HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2008 Weeks 41-52

From Homestar Runner Wiki

HRWiki:Featured article for 2008, week 41 (Oct 6-12)

How about some kind of clothing, like Bowler Hats? MHarrington 06:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest instead one of the reoccurring names in the Homestar Runner universe, A. Chimendez. We finally appeared in a short, and Bill Melendez, his name inspiration recent passed away. I think it would be a fitting tribute. wbwolf (t | ed) 00:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that would work, I guess, except the article is just a trifle short. If we could add more, that would help greatly. MHarrington 06:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should do Chimendez right before Gunhaver: Too much Cheat Commandos. (True, Chimendez is not exclusively CC, but his only appearance as something more than a name is in a Cheat Commandos toon.) If we want to do Chimendez this week, I think we should come up with something instead of Gunhaver for next. Heimstern Läufer 06:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Then I think we should go back to Bowler Hats and save A. Chimendez for another time. MHarrington 20:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Bowler hats could use a little more content before being featured article. We haven't done a running gag in a while, though, so what about Couch Mumbling? JCM 19:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Nah, too bare-bones, and uses an unneccary graph instaed of links. How 'bout Death?

Once again, Death is too bare-bones for inclusion. We'd have to update that one greatly. MHarrington 20:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how either can have more content than they already do. JCM 20:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine, how about... New Paper? It's both a running gag, and a character. That Game Dude 386 00:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The content for Bowler Hats is enough. Yes, it would be better for it to be slightly longer, but still, it's a good paragraph plus some appearances, and it's a nice explanation of one of the H*R universe's most peculiar phenomena. Heimstern Läufer 01:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Like pants (or more often, the lack thereof). MHarrington 03:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious? Death and Couch Mumbling are too short, yet Bowler Hats isn't?!? I'm keeping a firm "no" on this one. Enough fighting over Bowler Hats, and there's a two againts two ratio, so we need an idea we all agree on fast. Death and Couch Mumbling already have two ayes and 1 nay, Bowler Hats has two "nays", so it's out. Those are your 2 choices: pick one. That Game Dude 386 20:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Listen carefully, That game dude386: In an FA, there are two elements: the prose introduction, which appears as a writeup, and the subsequent content (referenced in the writeup as "more". For an article to work as an FA, it must have a reasonably long prose intro, regardless of how much it has in other sections. Couch Mumbling does not have enough prose at present. Bowler Hats does, by a hair, and it also has a bit more content thereafter. Furthermore, you are out of line in making ultimatums of this sort. Please stop. Heimstern Läufer 09:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No, people can still vote for Bowler Hats if they want to. Bowler Hats isn't my favorite choice for a Featured Article, but it sounds like it would work better than any of the other suggested articles. New Paper would be good to feature sometime, but I feel we should wait until 2009 to feature it. Homestar-Winner (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I still have my bets on Couch Mumbling. If Floppy Disc Container made it, this should, too. JCM 22:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't have enough time for this! I'm hearing nothing but Bowler Hats bias, however, looking at it, it woudn't fit the Featured Article square, even with it's lists, so, no. Let's go with Couch Mumbling or New Paper, or Death. C'mon, folks! Place ya bets! That Game Dude 386 23:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, in that case, I say Couch Mumbling. That one, in fact, does have a decent amount of text for an article. MHarrington 00:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Couch Mumbling is okay. Homestar-Winner (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we have a winner! (Yes! I single handedly (+ assist) changed the intended FA! The Grumblecakes are mine!)That Game Dude 386 01:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, folks. This prose intro is far too short for a featured article. (Guh, I go out of town for a few days...) Someone expand this real fast, please. Bowler Hats had enough prose for an introduction. This one does not. Heimstern Läufer 09:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anyone making Couch Mumbling featureable. It needs to be more developed to feature, but nobody, including its proponents, has put any work into exapnding it to featureable scope. This isn't some frathouse vote, it's a selection of the articles o this wiki which best show our competence and all. As TGD386 has "single handedly changed the intended FA" (which is nothing to be proud of) leaves us at the end of a deadline with nothing to feature - that time might have been better spent developing one or more artivcles to featureable status. Ideas of where to go from here are welcome. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  10:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I just expanded the article. Now it goes beyond the picture seen. I hope this helps. MHarrington 16:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, MHarrington. You get a silver cross of the Homestarmy. Or some other medal. Heimstern Läufer 07:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

HRWiki:Featured article for 2008, week 42 (Oct 13-19)

For this week, how about Gunhaver? I sincerely believe that the Cheat Commandos body of work has been too lightly tapped for too long now. MHarrington 15:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, it'll be a bit recent after Commandos in the Classroom, but it's true, we haven't done much CC. I'm cool with it. Heimstern Läufer 17:00, 20 August 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. MHarrington 00:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not use Cheat Commandos...O's? Frankly, it's a crime that it hasn't been done yet! That Game Dude 386 20:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Because Cheat Commandos...O's doesn't have a two story hot tub! (Oh, and the last CC article we featured was a toon. And Gunhaver is a character.) — Acam30 20:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. We've never done any Cheat Commandos characters, save for Blue Laser, and even that is for the group as a whole, not any one character. I just think it's time that CC characters got their due, kinda like what is happening (slowly but surely) with the Teen Girl Squad. MHarrington 20:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh! Sorry, I meant the cereal "Cheat Commandos..O's", not the toon. Do we not have an article on that one yet? Anyways, why not do Mrs. Commanderson? Or, to a greater extent, Firebert? That Game Dude 386 00:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, That game dude386. Lemme introduce you a little to how things are done here: We discuss featured article suggestions rather than just throwing out suggestions. So, for example, since Gunhaver had already been suggested, if you wanted to suggest something else, your really need to explain why that suggestion is preferable to the original. As yet, you haven't given any reason not to go with the original suggestion (and by the way, I still think Gunhaver is the best way to go, since he's one of the most prominent CC characters). Heimstern Läufer 01:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

So we're going with Gunhaver then? Fo' shizzle? — Acam30 01:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose so. MHarrington 03:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, why not? I thought having a combo-character (O's in specially marked, Commanderson in Teen Girl Squad, and Firebert in army & more armies) would be nice, but yeah, Gunhaver's the best CC character. That Game Dude 386 21:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)