|
|
| (includes 1869 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]. |
| - | *[[HRWiki:Protected page|Protect]] and add {{[[Template:mprotected|mprotected]]}} to the new image; Unprotect and remove {{[[Template:mprotected|mprotected]]}} from old image. | + | *[[HRWiki:Protected page|Protect]] and add {{[[Template:mprotected|mprotected]]}} to the new image; unprotect and remove {{[[Template:mprotected|mprotected]]}} from old image. |
| - | *Semi-protect the live FA write-up; Unprotect the old FA write-up. | + | *Semi-protect the live FA write-up; unprotect the old FA write-up. |
| | *Add {{[[Template:featuredarticle|featuredarticle]]}} to FA's talk page. | | *Add {{[[Template:featuredarticle|featuredarticle]]}} to FA's talk page. |
| - | *Update [[HRWiki:Featured article nominations]] with descriptive edit summary — see [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=HRWiki:Featured_article_nominations&action=history history]. | + | *Update [[HRWiki:Featured Article Nominations]] with descriptive edit summary — see [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=HRWiki:Featured_Article_Nominations&action=history history]. |
| | *Update [[HRWiki:Featured articles]] with descriptive edit summary — see [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=HRWiki:Featured_articles&action=history history]. | | *Update [[HRWiki:Featured articles]] with descriptive edit summary — 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]] | + | |
| | </center> | | </center> |
| | | | |
| - | ==Article discussions== | + | ==Featured Article Queue== |
| - | === [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2008, week 46]] (Nov 10-16) ===
| + | {| {{standardtable}} |
| - | For this week, we should have [[What's Her Face]]. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 22:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
| + | ! Week !! Article !! Discussion |
| - | :Somthing TGS-themed, yes, but I think that [[Teen Girl Squad Issue 1]] is more deserving. Or, [[Arrow'd Guy]]. Both are truly deserving articles. {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 20:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
| + | {{FA queue| 3 Dec 2012 |2-Part Episode: Part 1}} |
| - | ::But we have not featured any of the girls themselves since Week 4 (when we had So and So). And TGS Issue 1 was also seen in the email [[comic]]. As for [[Arrow'd Guy]], no comment. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 20:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
| + | {{FA queue|10 Dec 2012 |2-Part Episode: Part 2}} |
| - | :::The fact is, looking at the page, it just doesn't seem... special enough. It's not a highlight of TGS '''or''' HR Wiki. It's good, but it's not... deserving. But, how about a TGS running gag? If so, I'd like to put [[Ow! My X!]] and [[-'d]] on the table. {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 00:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
| + | {{FA queue|17 Dec 2012 |Decemberween in July Dailies|alternatediscussion=yes|decision=Decemberween in July}} |
| - | ::::I think featuring one of the girls themselves whould be better... but if you really want to do a running gag, my vote would be for [[-'d]]. {{User:Acam30/sig}} 01:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
| + | {{FA queue|24 Dec 2012 |The Last Featured Article|alternatediscussion=yes|decision=A Death Defying Decemberween}} |
| - | :::::If we're going to be doing a running gag article a few weeks from now (I'm thinking a clothing gag for the 41st week), I think a second running gag (even one entirely different) a few weeks later would be a bit superfluous. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 03:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
| + | |} |
| - | ::::::Then why ''not'' feature [[What's Her Face]]? It's been a while since we did something TGS related, I think. {{User:Acam30/sig}} 11:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :::::::That's what I suggested the first time, wasn't it? [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 15:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | ::::::::I'm still thinking if we do a TGS character, [[Arrow'd Guy]] is WAY overdue. What's-Her-Face we can do for 2009's TGS character, and '''''I'll''''' root for her, but Arrow'd Guy needs to go first. {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 21:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :::::::::And in fairness, we had [[So-And-So]] this year, so let's not do another girl this year. {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 21:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :..So, we're doing Arrow'd Guy, right? {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 23:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | ::I suppose so. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 00:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :::But The game dude is the only one who wants Arrowed Guy. I think So and So would be better. {{User:Homestar-winner/sig}} 00:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | ::::We've already done So and So, which is why I was suggesting [[What's Her Face]]. We'll do the Arrow'd Guy next time we do a TGS-themed article. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 00:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :::::Oh, right, I meant What's Her Face. {{User:Homestar-winner/sig}} 00:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | ::::::Grood! What's Her Face it is then! ...right? {{User:Acam30/sig}} 01:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :::::::''And in fairness, we had So and So for Week 4 of this year, followed three weeks later by TGS Issue 12. So this is nothing compared to that.'' ... this battle is FAR from over. You've already agreed on Arrow'd Guy, anyway! {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 01:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | ::::::::No she didn't. {{User:Homestar-winner/sig}} 01:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :::::::::''I suppose so.'' That sounds like a yes to me. {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 01:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | ::::::::::Arrow'd Guy is the best-quality TGS main character '''''article'''''. Not the character himself; the '''''article'''''{{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 01:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :::::::::::First of all, that quote was said by MHarrington. Second of all, What's Her Face also has a good article, and I just don't think it seems right to feature other TGS characters before we feature all of the main ones. If we Feature What's Her Face now, we can do The Ugly One in 2009 and then be finished with all of the main TGS characters. {{User:Homestar-winner/sig}} 01:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :::::::::::Twice a year isn't really fair; besides, Arrow'd Guy is hardly NOT a TGS member, as he's only NOT been with them on 3 accounts. {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 02:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | I think we need some other users' comments to help us decide. {{User:Homestar-winner/sig}} 02:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | ::::::::::::If you hadn't stirred this whole arguement up again, we wouldn't have had this problem. Not to play the blame game, but I think I've already proved my point. What's-Her-Face we can do in March. Arrow'd Guy is overdue. If we get more opinions, I'll listen. But, if no one else comes, we're doing Arrow'd Guy. {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 20:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :::::::::::::But it sounds to me like more people would rather feature What's Her Face. {{User:Homestar-winner/sig}} 20:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | It sounds to ''me'' like no one here is willing to compare Whats-Her-Face's and Arrow'd Guy's articles. Remember: It's not the '''''subject''''' of the article anymore; it's the '''''quality'''''. {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 21:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :Actually, it's both subject ''and'' quality. And I'm still sticking to What's Her Face, partly since it's been a while since we've done a TGS article and I want to do another one of the girls herself. We can do Arrow'd Guy sometime next year. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 05:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | ::Really game dude, you are the only person who actually wants to feature Arrow'd Guy. I know wiki discussion are not based on majority rules, but... this is getting a little ridiculous in my opinion. So I'll say the same thing you did. If we get more opinions, ''I'll'' listen, but until then, it sounds like everyone else had pretty much agreed on What's Her Face. {{User:Acam30/sig}} 11:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | ::: *Sigh*, very well. I can see that you guys are holding steadfast, and it's time to back off. But I want it to be known that by at least next March we can do Arrow'd Guy... '''''before''''' The Ugly One, OK? {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 23:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | ::::Don't worry, we'll have the Arrow'd Guy sometime. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 01:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| | | | |
| - | That game dude386, I have to tell you in no uncertain terms that you need to lay off on this combative attitude. This area is for friendly discussion, not battles over featured articles. Your comments here, as well as the ones above about the Bowler Hats article, are over this line. You do not have the authority to say "no" about any article. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 09:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | ===Redirects=== |
| - | :The more I read this discussion, the more astounded I am at the things you've said here. After many others stated favour for What's Her Face, you said, "..So, we're doing Arrow'd Guy, right?" Where on earth would you get that idea, when you're the only one who supported it? "... this battle is FAR from over. You've already agreed on Arrow'd Guy, anyway!" People have every right to change their minds, and making a "battle" out of this is a completely unacceptable attitude here. "If we get more opinions, I'll listen. But, if no one else comes, we're doing Arrow'd Guy." There were already many opinions stated, were these not enough for you? And how can you possibly say "we're doing Arrow'd Guy" when you're the only one who supported it against several of other opinions? It seems like you were just trying to force your opinion through by refusal to concede. It wouldn't have worked, by the way, as the writeup would have been of What's Her Face, since that's where consensus was, and had you tried to write one of Arrow'd Guy, I would have deleted it as against consensus.
| + | 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: |
| - | :Now, I realize that you eventually conceded, but I want to stress this: Insisting on what you want when others don't agree with it is going to do nothing but alienate you from others and lessen your chances to influence others via discussion. We operate by consensus, not by one person's opinion, no matter how inspired he or she may find his or her own opinion. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 13:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | <pre> |
| - | ::When I send an idea for an article, TGD, it doesn't always get used, but even when it doesn't, I still try to accept a different person's suggestion. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 16:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | {{FA queue|<date>|Redirects|alternatediscussion=yes|decision=<article name>}} |
| - | :::Same with me. Just go with the flow. Some people disagree, some people agree. Don't battle the majority, ''especially'' when it's only you. But back to the Featured Article, I support What's Her Face. But TGD, this will probably be the way it goes, probably: The Ugly One will be featured first, then Arrow'd Guy. Maybe even an TGS Issue before Arrow'd. Maybe. But for now, I support What's Her Face. {{User:Sam the Man/sig}} 12:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | </pre> |
| - | :::I'm sorry I came off as being arguementative. I only was trying to show a better article, I mean, I read the Whats-Her-Face article, and didn't think that it'd make a good FA. So I looked at a few more, and found the Arrow'd Guy article. I never wanted to fight, but I was appaled at the reason anyone ever gave to favor Whats-Her-Face: to complete the set. That wasn't fair to the rest of the many deserving TGS articles. I wouldn't have ever fought it if someone said '''why''' Whats-Her-Face's article was prefferable. That's all I wanted. No one ever did. They just screamed at me. And over Bowler Hats, let's face it, that was a bad idea. Had it had Homsar's unique feats, there wouldn't have been a problem. Anyways, I never wanted to get into a fight, but... well... "Then why ''not'' feature [[What's Her Face]]? It's been a while since we did something TGS related, I think." and "I want to do another one of the girls" is all anyone ever said. And Heimstern Läufer; that was an unrelated attack on me. If you must, email me, but '''''PLEASE''''' don't spam the H*R Wiki. {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 20:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | Example: |
| - | ::::Don't insult a sysop. It will come to bite you back. {{User:Sam the Man/sig}} 20:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | <pre> |
| - | :::::No insult was intended. If there was, I apologise. I'll take out that last sentence. {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 20:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | {{FA queue|15 Aug 2011 |Redirects|alternatediscussion=yes|decision=1-Up}} |
| - | ::::::That game dude386, since we're getting off-topic, I'll reply at your talk page. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 02:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | </pre> |
| | | | |
| - | === [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2008, week 47]] (Nov 17-23) ===
| + | Please keep this discussion in the FA page at all times, but do copy it to archive pages as well. |
| - | For this week, let's make it [[Don and Harriet Chapman]], Mike and Matt's parents. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 19:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :To me, it looks the article is just a little short to featured. (Unfortunately, I can't think of something else to put here.) {{User:Wbwolf/sig}} 14:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | ::The question is CAN it be added on to, with the available information we have? {{User:Lazylaces/sig}} 14:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :::I don't think there's really anything else we know that's not already there. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 14:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | ::::And I think there is a reasonable amount of text there anyway. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 05:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :::::This one's really borderline, especially since there's no appearances section to help fill out the end. It could be done, I think; I just wish there were more content. But as I've said, I don't think there's any more available. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 05:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | ::::::Well, I just thought that A) we need to do more actual people in TBC's lives, and B) I think the people who actually helped to make TBC possible deserve someplace to be mentioned. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 17:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :::::::I think we should definitely feature a real live person for this week, but the question is still who, becasue there are some people saying the [[Don and Harriet Chapman]] is too short. {{User:Acam30/sig}} 01:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | ::::::::Well, having seen the article, I think that Don and Harriet Chapman is doable, partly because that one has a reasonable amount of text anyway. Mind you, a little more would be good, but we do have something reasonable. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 03:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :::::::::Now I have a suggestion. Since we sometimes do a sbemail related to a holiday one week before the holiday ([[what I want]] for example), as suggested by MHarrington, how about we do [[colonization]] this week? {{User:Sam the Man/sig}} 22:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | ::::::::::Okay, we can do that, I suppose. Anyone else want to support this? [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 22:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :::::::::::Yeah, let's do that instead. Then we can move Don and Harriet down to the first week of December like you said. {{User:Acam30/sig}} 01:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | ::::::::::::Incidentally, this would make for a first time we did two T-Day FAs: in the past, that's been just for H'ween and D'ween in the past. Not that we can't do it this time. My only concern is that it could leave us a bit short on T-Day FAs for the future. But we can hope TBC will provide us some more soon, I guess. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 02:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| | | | |
| - | === [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2008, week 48]] (Nov 24-30) === | + | ==Article discussions== |
| - | Thanksgiving in the US, so we might do something related to that. [[Toikey TV]] was last year's T-Day toon, and one of the only substantial toons related to that holiday we haven't featured yet. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 08:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :Sure, we could do that, considering that where Thanksgiving toons are concerned, for the past few years, we've done an article on the previous year's Thanksgiving toon (i.e., Fall Float Parade (2005 toon) in 2006 and Let Us Give Tanks (2006 toon) in 2007). Doing it like this would carry on that little tradition (if we're doing a tradition). [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 02:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | ::Making a tradition out of an american tradition... me likey, me likey! Let's go for it! {{User:Acam30/sig}} 01:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :::Toikey TV seems the best chose for this week. Unless there's any other Thanksgiving toon we forgot about. {{User:Sam the Man/sig}} 12:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | ::::I only greive that we didn't do Canada's Thanksgiving. Oh, well, no objections here, me hungry for some turkey! {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 20:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :::::In response to Sam's post, there probably is that [[colonization]] email, but that's kind of it. (Some Stupid Turkey is very short.) [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 22:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | ::::I believe that [[Toikey TV]] is the most appropriate toon to feature this week and is also the one with the most support. --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 22:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :::::Okay, I'm cool with [[Toikey TV]]. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 22:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | ::::::What about [[Happy T]]?
| + | |
| - | :::::::[[Happy T]] may not have enough content. And everyone had pretty much agreed on [[Toikey TV]] already. Remember, FA discussion is more for making a suggestion and giving your reason behind it. {{User:Acam30/sig}} 23:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| | | | |
| - | === [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2008, week 49]] (Dec 1-7) === | + | == Discussions of Articles Needing Expansion == |
| - | Well, fall's just about over, and winter's nearing. Plus Decemberween is nearing. I'm thinking of a winter article. Any suggestions? {{User:Sam the Man/sig}} 12:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | :''Discussions in this section regard articles that, per consensus, require further expansion of the article itself before the article should be featured.'' |
| - | :Well, it's not actually winter until around 21 December, so I think that might be a bit premature at this point. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 12:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | ::Yeah, let's not get have Decemberween before... Decemberween. I think we should do something [[SBCG4AP]] related. Yea or neh? {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 20:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :::Well, SBCG4AP's last episode will probably be around this time, so we might be able to fit an SBCG4AP related article this week. Probably the [[SBCG4AP Dev Blog]] would be most deserving. But, maybe not. {{User:Sam the Man/sig}} 20:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | ::::Hmm... well, I think it's doable, but certainly not the best. So as to avoid another week 46, I'm just gonna say that it seems to be a little disorganised, looking at the fun facts, so I personally say "no". Another idea would be [[Homestar Ruiner]]. I know it says it needs cleanup, but I can't see where it says why on the talk page. {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 21:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :::::Well, that's not winter-themed, so I'm thinking of something like, say... the [[winter pool]] email, maybe? [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 22:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | ::::::I just saw the note from Heimstern, so instead, we could move the article on [[Don and Harriet Chapman]] down here. I'm against doing the SBCG4AP series until it's complete. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 22:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :::::::Let's do that, and then when SBCG4AP is complete, maybe we could feature [[SBCG4AP|this article]] as a whole, which would pretty much cover all of the SBCG4AP bases. {{User:Acam30/sig}} 01:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | ::::::::Okay, let's do it!... several weeks from now! {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 01:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| | | | |
| - | === [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2008, week 50]] (Dec 8-14) === | + | ==Stalled Discussions== |
| - | So, it's gettin' '''really''' cold out (probably), so why don't we do [[winter pool]]? Perfect for this kind of probable weather. {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 14:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | :''Discussions in this section regard articles that, due to lack of consensus or consensus against, are not ready to be featured at this time. '' |
| - | :I dunno, it's still not actually winter at this point, not until the 21st. This seems a bit more suited to sometime in January to me. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 14:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | ::We could do that the first week of January. How about we do some [[Old-Timey]] character for this week instead? [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 18:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :::(Heim: Winter doesn't start until December 21??? Sewiously??? {{User:Acam30/sig}} 19:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC))
| + | |
| - | ::::Yes, winter doesn't start until the 21st. Anyway, I was thinking of an [[Old-Timey]] character, like maybe [[The Sneak]]. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 19:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :::::Let's use something radio related, like [[Radio Sightings]].--[[User:NintenEthan|NintenEthan]] 01:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | ::::::No, that one does ''not'' have enough information for it to be a worthy article. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 16:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :::::::True. [[Radio Sightings]] is only a list. I was thinking about the email [[radio]], but I'm not sure if we should use another email yet.--[[User:NintenEthan|NintenEthan]] 02:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | ::::::::Let's save [[radio]] for another time. Anyways, I can dig [[The Sneak]] for this week. {{User:Sam the Man/sig}} 22:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :::::::::Just to make it known, i don't think any of the sightings pages will ever make good FAs. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 22:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | ::::::::::On the topic of winter, [[winter pool]] seemingly took place ''before'' winter came, as there was very little snow, as if winter was a week or so away. But, if we say "no" to it, I'd say that, while I personally think that [[Fluffy Puff Air-Puffed Sugar Delights]] would be a cool Old-Timey FA, The Sneak is fine by me. No futher comments against the flow from me, I promise. {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 01:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :::::::::::Hey, I'm cool with [[The Sneak]]. I can't wait for the opportunity to use radio, though.--[[User:NintenEthan|NintenEthan]] 03:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :::::::::::: Hmm... How about since its 2 weeks before christmas, how about we do the email [[nightlife]]? it's 2 emails before winter pool , anyway...
| + | |
| - | :::::::::::::...I find it a little out of the ordinary that you wuold suggest that at this point in the conversation. I'm wondering what other reason you have for your little interjection. (Also.... I thought we agreed on [[The Sneak]]? {{User:Acam30/sig}} 01:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | ::::::::::::::Nah, let's save [[nightlife]] for another time.--[[User:NintenEthan|NintenEthan]] 03:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| | | | |
| - | === [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2008, week 51]] (Dec 15-21) === | + | ==General discussion== |
| - | Winter '''FINALLY''' hits this week, so I think the time is right for [[winter pool]]. Any takers? {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 21:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :We frequently do a Decemberween feature this week (like with Halloween, we've traditionally done two features for D'ween). Mind you, I don't have any ideas about what we could feature that's D'ween-related, so if no one thinks of a good one, I'm cool with the pool. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 00:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | ::Have we featured [[Decemberween In July]] yet? I kinda like that one. (Nice rhyme by the way Heimi.) {{User:Acam30/sig}} 02:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :::D-Ween in July is a sort of short article, in addition, i'd think it'd be better suited to some day in july when people are dreaming of winter... {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 02:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | ::::And in fairness, we have featured a short from "Decemberween In July" around this time some time ago, which was "That Time of Year". Anyway, we could try another toon that was featured then. I'm thinking [[Teen Girl Squad Issue 6]]. How about that one? [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 03:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :::::I think that's a pretty good idea. We could do [[winter pool]] in January then. (Note to Game dude386, I'm really not trying to ignore your suggestions; it's just that we like to do seasonal FAs sometimes, and this is a good chance. Plus it's not that long until January!) {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 04:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | ::::::I also support TGS 6. {{User:HRjcm/sig}} 22:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :::::::A little close after featuring [[Whats-her-face]], but on the whole, why not? {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 02:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
| + | |
| | | | |
| - | === [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2008, week 52]] (Dec 22-28) ===
| |
| - | Since we featured Summer Short Shorts previously (coincidentally, about halfway through the year!), I think the Decemberween article we should feature is the follow up to this one: [[Decemberween Short Shorts]]. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 03:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
| |
| - | :I would be in support of that. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 04:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::I was gonna suggest that one for last week but I wasn't sure if we'd featured it yet. I would be in support of that also. (No mocking tone intended Heimi ol' buddy.) {{User:Acam30/sig}} 15:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::: I suggest a Decemberween themed email, how about [[what I want]] ? [[User:Sp0ng3b0b|Sp0ng3b0b]] 10:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::::what I want has been done already. {{User:Homestar-winner/sig}} 11:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
| |
| - | :::::Even if it was available, it would have to be a minor article before the major article, which was exactly how it was done when it ''did'' receive its own article. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 18:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
| |
| - | So, [[Decemberween Short Shorts]]? {{User:HRjcm/sig}} 23:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
| |
| - |
| |
| - | === [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2009, week 1]] (Dec 29-Jan 4) ===
| |
| - | For this week, and the start of the new year, I decided that we should ''finally'' use That Game Dude's suggestion that has been proposed for several weeks but kept getting bumped off: the email [[winter pool]]. Now that all of the major holidays are out of the way, I think we can do that one at last. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 17:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
| |
| - | :I'd be a hypocrite to say no. {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 20:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::After all, what better way to ring in the new year than to sink into a pool full of gelatin? {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 02:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
| |
| - | :::I have to agree with you on that one Heimi. Who wouldn't? Support [[winter pool]]. {{User:Sam the Man/sig}} 14:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
| |
| - |
| |
| - | === [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2009, week 2]] (Jan 5-Jan 11) ===
| |
| - | In the past, about this week, we usually feature something related to either [[20X6]] or [[Trogdor]]. This year, I was thinking of doing both at the same time with the Trogdor-centric toon: [[Happy Trogday]]. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 00:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
| |
| - | :I'm up for it! {{User:DrPepper42/sig}} 02:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::With a 20X6 reference to boot! {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 02:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
| |
| - |
| |
| - | ==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: |
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:
Please keep this discussion in the FA page at all times, but do copy it to archive pages as well.
