[HRWiki:Featured Article Nominations]] with descriptive edit summary &mdash; see [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=HRWiki:Featured_Article_Nominations&action=history history].
*Update [[HRWiki:Featured articles]] with descriptive edit summary &mdash; see [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=HRWiki:Featured_articles&action=history history].
*Update [[HRWiki:Featured articles]] with descriptive edit summary &mdash; see [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=HRWiki:Featured_articles&action=history history].
-
|}<br/>
+
|}<br/>  
==Discussion archives==
==Discussion archives==
-
<center>[[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/General Discussion|Other Discussion]] | [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2005 Weeks 26-29|2005, Weeks 26-29]] | [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2005 Weeks 30-39|2005, Weeks 30-39]] | [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2005 Weeks 40-49|2005, Weeks 40-52]]
+
<center>
 +
{| {{standardtable}}
 +
! Year !! Weeks 1-10 !! Weeks 11-20 !! Weeks 21-30 !! Weeks 31-40 !! Weeks 41-52
 +
|-
 +
| 2005
 +
|
 +
|
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2005 Weeks 26-29|2005, Weeks 26-29]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2005 Weeks 30-39|2005, Weeks 30-39]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2005 Weeks 40-49|2005, Weeks 40-52]]
 +
|-
 +
| 2006
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2006 Weeks 1-10 |2006, Weeks 1-10]] 
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2006 Weeks 11-20|2006, Weeks 11-20]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2006 Weeks 21-30|2006, Weeks 21-30]]  
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2006 Weeks 31-40|2006, Weeks 31-40]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2006 Weeks 41-52|2006, Weeks 41-52]]
 +
|-
 +
| 2007
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2007 Weeks 1-10 |2007, Weeks 1-10]] 
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2007 Weeks 11-20|2007, Weeks 11-20]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2007 Weeks 21-30|2007, Weeks 21-30]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2007 Weeks 31-40|2007, Weeks 31-40]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2007 Weeks 41-52|2007, Weeks 41-52]]  
 +
|-
 +
| 2008
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2008 Weeks 1-10 |2008, Weeks 1-10]] 
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2008 Weeks 11-20|2008, Weeks 11-20]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2008 Weeks 21-30|2008, Weeks 21-30]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2008 Weeks 31-40|2008, Weeks 31-40]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2008 Weeks 41-52|2008, Weeks 41-52]]
 +
|-
 +
| 2009
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2009 Weeks 1-10 |2009, Weeks 1-10]] 
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2009 Weeks 11-20|2009, Weeks 11-20]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2009 Weeks 21-30|2009, Weeks 21-30]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2009 Weeks 31-40|2009, Weeks 31-40]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2009 Weeks 41-53|2009, Weeks 41-53]]
 +
|-
 +
| 2010
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2010 Weeks 1-10 |2010, Weeks 1-10]] 
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2010 Weeks 11-20|2010, Weeks 11-20]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2010 Weeks 21-30|2010, Weeks 21-30]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2010 Weeks 31-40|2010, Weeks 31-40]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2010 Weeks 41-52|2010, Weeks 41-52]]
 +
|-
 +
| 2011
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2011 Weeks 1-10 |2011, Weeks 1-10]] 
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2011 Weeks 11-20|2011, Weeks 11-20]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2011 Weeks 21-30|2011, Weeks 21-30]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2011 Weeks 31-40|2011, Weeks 31-40]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2011 Weeks 41-52|2011, Weeks 41-52]]
 +
|-
 +
| 2012
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2012 Weeks 1-10 |2012, Weeks 1-10]] 
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2012 Weeks 11-20|2012, Weeks 11-20]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2012 Weeks 21-30|2012, Weeks 21-30]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2012 Weeks 31-40|2012, Weeks 31-40]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2012 Weeks 41-52|2012, Weeks 41-52]]
 +
|}
-
[[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2006 Weeks 1-10|2006, Weeks 1-10]] | [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2006 Weeks 11-20|2006, Weeks 11-20]] | [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2006 Weeks 21-30|2006, Weeks 21-30]] | [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2006 Weeks 31-40|2006, Weeks 31-40]] | [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2006 Weeks 41-52|2006, Weeks 41-52]]
 
-
[[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2007 Weeks 1-10|2007, Weeks 1-10]] | [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2007 Weeks 11-20|2007, Weeks 11-20]] | [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2007 Weeks 21-30|2007, Weeks 21-30]] | [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2007 Weeks 31-40|2007, Weeks 31-40]] | [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2007 Weeks 41-52|2007, Weeks 41-52]]
+
[[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/General Discussion|Other Discussion]] |
-
 
+
[[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Stalled Discussions Archive 1|Stalled Discussions Archive 1]] |
-
[[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2008 Weeks 1-10|2008, Weeks 1-10]] | [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2008 Weeks 11-20|2008, Weeks 11-20]] |
+
[[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Stalled Discussions Archive 2|Stalled Discussions Archive 2]]
-
[[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2008 Weeks 21-30|2008, Weeks 21-30]] | [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2008 Weeks 31-40|2008, Weeks 31-40]] | [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2008 Weeks 41-52|2008, Weeks 41-52]]
+
-
 
+
-
[[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2009 Weeks 1-10|2009, Weeks 1-10]] |
+
-
[[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2009 Weeks 11-20|2009, Weeks 11-20]] |
+
-
[[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2009 Weeks 21-30|2009, Weeks 21-30]] |
+
-
[[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2009 Weeks 31-40|2009, Weeks 31-40]] |
+
-
[[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2009 Weeks 41-53|2009, Weeks 41-53]]
+
-
 
+
-
[[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2010 Weeks 1-10|2010, Weeks 1-10]] |
+
-
[[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2010 Weeks 11-20|2010, Weeks 11-20]] |
+
-
[[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2010 Weeks 21-30|2010, Weeks 21-30]] |
+
-
[[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2010 Weeks 31-40|2010, Weeks 31-40]] |
+
-
[[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2010 Weeks 41-52|2010, Weeks 41-52]]
+
-
 
+
-
[[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2011 Weeks 1-10|2011, Weeks 1-10]] |
+
-
[[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2011 Weeks 11-20|2011, Weeks 11-20]]
+
</center>
</center>
Line 42: Line 90:
{| {{standardtable}}
{| {{standardtable}}
! Week !! Article !! Discussion
! Week !! Article !! Discussion
-
{{FA queue| 3 Jan 2011 |Cheatball}}
+
{{FA queue| 3 Dec 2012 |2-Part Episode: Part 1}}
-
{{FA queue| 10 Jan 2011 |Trogday 08}}
+
{{FA queue|10 Dec 2012 |2-Part Episode: Part 2}}
-
{{FA queue| 17 Jan 2011 |retirement}}
+
{{FA queue|17 Dec 2012 |Decemberween in July Dailies|alternatediscussion=yes|decision=Decemberween in July}}
-
{{FA queue| 24 Jan 2011 |Minor Teen Girl Squad Characters}}
+
{{FA queue|24 Dec 2012 |The Last Featured Article|alternatediscussion=yes|decision=A Death-Defying Decemberween}}
-
{{FA queue| 31 Jan 2011 |Sloshybowl}}
+
-
{{FA queue|  7 Feb 2011 |The Brothers Strong}}
+
-
{{FA queue| 14 Feb 2011 |Strong Bad and Strong Sad's Relationship}}
+
-
{{FA queue| 21 Feb 2011 |Naked Homestar Runner}}
+
-
{{FA queue| 28 Feb 2011 |Answering Machine}}
+
-
{{FA queue|  7 Mar 2011 |sisters}}
+
-
{{FA queue| 14 Mar 2011 |Dangeresque Roomisode 1: Behind the Dangerdesque}}
+
|}
|}
-
===[[Cheatball]]===
+
===Redirects===
-
''{{done}} {{FA|3 Jan 2011}}''
+
This is a placeholder topic for 5-year redirects.  Due to overall decreased activity, FAs are now being reused more often.  The common practice has become to redirect to the FA exactly 5 years prior to the current FA.  When an article is re-used, mark it in the following manner:
 +
<pre>
 +
{{FA queue|<date>|Redirects|alternatediscussion=yes|decision=<article name>}}
 +
</pre>
 +
Example:
 +
<pre>
 +
{{FA queue|15 Aug 2011 |Redirects|alternatediscussion=yes|decision=1-Up}}
 +
</pre>
-
How about something 20X6-related instead? Perhaps either [[Make-O Your Own Stinko]] or [[Stinkoman 20X6]] (I know we're waiting until it's finished, but at the rate the site is going, I don't think it'll ever be finished)? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 12:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
+
Please keep this discussion in the FA page at all times, but do copy it to archive pages as well.
-
:How about discussion rather than just throwing out ideas while ignoring previous suggestions? {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 12:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
+
-
::If we're going to do an interview or public appearance, how about a more notable one? I can't really think of one (I'm not really into that sort of stuff), and besides, I wholeheartedly believe that we should do something 20X6-related this week. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 12:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
+
-
:::RickTommy, that's the same thing you suggested for last week before it was deleted. So stop hogging the spotlight. --[[Special:Contributions/209.148.176.136|209.148.176.136]] 12:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
+
-
::::What's more, Stinkoman 20X6 is still incomplete. And judging by how things are looking on the website now, I think it will always remain incomplete. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 02:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
+
-
:::::Um, I said almost those exact words. Yes, it doesn't look like it will ever be finished. So it's no use waiting for it to be finished before we can feature it. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 06:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
+
-
:::::We ''could'' do Make-o Your Own Stinko... {{User:Power Pie/sig}}
+
-
::::::I'd prefer to wait a while before featuring this one; too early to give up hope. But Sinko-related articles are just as good! --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 21:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
+
-
:::::::Sorry if I sound pushy but I really really think [[Make-o Your Own Stinko]] should be featured. {{User:Power Pie/sig}} 01:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
+
-
::::::::Given the new recommendation format all you need to do is create a separate entry for [[Make-o Your Own Stinko]] so that it can be added to the queue. --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 15:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
+
-
:::::::::How? {{User:Power Pie/sig}} 01:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
+
-
::::::::::Easy just follow the format for the other sections and add a header for the article in the wikicode like so:
+
-
::::::::::<blockquote><code><nowiki>==[[Make-o Your Own Stinko]]==</nowiki></code></blockquote>
+
-
::::::::::followed by your explanation for it. --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 21:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
+
-
:::::::::::<s>How about featuring it for Jan 3-9?</s> Well, it looks like Jan 3-9 is reserved for [[Cheatball]], whose write-up was moved in favour of [[Timeline of Homestar Runner]]. So what should we do about that? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 05:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
+
-
::::::::::::Again, RickTommy, the format of FAs has changed and articles are no longer reserved by date unless there's a compelling reason for it.  If you'd like a specific 20X6 article please suggest it the way all other articles are suggested.  In moderation of course. --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 19:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
+
-
:::::::::::::But Jan 3-9 is 20X6 week. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 22:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
+
-
::::::::::::::To elaborate on the above, Stinkoman was created on this this week a few years back. {{User:Power Pie/sig}} 19:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
+
-
:::::::::::::::I think everyone knows that. :) {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 00:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
+
-
::::::::::::::::I actually like the idea of doing this one for the Stinkoman's birthday. Poor guy never got any Stinkoman-shaped pancakes, but at least we can give him an FA, right? {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 09:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
+
-
:Well, while populating the queue I {{pl|l=http://www.hrwiki.org/w/index.php?title=HRWiki:Featured_article_for_2011,_week_1&action=history discovered}} that the [[Cheatball]] was already {{pl|l=http://www.hrwiki.org/w/index.php?title=HRWiki%3AFeatured_article_for_2011%2C_week_1&diff=691433&oldid=691136 postponed}} to this year.  While the actual [[Stinkoman 20X6]] article is in the queue (not set in stone yet of course), do we want to keep 20X6 and pre-empt the poor [[Cheatball]] again or do we want to postpone 20X6 instead?  --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 20:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
+
-
::Since there were no comments either way I decided to keep the [[Cheatball]] and retain the hope that the game will be completed in the near future and not turn into a [[Wikipedia:Duke Nukem Forever|Duke Nukem Forever]] :) --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 16:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
+
-
 
+
-
===Week of Trogday (Jan 10-16)===
+
-
''{{done}} {{FA|10 Jan 2011}}''
+
-
 
+
-
[[Trogday 08]]. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 05:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
+
-
:I see no need to specifically celebrate Trogday. --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 19:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
+
-
::Well, we always do. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 22:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
+
-
:::"Always" is a strong word, but it certainly is a common practice. Trogday 08 is perfectly fine by me. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 09:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
+
-
 
+
-
===[[retirement]]===
+
-
''{{done}} {{FA|17 Jan 2011}}''
+
-
 
+
-
It's the longest toon on the site - I think it should be featured sometime soon. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 22:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
+
-
:Agreed. It's the resolution of the Lappynapped Situation, and has the return of the Tandy and Compy. [[User:doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 29 November 2010
+
-
 
+
-
===[[Minor Teen Girl Squad Characters]]===
+
-
''{{done}} {{FA|24 Jan 2011}}''
+
-
 
+
-
No FA this week, redirect from 5 years ago. --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 21:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
+
-
 
+
-
===[[Sloshybowl]]===
+
-
''{{done}} {{FA|31 Jan 2011}}''
+
-
 
+
-
We haven't featured a Superbowl-themed article yet, so how about either [[Superbowl Dealie]] or [[Sloshybowl]]? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 02:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
+
-
:Ooh, I like that idea. I'm for either of them: both are funny, both are just as related to the topic as the other, and both are popular. [[User:doctorwho295]] 18 December 2010
+
-
::{{p|l={{fullurl:HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 5|oldid=717852&diff=prev}} It appears}} that there's been a change to the current FA, using this article instead. I say: too late. Just because everyone is slacking off on FAS does not mean at all (at least to me) that we should switch articles in the middle of the week to compensate. I hate to be blunt, but if people wanted this to be the featured article for the week of the Superbowl, they should have participated and put this into the spotlight sooner, if not to overthrow the nomination for [[#The Brothers Strong|The Brothers Strong]]. The nomination for The Brothers Strong went through the exact same thing. My sincere apologies to Ni, whose edits I'm sure are hearty and in good faith (and possibly hesitant considering the "if that's okay" in the edit summary, though that might be modifying the move of TBS), but I'm afraid I'm not for this sudden change at all. {{User:Soiled Bargains/sig}} 05:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
+
-
 
+
-
===[[The Brothers Strong]]===
+
-
''{{done}} {{FA|7 Feb 2011}}''
+
-
 
+
-
Another important article that I'm surprised hasn't been featured yet. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 23:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
+
-
:That hasn't been featured yet? Yes, it should be featured soon {{User:The Knights Who Say Ni/sig}} 23:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
+
-
::I agree. [[User:doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 26 December 2010
+
-
:::Me too. --[[Special:Contributions/93.207.85.97|93.207.85.97]] 13:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC) (That Anonny Guy)
+
-
::::Eh, [[alternate universe|if we must]]. After all, we really need to get rolling with these things again, {{p|l={{fullurl:HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 4|oldid=717583}} and the people are getting restless}}. I guess {{user|124.180.209.239}}, the guy who made the edit I just linked to, made our decision for us. {{User:Soiled Bargains/sig}} 00:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
+
-
 
+
-
===[[Strong Bad and Strong Sad's Relationship]]===
+
-
''{{done}} {{FA|14 Feb 2011}}''
+
-
 
+
-
The most obvious relationship on the site, and one that I have audibly cried at. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 10:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
+
-
:An interesting topic, but the intro is pretty short. Could we maybe expand it? Then it'd probably make a fine feature. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 17:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
+
-
::I expanded it some: <blockquote>'''[[Strong Bad]]'s relationship with [[Strong Sad]]''' usually consists of Strong Bad hurting or making fun of Strong Sad, though not all the time. He has given Strong Sad various [[Nicknames#Strong Sad|insulting nicknames]] and often hurts him. However, Strong Sad and Strong Bad occasionally get along, usually when Strong Bad is in need of an assistant. It appears that Strong Bad is at least partly responsible for his little brother's depression; Strong Sad [[Strong Bad Is In Jail Cartoon|writes]] that in his big brother's absence, "[He feels] cooler, and less like [he sucks] so bad.".</blockquote>{{User:Power Pie/sig}} 01:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
+
-
:::I like the idea. Maybe the trend of SS getting revenge on SB could be mentioned somewhere in there? --[[Special:Contributions/93.207.89.184|93.207.89.184]] 12:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC) (That Anonny Guy)
+
-
::::Looks featurable now. And yes, the trend of SS getting revenge on SB could be mentioned somewhere in there. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 06:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
+
-
Since FAs seem to be in a bit of trouble currently, I was so bold to expand Power Pie's writeup a little. Consider this:
+
-
<blockquote>'''[[Strong Bad]]'s relationship with [[Strong Sad]]''' usually consists of Strong Bad hurting or making fun of Strong Sad, though not all the time. He has given Strong Sad various [[Nicknames#Strong Sad|insulting nicknames]] and often hurts him. However, Strong Sad and Strong Bad occasionally get along, usually when Strong Bad is in need of an assistant. It appears that Strong Bad is at least partly responsible for his little brother's depression; Strong Sad [[Strong Bad Is In Jail Cartoon|writes]] that in his big brother's absence, "[He feels] cooler, and less like [he sucks] so bad.". It does however happen that Strong Sad stands up to his tormentor. This includes [[couch patch|revealing embarassing details about Strong Bad’s childhood]] or making him believe that [[your edge|staying in a deep, dark hole is "edgy"]]. Most of the time though, their relationship is one of abuse pointed towards the younger brother, just as in many families in real life.</blockquote>
+
-
--[[Special:Contributions/93.207.85.69|93.207.85.69]] 18:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC) (That Anonny Guy)
+
-
:This is definitely an article worthy of a feature. Significant to the site? Yes. Well-written intro? Yes. Pictures? Yes. Starts with a quote from an interview (like all good articles)? Yes. --{{User:Super Martyo Brother/sig}} 08:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
+
-
 
+
-
=== [[Naked Homestar Runner]] ===
+
-
''{{done}} {{FA|21 Feb 2011}}''
+
-
 
+
-
A funny running gag. --[[Special:Contributions/93.207.85.97|93.207.85.97]] 13:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC) (That Anonny Guy)
+
-
:Agreed. Not only that, but there's several instances of it, and it's quite unique to the Homestar universe. --{{User:Super Martyo Brother/sig}} 08:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
+
-
 
+
-
===[[Answering Machine]]===
+
-
''{{done}} {{FA|28 Feb 2011}}''
+
-
 
+
-
An important item. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 10:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
+
-
:I like it, but it seems too short. I'll try to expand it as much as I can, but in it's current state I don't think it's good.... [[User:Doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 17 August 2010
+
-
::I agree with the above. {{User:Power Pie/sig}} 01:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
+
-
:::I think we've done this article already. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 16:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
+
-
::::I don't think we have. It looks like we've done [[Marzipan's Answering Machine]] before, but [[Answering Machine]] doesn't appear in bold on the [[HRWiki:Featured Article Nominations|nominations]] page. {{User:The Knights Who Say Ni/sig}} 17:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
+
-
I guess I'll make the comment to go with RickTommy's move. I expanded the article some. It's now three paragraphs (wow, huge improvement!), and I also provided a lot more detail and cleaned up some awkward sentences and grammar errors. --{{User:Super Martyo Brother/sig}} 05:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
+
-
:Seeing your expansions, this article looks more proper and I support nomination. [[User:doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 10 February 2011
+
-
 
+
-
===[[sisters]]===
+
-
''{{done}} {{FA|7 Mar 2011}}''
+
-
 
+
-
Before I forget, I had previously suggested this one in the old format but was too soon to feature.  I think it'd be a nice feature for the next time we do an email.  --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 21:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
+
-
:I'm not sure if it's important enough for a week to itself... {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 07:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
+
-
::Why not? I think it's a real classic and would make a good feature. (That Anonny Guy)--[[Special:Contributions/79.221.32.92|79.221.32.92]] 10:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
+
-
:::It's too short. {{User:Power Pie/sig}} 01:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
+
-
::::Just because a 'toon is too short doesn't mean it can't be featured. On the contrary, this particular email had an impact on many future emails, and it's also become an oft-quoted 'toon. I agree with TAG. --{{User:Super Martyo Brother/sig}} 05:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
+
-
:::::No more opinions on this? I still think this should be featured. I know there has been a week of dailies featuring Tandy emails, but a single one can be worth featuring for a week IMHO. --[[Special:Contributions/93.207.85.97|93.207.85.97]] 13:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC) (That Anonny Guy)
+
-
::::::I agree with featuring it.  It's an important e-mail that was referenced in future e-mails and the page itself seems full of good information and seems complete. [[User:Jennifer|Jennifer]] 13:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
+
-
:::::::I still say no. If we ever have another daily of Tandy e-mails, maybe it could be part of that, but I still do not think it is important enough for a week to itself. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 22:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
+
-
::::::::It is definitely important enough for a week to itself. It's one of the classics, being quoted and referenced (as I said earlier) in later 'toons. It established the "DELETED!" screen as more than just a one-off gag. It fleshed out Strong Bad's character as the "player" who screws up any chance he gets with the ladies. The article itself is short, yes, but there's more than enough for a prose write-up. --{{User:Super Martyo Brother/sig}} 08:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
+
-
:::::::::I completely agree with the above. The length of the article shouldn't conflict with anything else. If the article affects the site a lot, that it should be featured. I think Super Martyo Brother says all of the reasons. [[User:doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 25 February 2011
+
-
 
+
-
=== [[Dangeresque Roomisode 1: Behind the Dangerdesque]] ===
+
-
''{{FA|14 Mar 2011}}''
+
-
 
+
-
A game that I think would make a great feature. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 22:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
+
-
:Excellent, excellent article. Also, not a half-bad game, either. --{{User:Super Martyo Brother/sig}} 08:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
+
-
::I agree with the above. [[User:doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 25 February 2011
+
-
:::Me too! {{User:Power Pie/sig}} 02:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
+
-
::::It's getting close to crunch time on this one; someone needs to do a writeup. I would do it, but I've never played this part of the game. As an alternative, if an article in the discussions below has a consensus to be featured and it would be easier to do a writeup for that article instead of this article (thus giving us more time to do a proper writeup for this article), then by all means move it ahead of this article in the queue. I think that would be preferable to rerunning an old article. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 04:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
+
==Article discussions==
==Article discussions==
-
 
-
===[[Strong Bad Sings]]===
 
-
How about [[Strong Bad Sings]] instead? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 01:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 
-
:If you're talking about the toon, that's too short to work. If you're talking about the CD, we already did that. I'm all for featuring [[Credenza]]. {{User:Power Pie/sig}}
 
-
::For once, RickTommy, actually focus on what is already suggested instead of hogging the spotlight. --[[User:Kingdom Stars|Kingdom Stars]] 02:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 
-
:::Of course I'm talking about the toon. And ''I'' don't think it's too short to work. One, it is one of the earliest toons on the site, and two, it was the inspiration for the CD. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 06:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 
-
::::Length has nothing to do with an article's featurability. In this case, I see no reason as to why this article shouldn't be featured, and a few compelling reasons it should. It did spawn the title of the only audio CD released by TBC, several song titles were used on said CD, and it's one of the first uses of the Casio Keyboard. It's written quite well, to boot. --{{User:Super Martyo Brother/sig}} 08:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 
-
:::::I agree with the above. [[User:doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 21 February 2011
 
-
 
-
===A Daily===
 
-
Sometime soon, can we have a week of daily articles? I was thinking maybe stuff on [[Old Flash Stuff]] or some [[Main Pages]]. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 10:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 
-
:A Main Page daily would be awesome! {{User:Power Pie/sig}} 01:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 
-
::As long as it's in November or later, for the at least 6 month spacing of dailies, A week of dailies would be nice. Although, hard to choose just 7 Main Pages to feature. {{User:StrongAwesome74/sig}} 22:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 
-
:::I don't know if this is the best way to go about this. If you have seven articles in mind for a daily, then you should propose those seven articles, but don't just say "We should do a daily." --{{User:Super Martyo Brother/sig}} 05:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 
-
::::I think we should do this daily before the end of the year. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 00:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 
-
:::::There is no pressing need for a daily to occur before the end of the year.  Moreover, adequate no topic has been suggested for a daily.  A daily shouldn't be made for the sake of having a daily, it should be used to showcase stuff that doesn't always fit in one weekly FA.  The new format can help encourage that, but we should always pick dailies carefully. --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 21:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 
-
::::::Also, might I add that in the future, dailies will need to be more frequent, since we will eventually run out of articles that are important enough for a week to themselves? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 13:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 
-
:::::::If we start running out of articles, we might need to go in the other direction; that is, keep the certain featured article for longer than a week so that we don't run out so quickly. but that shouldn't happen for a very long time, so i don't think we need to worry about it. {{User:The Knights Who Say Ni/sig}} 17:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 
-
::::::::Either way, I think that we should do this daily soon, as it has been a while since our last one. Anyway, my theme for the daily: [[Main Pages]], as was said at the start of this conversation. Anyway, the main pages we should feature are: [[Main Page 1|1]], [[Main Page 7|7]], [[Main Page 13|13]], [[Main Page 15|15]], [[Main Page 17|17]], [[Main Page 23|23]], and the [[Homsar Main Page]]. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 06:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 
-
:::::::::We did two weeks of dailies earlier this year. After that, I would suggest we wait a while before another set, at least until the new year. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 09:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 
-
::::::::::Fair 'nough. {{User:Power Pie/sig}} 20:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 
-
:Until the updates start flowing again, I say we just don't do any period. Like Ni, I'm worried about time and the amount articles we have. {{User:Soiled Bargains/sig}} 23:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 
-
::Agreed. Unless we get a really good set of articles approved by at least a few people, we should hold off on the dailies. [[User:doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 5 February 2011
 
-
:::Now it's been nearly a year since our last daily. So can we now do this one? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 06:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 
-
::::What set of dailies do you suggest and why? That's really the first step here. For my part, I'm really not sold on doing a set of dailies soon, still, but maybe others will want to. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 08:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 
-
:::::Probably the Main Page dailies that I mentioned above. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 09:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 
-
::::::OK. I don't think we've ever featured a Main Page before, so I'd be interested in knowing if we could manage much of a writeup for one. What would one of those look like? {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 09:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 
-
 
-
===[[Coach Z's Locker Room]]===
 
-
Another important place. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 05:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 
-
:Sure, it's important not only in the toons but in SBCG4AP too. [[User:doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 3 February 2011
 
-
::Yeah, but look at previous place articles we have featured. They're all a lot more fleshed out. I think, as the article stands right now, it is not worthy of a feature. It's significant enough to the universe that it could merit a feature if somebody gives it some TLC. --{{User:Super Martyo Brother/sig}} 08:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 
-
:::Yeah, you are probably right. The article has three paragraphs and most of the article is its appearances. It would need expansion before being featured. [[User:doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 21 February 2011
 
-
::::I agree. With its appearances in SBCG4AP it's a pretty significant place, but the article needs some expansion before being featured. --[[Special:Contributions/93.207.86.183|93.207.86.183]] 10:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC) (That Anonny Guy)
 
-
 
-
===[[Toons]], [[Games]], or [[Characters]]===
 
-
Nearly a year after proposing these, I'm still extremely surprised that none of them have been featured; they're among the more important articles. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 13:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 
-
:Wait, this has never been featured? Wow. Maybe we should do one of these for the week of January 1st? [[User:doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 14 November 2010
 
-
::The reason they haven't been featured is that none except maybe [[Games]] has a long enough intro to be featured. Even [[Games]] really ought to be expanded before featuring. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 15:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 
-
:::I agree with Heim. Also, these should probably be split into different conversations. --{{User:Super Martyo Brother/sig}} 08:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 
-
 
-
===[[comic]] and [[Teen Girl Squad Issue 1]]===
 
-
If we're ever to feaure either of these, I think we should feature the other one simultaneously, just as we did with some of the Dangeresque articles earlier this year. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 22:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 
-
:I agree. They both are equally significant, since they're essentially the same 'toon (granted one has been [[Sbemailiarized Entertainment|sbemailiarized]]). I don't remember how we did the Dangeresque articles, though, so other people who remember how that went will also need to comment. {{unsigned|Super Martyo Brother|08:06, 6 February 2011}}
 
-
::They were done like [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 18, day 5|this]]. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 11:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 
-
 
-
===[[crazy cartoon]] and [[Crazy Cartoon]]===
 
-
As with these. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 22:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 
-
:I think the SBEmail is far more significant to the universe and is better-written. The PBtC 'toon is one of the shorter in that genre, and did not introduce any new characters, unlike the SBEmail, which introduced a new universe. I'm quite surprised the email hasn't already been featured. --{{User:Super Martyo Brother/sig}} 08:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 
-
::Just incase my post wasn't clear, by "As with these", I meant the simultaneous feature. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 11:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 
-
:::I understood that. I don't think that [[Crazy Cartoon]] deserves to share a box with [[crazy cartoon]] (links to help disambiguate the two articles). --{{User:Super Martyo Brother/sig}} 00:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 
-
 
-
===[[FAQ]]===
 
-
An important page on the site. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 01:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 
-
:Can we manage a writeup of this? There's no prose introduction to speak of, so it'd have to be some sort of summary. I'm not at all sure you'd be able to get enough content out of the FAQ page to make a proper main page writeup. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 03:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 
-
::I think we'll be able to do an introduction of this. I support nomination. [[User:doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 21 February 2011
 
-
 
-
===[[Strongest Man in the World]]===
 
-
The only one of the "older" Big Toons that has not yet been featured. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 02:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 
-
:Seriously, it hasn't? I say, go for it! --[[Special:Contributions/93.207.85.97|93.207.85.97]] 13:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC) (That Anonny Guy)
 
-
::Yeah, I agree with everything above. Definitely a worthy article on almost all fronts. --{{User:Super Martyo Brother/sig}} 08:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 
-
 
-
=== [[Fluffy Puff Commercial]] ===
 
-
Since we're less than two weeks away, I think we should decide on this one. How about [[Fluffy Puff Commercial]] to celebrate its tenth anniversary? [[User:doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 18 December 2010
 
-
:definitely not a bad idea. however, it doesn't look like we know the release date closer than the year and what the [http://web.archive.org/web/20010627143349/http://www.homestarrunner.com/fluffypuff2.html WayBack Machine] has told us. so theoretically, for all we know, just featuring it at some point in the first half of 2011 is accurate enough. Also, it would appear as though [[rock opera]] is currently the one selected to be the Featured Article for the week you suggested. That's not in stone until the week happens, but it isn't likely to change. Doctorwho295 - could you rewrite your nomination to make it sound less week-specific? {{User:The Knights Who Say Ni/sig}} 23:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 
-
::Sure. I'll put [[Fluffy Puff Commercial]] below. [[User:doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 19 December 2010
 
-
I suggested this above for New Year's, but because it appears that's been already chosen, I am suggesting this for another week. Any opinions? [[User:doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 19 December 2010
 
-
:I will detract from featuring this article. The fun facts section is quite short (featuring only eleven), and is a far less memorable instance of the "Homestar forgets his lines" gag then [[First Time Here?]]. I might be swayed the other way if someone makes a convincing argument, though, seeing as it did come before the previously mentioned 'toon. --{{User:Super Martyo Brother/sig}} 08:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 
-
::Looking at the article again, I see your point and take back my suggestion. [[User:doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 10 February 2011
 
-
 
-
=== [[Inconsistencies within the Homestar Runner universe]] ===
 
-
An interesting topic. TBC stated that it doesn't bother them, so it it would be ok to feature. --[[Special:Contributions/93.207.85.97|93.207.85.97]] 13:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC) (That Anonny Guy)
 
-
:Featuring an article that has an incomplete template on it? I think not. --{{User:Super Martyo Brother/sig}} 08:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 
-
::The thing is that this article will likely never be fully completed, considering that some of the inconsistencies at times can be very small. I completely support this article. [[User:doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 10 February 2011
 
-
:::I support to! {{User:Power Pie/sig}} 02:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 
-
::::Oh, I didn't notice the Incomplete Notice when I suggested it. I see how that would normally keep an article from being featured. But like doctorwho said, this is an article that will probably never be considered complete and I think it can be featured in the current state. I would however accept it if it is decided against it. --[[Special:Contributions/93.207.86.183|93.207.86.183]] 10:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC) (That Anonny Guy)
 
-
:::::I'm with SMB. Featured articles should be examples of the fine work of the wiki. If it's incomplete, it's not really a good specimen of our work. And to those who say it'll never complete, I say that if so, it'll never be suitable for featuring. And some articles never are. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 11:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 
-
 
-
===[[Sightings]]===
 
-
The Sightings subpages are heavily edited, so how about featuring either Sightings or one of the subpages? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 22:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 
-
:There's no real introduction on any of the pages beside the first and there isn't a lot to speak of, anyway. We can't really expand it, either. [[User:doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 3 February 2011
 
-
::Aside from that, the sightings pages are some of the WORST pages on the wiki. FA is supposed to be our best stuff. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 01:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 
-
:::The Sightings pages are confused about what deserves to be on them. --{{User:Super Martyo Brother/sig}} 08:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 
-
::::I don't like the sightings pages because they are too inclusive (a discussion for another page, I know). If there were some minimum threshold of notability for a particular sighting to be listed, then that would be a different story, but in their current form I don't think the sightings pages should ever be featured. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 21:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 
-
 
-
===[[Homestar Ruiner]]===
 
-
I think that sometime soon, we should start featuring the SBCG4AP episodes - I'm a bit surprised that none of them have been featured yet. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 22:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 
-
:Maybe we could do the SBCG4AP episodes as a daily sometime later in the year. If not, I'm for featuring this by itself. [[User:doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 1 January 2011
 
-
::Unfortunately, that's not possible, because there are five episodes. And I'm certain that it's been pointed out that the SBCG4AP episodes are important enough for a week to themselves.
 
-
::And on an unrelated note, are you signing correctly? Because your signature shows only the date, never the time. It's a lot less effort to type the four tildes than it is to type your whole username and the date. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 07:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 
-
:::What I was thinking of doing if we do the daily is adding maybe [[Strong Bad Gameways]] and [[SBCG4AP Advertisement]] to the games to make it seven days. As for the signature bit, I never thought it was a problem to not include the time. I don't have a GMC clock (I think that's what it's called) on my computer so I just leave it out. If it's a major problem, I could put in. [[User:doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 2 January 2011
 
-
::::I agree with doctorwho925, they would make great dailies when tied with the other two articles. And yes, the episodes probably are important enough for a week to themselves, but at the same time, that means we have five weeks of SBCG4AP, which I think is a bit much, even if we spread them out.
 
-
::::And also, RickTommy means that you can just type four tildes like this: <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code> and your signature, as well as the time and date of you post, will automagically be tagged on to the end of your post. --{{User:Super Martyo Brother/sig}} 08:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 
-
:::::Given how little content TBC are making these days, I'm against turning this into a daily. As has been said, each of these episodes can easily sustain a week, and so compressing all of them into one week is poor management of limited resources, in my opinion. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 11:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 
-
 
-
===Week of April Fools' (Mar 28-Apr 3)===
 
-
So far, we've only featured one April Fools' article that is directly related to the holiday, so how about [[April Fool's 2006]]? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 04:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 
-
:The major problem I have with this is the lack of information for an introduction. There's no information besides fun facts, and the only real way we can do one is put a bunch of fun facts together. Maybe [[HomestarRunner.com PAY PLUS!]] instead? [[User:doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 10 February 2011
 
-
::I think Payplus would work well. {{User:Power Pie/sig}} 16:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 
-
 
-
===Week of Easter (Apr 18-24)===
 
-
We haven't featured an Easter-themed article yet (it had to be called off last year due to Easter coinciding with April Fools'), so how about [[Eggs (toon)]]? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 04:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 
-
:No, in that one, TBC specifically point out how bad it is. Quoting DF a few days ago, "FA is supposed to be our best stuff." Right now it looks like the only other option is [[Rotten Eggs]], which is less bad, but also, since Easter this year is a full month later than it was in the year rotteneggs came out, that toon is able to reference college basketball (albeit subtly), which won't be at the front of ppl's minds this late in april.
 
-
:On a different note, that week is also the same as [[Holidays#Earth Day (April 22nd)|Earth Day]]. We could feature [[Pistols for Pandas]]. Yeah, that's my vote for that week {{User:The Knights Who Say Ni/sig}} 05:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 
-
::Hmm, I like the Earth Day idea. The toon is popular, inspired a Store item, and expanded on a character. [[User:doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 10 February 2011
 
-
:::Earth Day is fine, I guess, but if you want an Easter Feature, why not use [[Eggs]] (the running gag, not the toon)? --[[Special:Contributions/93.207.86.183|93.207.86.183]] 10:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC) (That Anonny Guy)
 
-
::::P4P sounds fine to me. As for Eggs the running gag, that's not really very Easter-themed, so I think the Earth Day idea is better. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 11:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 
-
 
-
===[[bottom 10]]===
 
-
An e-mail that is definitely worthy of being featured. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 09:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 
-
:Why? If you don't list a reason, then this page isn't any better than the [[HRWiki:Featured Article Nominations|featured article nominations]] page, which for some reason still exists. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 20:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 
-
::Well, it has plenty of information, it's one of the most popular Sbemails on the site and has lots of real world references. Those are several reasons why. I support nomination. [[User:doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 4 March 2011
 
-
:::I never said it would be a bad choice; rather, I was wanting an answer from RickTommy. If he's going to monopolize the nomination process, then he should do a better job giving reasons why an article should be featured. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 21:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 
-
::::Yes. ^And yes. {{User:Power Pie/sig}} 13:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 
-
:::::Also agree with featuring it. In addition to other good reasons given, it's significant as the origin of the [[Horrible Painting]]. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 14:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 
-
 
-
===[[A Mother's Day Message]]===
 
-
[[A Mother's Day Message]]. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 09:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 
-
:This was originally submitted with the heading "Week of Mother's Day (May 2-8)", which I don't think is appropriate. [[A Mother's Day Message]] needs to be considered on its own merits, and as part of that discussion we can choose to feature it on that particular week if we like, but if it ''isn't'' approved on its own merits, there's nothing else that would fit the category of "Week of Mother's Day". &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 20:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 
-
::I like the idea of the article. It has enough information to be included and has no real problems. In terms of its time placing, I would have it on the week after Mother's Day, to celebrate it's tenth anniversary. [[User:doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 4 March 2011
 
-
:::Personally, I love this toon. I quote it to my mom every freakin' Mother's Day. I'd love to have it featured, and ideally on Mother's Day. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 23:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 
-
::::I'm all for featuring it on Mothers Day. {{User:Power Pie/sig}} 02:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 
-
 
-
===[[Pom Pilot]]===
 
-
An interesting article, since it is one of the minor computers that Strong Bad has used. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 02:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 
-
:It seems very short and rather insignificant to me. --[[Special:Contributions/93.207.86.183|93.207.86.183]] 10:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC) (That Anonny Guy)
 
-
::I agree primarily with the concern about the article being too short. I don't think it's a good choice to feature. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 11:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 
-
 
-
===[[Blue Laser Commander]]===
 
-
An article that once [http://www.hrwiki.org/w/index.php?title=HRWiki:Featured_article_for_2006,_week_18&oldid=316607 came close to being featured]. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 02:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 
-
:Seems ok. Why was it rejected back then? --[[Special:Contributions/93.207.86.183|93.207.86.183]] 10:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC) (That Anonny Guy)
 
-
::<s>LET US FEATURE IT, WITH MASSIVE CELEBRATION OF THE DAY I ATE A PANCAKE</s> Sure, go right ahead. {{User:Power Pie/sig}} 13:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 
-
 
-
===[[fan club]]===
 
-
"Suddenly, an eight-foot sub sandwich constrictor engsmsploded out of nowhere!" Nuff said! :D --[[Special:Contributions/93.207.86.183|93.207.86.183]] 10:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC) (That Anonny Guy)
 
-
:A really funny email, and one that's quite relevant to us a fansite. I support, but please, when we feature it, no one traipse in naked as a jaybird. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 14:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 
-
::I support. Fine, Heimstern, I'll just eat all them Twizzlers instead. For you. [[User:doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 11 March 2011
 
-
:::Be my guest. I dun like Tweezlérs. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 09:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 
-
 
-
===[[Index Page]]===
 
-
It's H*R's most visible page - it would make a great feature. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 06:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 
-
:Does the page have enough information on it? I'm not so certain if this page has enough. [[User:doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 19 March 2011
 
-
 
-
===[[Intro]]===
 
-
Another important H*R page. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 06:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 
-
:Hmm, I think this has a little more information than the above [the index page], but there might be a need for more. Any other opinions on this? [[User:doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 19 March 2011
 
== Discussions of Articles Needing Expansion ==
== Discussions of Articles Needing Expansion ==
:''Discussions in this section regard articles that, per consensus, require further expansion of the article itself before the article should be featured.''
:''Discussions in this section regard articles that, per consensus, require further expansion of the article itself before the article should be featured.''
-
 
-
===[[The Field]]===
 
-
Exactly one year after proposing [[The Field]], I would like to propose it again. It is an important place which appears in about half the toons on the site. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 05:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 
-
:I don't think it's ready because of the short intro. If you could expand it, maybe then we could do so. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 01:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 
-
 
-
===[[The Cheat's Gold Tooth]]===
 
-
How about featuring TC's tricked-out grill.  -[[Special:Contributions/132.183.13.68|132.183.13.68]] 18:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 
-
 
-
:Maybe. It's not that significant but it's long enough. {{User:Wasd98/sig}} 01:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 
-
::Unfortunately, I think this is one of those articles that should be expanded a little before featuring.  (Alternatively, if a writeup is made that expands on the topic, it can also be placed in the queue that way).  --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 21:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 
-
 
-
===[[Not the 100th Email]]===
 
-
:''Original title: [[Not the 100th Email]], [[Sbemail 150?!?]], or [[Page Load Error]]''
 
-
As teasers to milestone e-mails, I believe that one of them should be featured. [[Special:Contributions/124.181.68.22|124.181.68.22]] 13:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 
-
:I'd say Not the 100th Email. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 07:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 
-
::Start with the first one, makes sense. Although it is very short. --[[Special:Contributions/93.207.87.212|93.207.87.212]] 08:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC) (That Anonny Guy)
 
-
:::Anon makes a good point. Not the 100th Email is rather short. Would we be able to expand that enough to make a quality write-up? {{User:DENNIS/sig}} 08:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 
-
 
==Stalled Discussions==
==Stalled Discussions==
:''Discussions in this section regard articles that, due to lack of consensus or consensus against, are not ready to be featured at this time. ''
:''Discussions in this section regard articles that, due to lack of consensus or consensus against, are not ready to be featured at this time. ''
-
===[[Theme Song Video]]===
+
==General discussion==
-
One of the earliest toons on the site. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 10:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
+
-
:I'm sorry, but awesome as that song is, that toon's way too short to work well on the Main Page. {{User:Power Pie/sig}} 01:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
+
-
===[[Because, It's Midnite]]===
 
-
It's a cool & major song. {{User:Power Pie/sig}} 15:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 
-
:Um...... most of the page is lyrics. As much as people love the song (me included), I don't think it can be featured in it's current state. [[User:doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] September 7, 2010
 
-
::I would have to agree. We would need some actual content to put on the homepage. The point of the Featured Article section is to showcase an article that the wiki can be proud of, and I'm not sure we can be proud of a page of lyrics and trivia. {{User:DENNIS/sig}} 21:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 
-
:::I see your point & I recant that suggestion. {{User:Power Pie/sig}}
 
-
 
-
===[[Strong Bad Smiling]]===
 
-
One of the most well-known recurring themes on the site. [[Special:Contributions/124.180.171.96|124.180.171.96]] 01:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 
-
:A dangerous topic to touch upon... ;-) --[[Special:Contributions/93.207.87.212|93.207.87.212]] 08:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC) (That Anonny Guy)
 
-
::The article is listed as needing cleanup and revision. I doubt we'd be able to feature it in its current state. {{User:DENNIS/sig}} 08:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 
-
:::As the second anonny points out, this article has a been a serious point of contention on-wiki. I'm not sure we should feature on article that a number of users think shouldn't even be an article. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 02:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 
-
 
-
===[[Fonts]]===
 
-
It's the biggest page on this wiki - I think it deserves to be featured sometime soon. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 10:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 
-
:It seems too list-like and without enough prose to make a good feature to me. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 17:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 
-
::Per Heimstern. Although we wre able to feature lists in the past by putting key examples in the writeup, I highly doubt that will work for the fonts page. {{User:Power Pie/sig}} 01:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 
-
:::I'd say it's feature-worthy, and I could probably write a good FA paragraph on it, but it is really just one big list, albeit a long, useful one. --{{User:Super Martyo Brother/sig}} 06:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 
-
 
-
===[[homestarrunner.com]]===
 
-
How about starting off the new year with [[homestarrunner.com]], an article that has been nominated many times before? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 05:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 
-
:Okie Dokie, artichoke! {{User:Power Pie/sig}}
 
-
::Uh, I disagree. This seems like a last resort kind of selection. We have plenty of articles. I think we can pick something else. --{{User:Record307/sig}} 22:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 
-
:::Maybe [[Toons]], [[Games]], or [[Characters]] for New Years? [[User:doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 14 November 2010
 
-
 
-
==General discussion==
 
===Daily Featured Blocks (On Occasion)===
===Daily Featured Blocks (On Occasion)===
In order to make daily featured articles for one week, create pages like:
In order to make daily featured articles for one week, create pages like:

Revision as of 19:02, 9 January 2013

Nominations for Featured article selection are closed. This is an archive. Please do not add discussion here.

Shortcuts:
HRW:FAS
FAS

Welcome to featured article selection. Please help us choose and create write-ups for our best, most interesting, or otherwise noteworthy articles to appear on the main page. For ideas, check out the featured article nominations. For drafts, see this page.

Contents

Checklist

Checklist for new Featured Article:(INACTIVE)

Discussion archives

Year Weeks 1-10 Weeks 11-20 Weeks 21-30 Weeks 31-40 Weeks 41-52
2005 2005, Weeks 26-29 2005, Weeks 30-39 2005, Weeks 40-52
2006 2006, Weeks 1-10 2006, Weeks 11-20 2006, Weeks 21-30 2006, Weeks 31-40 2006, Weeks 41-52
2007 2007, Weeks 1-10 2007, Weeks 11-20 2007, Weeks 21-30 2007, Weeks 31-40 2007, Weeks 41-52
2008 2008, Weeks 1-10 2008, Weeks 11-20 2008, Weeks 21-30 2008, Weeks 31-40 2008, Weeks 41-52
2009 2009, Weeks 1-10 2009, Weeks 11-20 2009, Weeks 21-30 2009, Weeks 31-40 2009, Weeks 41-53
2010 2010, Weeks 1-10 2010, Weeks 11-20 2010, Weeks 21-30 2010, Weeks 31-40 2010, Weeks 41-52
2011 2011, Weeks 1-10 2011, Weeks 11-20 2011, Weeks 21-30 2011, Weeks 31-40 2011, Weeks 41-52
2012 2012, Weeks 1-10 2012, Weeks 11-20 2012, Weeks 21-30 2012, Weeks 31-40 2012, Weeks 41-52


Other Discussion | Stalled Discussions Archive 1 | Stalled Discussions Archive 2

Featured Article Queue

Week Article Discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 49 (Dec 3–9) 2-Part Episode: Part 1 discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 50 (Dec 10–16) 2-Part Episode: Part 2 discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 51 (Dec 17–23) Decemberween in July Dailies - Decemberween in July discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 52 (Dec 24–30) The Last Featured Article - A Death-Defying Decemberween discussion

Redirects

This is a placeholder topic for 5-year redirects. Due to overall decreased activity, FAs are now being reused more often. The common practice has become to redirect to the FA exactly 5 years prior to the current FA. When an article is re-used, mark it in the following manner: 

{{FA queue|<date>|Redirects|alternatediscussion=yes|decision=<article name>}}

Example: 

{{FA queue|15 Aug 2011 |Redirects|alternatediscussion=yes|decision=1-Up}}

Please keep this discussion in the FA page at all times, but do copy it to archive pages as well.

Article discussions

Discussions of Articles Needing Expansion

Discussions in this section regard articles that, per consensus, require further expansion of the article itself before the article should be featured.

Stalled Discussions

Discussions in this section regard articles that, due to lack of consensus or consensus against, are not ready to be featured at this time.

General discussion

Daily Featured Blocks (On Occasion)

In order to make daily featured articles for one week, create pages like:

  • [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2005, week 50, day 1]]
  • [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2005, week 50, day 2]]
  • [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2005, week 50, day 3]]
  • [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2005, week 50, day 4]]
  • [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2005, week 50, day 5]]
  • [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2005, week 50, day 6]]
  • [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2005, week 50, day 0]] (redirect day 7 to this)
Retrieved from "http://www.hrwiki.org/wiki/HRWiki:Featured_Article_Selection"
Personal tools