|
|
| (includes 132 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]]. For drafts, see [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Drafts|this page]]. | + | |
| | + | [[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 — 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== |
| Line 71: |
Line 77: |
| | | [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2012 Weeks 11-20|2012, Weeks 11-20]] | | | [[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 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/General Discussion|Other Discussion]] | | | [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/General Discussion|Other Discussion]] | |
| - | [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Stalled Discussions Archive 1|Stalled Discussions Archive 1]] | + | [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Stalled Discussions Archive 1|Stalled Discussions Archive 1]] | |
| | + | [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Stalled Discussions Archive 2|Stalled Discussions Archive 2]] |
| | </center> | | </center> |
| | | | |
| Line 83: |
Line 90: |
| | {| {{standardtable}} | | {| {{standardtable}} |
| | ! Week !! Article !! Discussion | | ! Week !! Article !! Discussion |
| - | {{FA queue|30 Jul 2012 |cliffhangers}} | + | {{FA queue| 3 Dec 2012 |2-Part Episode: Part 1}} |
| - | {{FA queue| 6 Aug 2012 |Population: Tire}} | + | {{FA queue|10 Dec 2012 |2-Part Episode: Part 2}} |
| - | {{FA queue|13 Aug 2012 |Not the 100th Email}} | + | {{FA queue|17 Dec 2012 |Decemberween in July Dailies|alternatediscussion=yes|decision=Decemberween in July}} |
| - | {{FA queue|20 Aug 2012 |Redirects|alternatediscussion=yes|decision=alternate universe}}
| + | {{FA queue|24 Dec 2012 |The Last Featured Article|alternatediscussion=yes|decision=A Death Defying Decemberween}} |
| - | {{FA queue|27 Aug 2012 |Career Day}} | + | |
| - | {{FA queue|3 Sep 2012 |Redirects|alternatediscussion=yes|decision=Labor Dabor}}
| + | |
| - | {{FA queue|10 Sep 2012 |Redirects|alternatediscussion=yes|decision=Coach Z}}
| + | |
| - | {{FA queue|17 Sep 2012 |The Virus}}
| + | |
| | |} | | |} |
| | | | |
| Line 104: |
Line 107: |
| | | | |
| | Please keep this discussion in the FA page at all times, but do copy it to archive pages as well. | | Please keep this discussion in the FA page at all times, but do copy it to archive pages as well. |
| - |
| |
| - | ===[[cliffhangers]]===
| |
| - |
| |
| - | ''{{done}} {{FA|30 Jul 2012}}''
| |
| - |
| |
| - | We've featured the second and third parts of the Lappy-napped trilogy, so how about featuring the first? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 12:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :I'll unstall this too and give it a vote of approval as well for the ending of this sbemail. — [[User:Ngamer01|Ngamer01]] 15:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::Well jakeula, let's feature this and then go get those hushpuppies! {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 16:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :::I support this<span style="color:#C0C0C0;">, but I don't support featuring these out of order. this one should be featured first, then Lappynapped!, then retirement. but i guess there's not much we can do about that now. i guess Dangeresque 2 was technically released to the public before Dangeresque 1 was, so going out of order wouldn't be unprecedented</span>. But really, i'd like to see this featured in a self-demonstrating matter. <span style="color:#C0C0C0;">And it would be more effective if this one was the first one featured.</span> {{User:The Knights Who Say Ni/sig}} 19:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::::I think the other two have ALREADY been featured, sadly. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 22:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :::::RickTommy made that clear in the original suggestion to feature this article. what is in silver is not important in regard to the given circumstances. {{User:The Knights Who Say Ni/sig}} 03:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - |
| |
| - | ===[[Population: Tire]]===
| |
| - |
| |
| - | ''{{done}} {{FA|6 August 2012}}''
| |
| - |
| |
| - | It's been quite some time since we've done a game. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 13:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :I don't think there's enough content to feature. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 15:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::[[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Drafts#Population: Tire|Not so. I mean, there is so.]] {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 13:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :::After I fixed up some grammar and awkward wording, and added [[User:Phlip|Phlip]]'s Homebrew version of the game being featured, it seems you may be right. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 16:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::::Good enough to feature now. I add my support to this.. — [[User:Ngamer01|Ngamer01]] 20:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - |
| |
| - | === [[Not the 100th Email]] ===
| |
| - |
| |
| - | ''{{done}} {{FA|13 Aug 2012}}''
| |
| - |
| |
| - | ''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)''
| |
| - | ::::I've drafted a quality write-up: [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Drafts#Not the 100th Email]]. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 06:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :::::THe proposed write up is far too flowery and just makes me go "uch". No. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 00:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::::::I've trimmed it down a bit. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 13:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :::::::I didn't say it was too long. I said it was flowery and made me go "uch". The stuff you removed were among the less objectionable parts of it in my opinion. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 15:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::::::::I've revised it. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 13:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :::::::::New version looks good. I'll give this my approval. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 16:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::::::::::I approve as well. It'll make a good feature. — [[User:Ngamer01|Ngamer01]] 20:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - |
| |
| - | ===[[Career Day]]===
| |
| - |
| |
| - | ''{{done}} {{FA|27 Aug 2012}}''
| |
| - |
| |
| - | It's the only big toon (apart from the 2-Part Episodes) that hasn't been featured yet. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 13:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :I'll go along with this. I enjoyed the art style for SB's educational short and the ending is funny. — [[User:Ngamer01|Ngamer01]] 15:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::Gives us a better look into strong bad's made-uppy space program. Let's feature in T-minus the heck outta dodge! {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 16:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - |
| |
| - | ===[[The Virus]]===
| |
| - |
| |
| - | ''{{todo}} {{FA|17 Sep 2012}}''
| |
| - |
| |
| - | ''The Virus! The Virus! --{{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig}} 14:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)''
| |
| - | :''This article might need a bit more expansion before getting featured. [[User:Doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 00:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)''
| |
| - | ::''[[User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/Draft|Hmmmmm...You are correctly correct...maybe]]. --{{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig}} 01:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)''
| |
| - | :::Actually, I think that draft is adequate. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 10:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::::I'd add a bit more information before I think it's ready for primetime, but i think it's on the right track. I'll support this and add to the draft a bit later. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 11:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :::::There. I modified the draft. I think she's a lookin pretty good there, strang bad! {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 11:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::::::Supporting. It looks like a winner to me. — [[User:Ngamer01|Ngamer01]] 18:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - |
| |
| - | === [[Bad Graphics Ghost]] ===
| |
| - |
| |
| - | ''{{todo}} {{FA|22 Oct 2012}}''
| |
| - |
| |
| - | Surprised it was never featured; also, it was once accidentally bolded on the nominations page. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 01:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
| |
| - | :This will be nice to feature next year for Halloween. Second'd! — [[User:Ngamer01|Ngamer01]] 18:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::I think we should hold this one off until Halloween next year as well. {{User:Soiled Bargains/sig}} 18:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
| |
| - | :::I approve of a Hallow's Eve '12 feature. {{User:Power Pie/sig}} 23:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::::I'm guessing you guys mean the week ''before'' Ween? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 04:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
| |
| - | :::::Yeah, week before. {{User:Power Pie/sig}} 13:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::::::I made a [[User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/Draft|draft]] of a Bad Graphics Ghost FA. --{{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig}} 01:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | While I understand that you guys want to feature this for the week before 'Ween, I intended this one as a feature for any time. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 20:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :Then you're going to be annoyed at Halloween FA reruns if we do this ASAP. At least by waiting, you'll get one new Halloween FA this year that is if FAS isn't put on hiatus by that time. — [[User:Ngamer01|Ngamer01]] 13:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::I also think this will make a fine feature for halloween. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 17:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :::You know what, I've changed my mind. I don't think this should be featured at all if it's going to conflict with the suggestions that I have in mind for Ween. And like I said, I intended this one to be featured any time. Also, the week of Ween is specifically for the big toons. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 23:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::::RickTommy, you're not approaching this the right way. You're talking about it conflicting with "the suggestions that '''I''' have in mind for Ween" and how "'''I''' intended this one to be featured at any time" (emphasis mine). What you think is scarcely the point. It's what the community thinks that matters, and they clearly think this article should be featured the week before Halloween. If it's against your plans, I'm sorry, that's rough. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 00:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :::::Actually Soiled Bargains, Defender, and I wanted this for Halloween week. Rick was the one that stated that everyone wanted it before Halloween when actually only Power Pie wanted it for before Halloween. So technically this doesn't have consensus. I'll move this out of the queue. — [[User:Ngamer01|Ngamer01]] 03:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::::::Could we please have clarification on this? I assumed when people said "Halloween" they meant "the Halloween season", not specifically that week. Since we do indeed nearly always feature a full-length toon on Halloween itself, and I don't really see why it would be different this year. Are people fine with making this the week before Halloween? {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 04:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | I'm cool with this being the week before, though I see no reason for it not to be the week of, especially in a Hiatus where there is not an unlimited supply of big halloween toons. Also, Ngamer, there IS consensus to feature, we even have consensus as to roughly when to feature, just not clear on which of the two proposed weeks. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 11:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :You're right that there's not an unlimited supply of big toons, but there ''are'' some left that haven't been featured, and I think at least one is highly deserving of being featured. In fact, from what I can see, we still have three more years before we'd run out. And there is tradition: while I know that "we've always done it" isn't in and of itself a valid reason, all other things being equal, there's a lot to be said for sticking to tradition. And I for one am in favour of keeping our big toon tradition. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 14:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::Fair enough. Let's stick with the week before. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 00:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :::I guess I hadn't explained well my reasons from earlier. I mean I know there is consensus for this to be featured, but there was no consensus on when to feature and without that, this had to be moved out of the queue until consensus on when to feature was reached...which is now. I guess if Halloween FA week is for big Halloween toons only, I guess I'm fine with Bad Graphics Ghost being a lead-in to the actual Halloween FA week. — [[User:Ngamer01|Ngamer01]] 19:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::::I know this is a done deal but I also wanted to give my support for the week before halloween (week 43 as stated). Even if we run out of big toons to feature I think we can rerun old big toons in the coming years. --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 17:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
| |
| | | | |
| | ==Article discussions== | | ==Article discussions== |
| - | ===[[Coach Z's Problems]]===
| |
| - | It's the last of the three really great lists on this wiki about fundamental portions of a character's personality that hasn't yet been featured (the other two being [[Bubs's Shady Business Practices]] and [[Crimes Committed by Strong Bad]]). I really like this trio of lists because the fundamental personality can be itemized into categories, and the pages elucidate each instance of each category. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 17:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - |
| |
| - | ===[[Carol]]===
| |
| - | An important item/pseudocharacter. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 13:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :Could be cute. I'd have to see a good writeup before i'm convinced. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 16:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::[[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Drafts#Carol|Here's]] a good write-up. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 13:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :::I'm not sure i'd call it a "good" writeup... Seems rather disjointed to me. Comes off sounding like "In this toon, this happened. In this totally unrelated instance, this happened. In this third place, something else entirely." {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 14:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::::I tried to rewrite the draft. I don't know if this works, but I do hope it'll help get this to a more wanted final version. I'd like to see a final version of this before I'll offer my support. — [[User:Ngamer01|Ngamer01]] 00:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :::::I fixed one point to make it more accurate, but it still strikes me as lacking. Is there any way we could spruce it up a bit more? I can't quite put my finger on what i think is missing, which is a shame. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 04:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - |
| |
| - | ===[[Nicknames]]===
| |
| - | Another frequently edited article. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 04:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :It may be frequently edited, but the article is one giant list with a simple intro. I say no to this. — [[User:Ngamer01|Ngamer01]] 18:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::I'll add my opinion of "no" for pretty much the same reasons as Ngamer said. I'd also add that, like the inconsistencies, it's rather subjective what constitutes a "nickname". {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 17:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - |
| |
| - | ===Week of Halloween (Oct 29-Nov 4)===
| |
| - | [[Halloween Fairstival]]. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 04:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :Sure why not. Support. — [[User:Ngamer01|Ngamer01]] 18:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - |
| |
| - | ===[[Strong Sad's iPod]]===
| |
| - | I'm feeling a little random and want to feel less hypocritical, so I'd like to throw this out as an suggestion. SS's iPods were seen on [[Podstar Runner 2006]] and it's last incarnation [[Podstar Runner]], so the iPod was important in the past. — [[User:Ngamer01|Ngamer01]] 18:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :Support, I guess. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 10:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::I've got [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Drafts#Strong Sad's iPod|a draft]] up for review and fixing if it'll help any. — [[User:Ngamer01|Ngamer01]] 18:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - |
| |
| - | ===[[Scroll Button Songs]]===
| |
| - | Surprised it was never featured. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 13:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :There isn't much to say. It's mostly a list. It would be difficult to make this into a cohesive FA. --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 14:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::EC'd: I agree with stux. I'm not convinced there's enough to write up. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 14:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - |
| |
| - | ===[[homestarrunner.com]]===
| |
| - | It's been nominated several times before. That is all. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 10:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :What's there to say about it in a feature though? It's the domain on which most of the toons appear. Is there any more to be said? {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 11:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - |
| |
| - | ===Week of Thanksgiving (Nov 19-25)===
| |
| - | [[Limozeen Thanksgiving E-Cards]]. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 10:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :I never liked that one. Personally, I'd suggest re-featuring [[Let us give TANKS!]]. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 11:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - |
| |
| - | === [[Visor Robot]] ===
| |
| - | ''An important minor character. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 10:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)''
| |
| - | :''"Important" in what way? {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 10:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)''
| |
| - | ::''[[User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/Draft|I made a draft]] --{{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig}} 01:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)''
| |
| - | :::Well, it's important in that the Wiki gave it that name and the Brothers Chaps decided to use the name themselves, as an [[The Brothers Chaps' Fansite Acknowledgements|acknowledgement]]. And nice write-up, G-guy. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 10:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::::Meh. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 11:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - |
| |
| - | === [[The Brothers Chaps' Fansite Acknowledgements]] ===
| |
| - | I mean, don't you just like it when the Brothers Chaps acknowledge this Wiki? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 10:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :I do enjoy when that happens, true, but would such a writeup be anything more than a laundry list of the more prominent instances of this? {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 11:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - |
| |
| - | === [[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)''
| |
| - | ::::::But [[Crimes Committed by Strong Bad]], [[Marzipan and Coach Z's Relationship]], and [[Bubs's Shady Business Practices]] have incomplete templates on them, and they got featured. Either way, this article not only has a long enough intro, but starts with not one, but ''two'' quotes. So I support it too. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 13:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :::::::Those pages are somewhat more clear-cut than this one is though. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 16:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::::::::Here's why I think this article should not be featured: although all four articles have an "Incomplete Notice" that doesn't paint the full picture. The three articles listed above ([[Crimes Committed by Strong Bad]], [[Marzipan and Coach Z's Relationship]], and [[Bubs's Shady Business Practices]]) can be considered to be fairly objective lists. We actually can get authoritative sources (such as the laws of various states and the federal district for "crimes" and "shady business", and toon transcripts for the "relationship" article where Marzipan and Coach Z appear and interact) that make it clear what goes in each article leaving only a small amout of room for disagreements. If we wanted to, the HRWiki community could ensure that all toons have been covered and remove the tags. We haven't because this is a laborious process. While we believe we've probably caught most, if not all, instances of the topic in question in each article, we can't know with 100% certainty that we've covered everything. So to be safe that "incomplete" tag is there until we can know for sure (see [[Talk:The_Geddup_Noise#Gettup_Noise_Approved|the geddup noise talk page]]).
| |
| - | ::::::::On the other hand, the "inconsistencies" article is reasonably more subjective, there is no clear guide that defines what goes in the article (except perhaps {{pl|l=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inconsistency webster's dictionary}}), and what's worse, even if there were an objective meter we'd have to check every action in every toon against ''all other actions in all other toons and material'' if we even want to consider this list to be complete! Like Heim said, "Featured articles should be examples of the fine work of the wiki" and it's hard to place "inconsistencies" in that category. While the article covers an interesting topic, the subjective and loosely defined nature of this work makes it somewhat speculative and even presumes that [[The Brothers Chaps]] are omniscient beings. --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 15:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :::::::::Thanks for the lengthy response. But I would just like to point out that no-one except myself has addressed the well-written intro, which I think should be the major factor here. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 23:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::::::::::I'll address it. It's not a factor when weighed against all the other objections raised. It's got a great intro, and I personally happen to really like that page, but when compared to the other great lists on the wiki such as [[Bubs's Shady Business Practices]], [[Crimes Committed by Strong Bad]], and [[Coach Z's Problems]], it just doesn't doesn't live up. Aside from those other pages being itemized, organized, and categorized, the most important thing, even if the inconsistencies page were all those things, is the inherent inability to maintain reasonable objectivity when it comes to what counts. I'd go even further as to say that it's a bad example because TBC don't really try to maintain much consistency when it comes to most of the things that get put on that page. Locations of landmarks, ages and life status of characters, even some of their knowledge. Other things on that list are questionable, such as "Strong Sad tells Strong Bad he never heard of Limozeen, but they watched Limozeen: "but they're in space!" together in best thing." are just kind of like "okay, so if i watched some weird show i didn't care about once with my brother who hates me, i also wouldn't necessarily remember the name of the show or the characters." Yes, the intro is very well-worded and contains one quote from Matt and another from Strong Sad, but the list itself, which is the main information set being documented by the article, is not up to par. Remember, "featured '''articles'''" are not "featured intros", and having a good intro to a list is just not enough. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 17:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - |
| |
| - | ===Week <s>before</s> after Halloween <s>(Oct 22-28)</s> (Nov 5-11)===
| |
| - | I know that week is reserved for [[Bad Graphics Ghost]], but I'd like to go ahead and propose the article that I had in mind for that week: [[Marzipan's Answering Machine Version 7.0]]. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 04:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :We already achieved consensus for something else, and I don't see any reason to change just to accommodate one user's plans to the contrary. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 14:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::I wholeheartedly agree! Routinely using subterfuge to undermine the FA process is underhanded and borders on the conniving. The FA proccess is a team effort and not a one-man show. Ricktommy, you knew the group made a decision and arrived at consensus yet you unilateraly decide that your way is better and somehow try to find a way to prod or manipulate your way into having everyone else follow your whim. This isn't how consensus works and you've routinely have had issues where you poke, prod and complain your way through the system just so what you want is featured. If not then you make suggestions weeks, if not months in advance long before anyone else even gets a chance to even consider thinking about possibly suggesting a feature somewhere, somehow. In the end your features end up dominating the system if we don't keep you in check. This has the negative effect of turning potential contributors away from FA. I ask that you show more courtesy for fellow editors and respect for the HRWiki community in general. --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 16:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :::Also MAM 7 is rather weak and uninteresting. It wouldn't make a good feature in my opinion. — [[User:Ngamer01|Ngamer01]] 18:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::::Well, can we feature it the week after Ween instead? And Ngamer, I completely disagree. I'll draft a write-up soon. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 23:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :::::We generally do two features for Halloween, and I don't see why that should be changed this year just to accommodate one user's desires. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 00:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::::::Well, let me just say that it was that same user who suggested Bad Graphics Ghost in the first place. If he - that is to say, I - hadn't suggested BGG, would it still have been put in the queue for the week before 'Ween? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 02:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :::::::I don't see how that matters. The source of the suggestion is irrelevant here; only what the community decides to do with those suggestions matters. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 04:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
| |
| | | | |
| | == Discussions of Articles Needing Expansion == | | == Discussions of Articles Needing Expansion == |
| Line 265: |
Line 115: |
| | ==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. '' |
| - |
| |
| - | === [[Strong Bad Email]]s (daily feature) ===
| |
| - | Since our recent daily was done a very long time after the previous daily, I think that we should make up for it by doing another daily rrll rrll soon. My theme for this daily is Strong Bad Emails from the second half of the [[Tandy]] era. I go for these seven emails: [[little animal]], [[CGNU]], [[superhero name]], [[gimmicks]], [[weird dream]], [[dullard]], and [[vacation]]. I have drafted write-ups for all seven of them (see the drafts page). {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 11:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :RickTommy - for at least the fourth time, "we're running out of featurable articles too fast to merit doing any dailies right now." I'd say we should wait until the chaps are back regularly for at least a year before we do another daily. {{User:The Knights Who Say Ni/sig}} 17:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - |
| |
| - | === [[Meet Marshie]] ===
| |
| - | We've featured [[Malloween Commercial]], so how about featuring the original? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 13:30, 12 February 2012 (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
| |
| - | :::I missed that this page had been "slated" to feature this week despite inadequate consensus for featuring. There is reasonable question whether there enough material to feature. This cannot be featured until an adequately-long FA has been made. I'd suggest writing one to show that there is and then featuring it on a different week. --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 13:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
| |
| - | :I made a big draft of the FA. [[User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/Draft|Click hear!]] --{{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig}} 01:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::And a good thing it's big, too. It addresses the concerns about the article being difficult to make a write-up out of. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 06:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :::A proper sized writeup is good to reach, but I don't think FAQ is interesting enough for a feature. — [[User:Ngamer01|Ngamer01]] 18:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::::I agree with ngamer. Really not very interesting. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 11:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - |
| |
| - | ===[[Legal]]===
| |
| - | An important page, since it can be accessed from the Navbar. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 09:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
| |
| - | :I don't think this has enough content to feature. --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 14:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::Correction: The wiki page has too much content to feature. [[User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/Draft|Here is proof!]] --{{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig}} 01:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :::You may want to trim that writeup down. We want to give viewers a small sample of what the article is about. Not shove an entire article on the front page. =P — [[User:Ngamer01|Ngamer01]] 13:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::::Okay, I've done so. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 14:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :::::Now the question remains is that is Legal interesting enough for a feature? I'm leaning toward no myself. — [[User:Ngamer01|Ngamer01]] 14:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::::::I agree with NGamer, the [[HRWiki:Featured_Article_Selection/Drafts#Legal|FA article draft]] pretty much just relays 90% of the page content. There just really isn't enough in this page to make a good FA out of it. --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 14:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :::::::Correction: it had 90% of the page content before it was shortened. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 07:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::::::::Whether the writeup is the majority of the page content or not, I just don't think a page with a bunch of legal stuff is worth featuring. The only thing interesting that happens is homestar saying "bo-wing" which pretty much sums up what it would be like to feature it. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 11:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - |
| |
| - | === [[The Announcer]] ===
| |
| - | An important minor character. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 03:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
| |
| - | :Yes he is important. I scribbled down a draft [[User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/Draft|here]]. --{{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig}} 01:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::That draft is the entire article, and it's got grammatical errors and NPOV issues to boot. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 18:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :::You mean the entire intro of the article, and what are the errors and issues, exactly? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 13:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::::No, i mean the entire article. The character evolution section doesn't count, as those tend to be separate pages for the more common characters. It's only part of the article for him since he's not big enough to have a series of pages devoted to him, and his appearance has evolved a lot. As for the issues, "rarely actually", "we know little of him", etc. I corrected as much as I could in the main article, but I still don't think it's worth featuring. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 11:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - |
| |
| - | === [[Doreauxgard]] ===
| |
| - | Another important pseudo-character. (Man, I hate sounding repetitive.) {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 06:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :[[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Drafts#Doreauxgard|Here's]] a write-up that G-man drafted. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 07:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::Important how? {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 11:21, 3 June 2012 (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)''
| |
| - | :::I've drafted an adequate write-up. ([[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Drafts#The Cheat's Gold Tooth]]) {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 06:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::::The writeup is long enough, but i don't think the topic is really all that interesting to feature. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 18:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - |
| |
| - | ===[[your friends]]===
| |
| - | We've featured a Sbemail [in mid-late July] for the last couple of years. How about [[your friends]], the first email for which I had drafted a write-up? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 13:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :I don't see any reason to stick to a pattern which has no basis aside from happenstance. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 15:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::I don't think this would make a good feature. I mean it's just Strong Bad going to hurt his "friends". Not really interesting outside SB leaving The Poopsmith alone because his crappy job probably gives him a high pain tolerance. — [[User:Ngamer01|Ngamer01]] 15:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - |
| |
| - | ===[[Compé]]===
| |
| - | I was thinking of saving it until sbemail206 is released, but at the rate the site is going, it probably won't be released. So I guess we should feature it soon, even though it's not developed (no pun intended) and it lacks appearances. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 13:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | :It's too soon for this to be featured even if it is SB's first GUI-based computer with rotating wallpapers. — [[User:Ngamer01|Ngamer01]] 15:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
| |
| - | ::Agree with Ngamer. It's not developed enough. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 16:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
| |
| | | | |
| | ==General discussion== | | ==General discussion== |
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.
