HRWiki:Featured Article Selection

From Homestar Runner Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Week of Halloween (Oct 29-Nov 4): reply)
(Featured Article Queue: See the talk page.)
Line 93: Line 93:
{{FA queue|24 Sep 2012 |Redirects|alternatediscussion=yes|decision=Kicking The Cheat}}
{{FA queue|24 Sep 2012 |Redirects|alternatediscussion=yes|decision=Kicking The Cheat}}
{{FA queue| 1 Oct 2012 |Coach Z's Problems}}
{{FA queue| 1 Oct 2012 |Coach Z's Problems}}
{{FA queue| 8 Oct 2012 |Redirects|alternatediscussion=yes|decision=Kid Speedy}}
{{FA queue| 8 Oct 2012 |Strong Sad's iPod}}
<!-- Week 42 is not set in stone. Update it as the Wiki community decides and unhide this when this is up for its week on the wiki's Main Page.
<!-- Week 42 is not set in stone. Update it as the Wiki community decides and unhide this when this is up for its week on the wiki's Main Page.
{{FA queue|15 Oct 2012 |Redirects|alternatediscussion=yes|decision=Pants}} -->
{{FA queue|15 Oct 2012 |Redirects|alternatediscussion=yes|decision=Pants}} -->

Revision as of 12:37, 7 October 2012


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.



Checklist for new Featured Article:

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

Other Discussion | Stalled Discussions Archive 1

Featured Article Queue

Week Article Discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 31 (Jul 30–Aug 5) cliffhangers discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 32 (Aug 6–12) Population: Tire discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 33 (Aug 13–19) Not the 100th Email discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 34 (Aug 20–26) Redirects - alternate universe discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 35 (Aug 27–Sep 2) Career Day discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 36 (Sep 3–9) Redirects - Labor Dabor discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 37 (Sep 10–16) Redirects - Coach Z discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 38 (Sep 17–23) The Virus discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 39 (Sep 24–30) Redirects - Kicking The Cheat discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 40 (Oct 1–7) Coach Z's Problems discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 41 (Oct 8–14) Strong Sad's iPod discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 43 (Oct 22–28) Bad Graphics Ghost 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:

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


{{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.


Done HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 31 (Jul 30–Aug 5)

We've featured the second and third parts of the Lappy-napped trilogy, so how about featuring the first? RickTommy (edits) 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. — Ngamer01 15:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Well jakeula, let's feature this and then go get those hushpuppies! — Defender1031*Talk 16:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I support this, 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. But really, i'd like to see this featured in a self-demonstrating matter. And it would be more effective if this one was the first one featured. The Knights Who Say Ni 19:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the other two have ALREADY been featured, sadly. — Defender1031*Talk 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. The Knights Who Say Ni 03:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Population: Tire

Done HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 32 (Aug 6–12)

It's been quite some time since we've done a game. RickTommy (edits) 13:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's enough content to feature. — Defender1031*Talk 15:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Not so. I mean, there is so. RickTommy (edits) 13:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
After I fixed up some grammar and awkward wording, and added Phlip's Homebrew version of the game being featured, it seems you may be right. — Defender1031*Talk 16:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Good enough to feature now. I add my support to this.. — Ngamer01 20:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Not the 100th Email

Done HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 33 (Aug 13–19)

As teasers to milestone e-mails, I believe that one of them should be featured. 13:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say Not the 100th Email. RickTommy (edits) 07:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Start with the first one, makes sense. Although it is very short. -- 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? DENNIS T/C 08:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I've drafted a quality write-up: HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Drafts#Not the 100th Email. RickTommy (edits) 06:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
THe proposed write up is far too flowery and just makes me go "uch". No. — Defender1031*Talk 00:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I've trimmed it down a bit. RickTommy (edits) 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. — Defender1031*Talk 15:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I've revised it. RickTommy (edits) 13:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
New version looks good. I'll give this my approval. — Defender1031*Talk 16:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I approve as well. It'll make a good feature. — Ngamer01 20:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Career Day

Done HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 35 (Aug 27–Sep 2)

It's the only big toon (apart from the 2-Part Episodes) that hasn't been featured yet. RickTommy (edits) 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. — 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! — Defender1031*Talk 16:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The Virus

Done HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 38 (Sep 17–23)

The Virus! The Virus! -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 14:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This article might need a bit more expansion before getting featured. doctorwho295 00:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Hmmmmm...You are correctly correct...maybe. -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 01:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I think that draft is adequate. RickTommy (edits) 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. — Defender1031*Talk 11:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
There. I modified the draft. I think she's a lookin pretty good there, strang bad! — Defender1031*Talk 11:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Supporting. It looks like a winner to me. — Ngamer01 18:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Coach Z's Problems

Done HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 40 (Oct 1–7)

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. — Defender1031*Talk 17:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Draft looks fine to me. I support it. — Ngamer01 18:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Wow. I can't believe that an article I created has been nominated for featuring. For this reason, I support it, too. RickTommy (edits) 13:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
RickTommy, for the last time, do not put things in the cue or create featured articles less than a week beforehand. Oh, and just to be clear, I was the one who cleaned up the section on the original article and made the content what it is today after extensively detailing the changes on the talk page and it's an accomplishment that I'm rather proud of as well. You, on the other hand, simply copied it from the original page onto a new page without even discussing it first and simply got lucky after the fact that the rest of us agreed that it happened to be a good move. I don't appreciate you claiming credit for my work, thanks very much. — Defender1031*Talk 17:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Bad Graphics Ghost

To do HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 43 (Oct 22–28)

Surprised it was never featured; also, it was once accidentally bolded on the nominations page. RickTommy (edits) 01:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This will be nice to feature next year for Halloween. Second'd! — Ngamer01 18:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I think we should hold this one off until Halloween next year as well. Soiled Bargains (talk|ctrb) 18:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I approve of a Hallow's Eve '12 feature. PowerFile:Homestar Kamikaze Green Favicon.pngPie 23:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm guessing you guys mean the week before Ween? RickTommy (edits) 04:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, week before. PowerFile:Homestar Kamikaze Green Favicon.pngPie 13:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I made a draft of a Bad Graphics Ghost FA. -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 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. RickTommy (edits) 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. — Ngamer01 13:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I also think this will make a fine feature for halloween. — Defender1031*Talk 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. RickTommy (edits) 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. Heimstern Läufer 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. — 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? Heimstern Läufer 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. — Defender1031*Talk 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. Heimstern Läufer 14:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. Let's stick with the week before. — Defender1031*Talk 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. — 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. --Stux 17:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Article discussions


An important item/pseudocharacter. RickTommy (edits) 13:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Could be cute. I'd have to see a good writeup before i'm convinced. — Defender1031*Talk 16:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Here's a good write-up. RickTommy (edits) 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." — Defender1031*Talk 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. — 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. — Defender1031*Talk 04:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what it is that you think is missing, either. But I have somewhat improved the draft. RickTommy (edits) 15:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Week of Halloween (Oct 29-Nov 4)

Halloween Fairstival. RickTommy (edits) 04:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure why not. Support. — Ngamer01 18:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Since this'll be October 29... how about Pumpkin Carve-nival? It'll be ten years old to the day (Oct 29/02 - Oct 29/12) ...just another idea. That'sBupkis! 17:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
First of all, weclome back, Bupkis. Where have you been for the past year and a half? Second of all, Carve-nival has already been featured. RickTommy (edits) 05:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh, okay. Also, I haven't been very active here lately, with the hiatus and what not... I guess when sbemail206 rolls around things will pick up :p That'sBupkis! 22:36, 6 October 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. — Ngamer01 18:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Support, I guess. RickTommy (edits) 10:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I've got a draft up for review and fixing if it'll help any. — Ngamer01 18:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I think it needs to be reworded to make it clear that strong sad has had many ipods over the years, rather than talking about "strong sad's ipod" as a singular item. I like the idea of this as a feature, the writeup just needs significant improvement before i put in my complete support. — Defender1031*Talk 12:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I've improved it as best I can. Can I put it in the queue now? RickTommy (edits) 14:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC) 05:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Week of Thanksgiving (Nov 19-25)

Limozeen Thanksgiving E-Cards. RickTommy (edits) 10:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I never liked that one. Personally, I'd suggest re-featuring Let us give TANKS!. — Defender1031*Talk 11:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Didn't even realize that TANKS would have been the default rerun for this anyway. Also, to be clear, when I say re-feature, I don't necessarily mean using the same writeup, since it might be nice to expand it now that we're far less worried about giving spoilers. The old one also seems a bit dry as compared to the writeups we tend to do nowadays. — Defender1031*Talk 20:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Less concerned about spoilers how? What exactly do you think should be added to the old writeup? I certainly don't think the ending with the nuclear device should be revealed on the main page; I think the ending gag definitely needs to remain a surprise. Heimstern Läufer 02:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
What I meant by less concerned about spoilers was... not important. I think I was thinking of something else which in my fully awake state doesn't make nearly as much sense as it did last night when I wrote that. Anyway, I'd expand the writeup somewhat to be a little less dry and more fun, and have a few more details. — Defender1031*Talk 13:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Week before after Halloween (Oct 22-28) (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. RickTommy (edits) 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. Heimstern Läufer 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. --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. — 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. RickTommy (edits) 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. Heimstern Läufer 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? RickTommy (edits) 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. Heimstern Läufer 04:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I also agree. I see no reason to change our methods here. Typical functioning in the world is that leading up to a holiday, as well as the holiday itself, is the holiday season. Once the holiday is over, no one cares about the holiday anymore until next year, and have already moved on to the next holiday. I mean, on November 5th, will you still be adding more skeletons, jack-o-lanterns, and witches brüe to your house decorations, or will you begin taking them down and replacing them with turkeys, pilgrim hats, and those fruit-filled horn thingies? If the former, I will gladly send you a calendar, because it seems you are in dire need of one. If the latter, then consider the fact that what you are suggesting is the wiki equivalent of putting up your spooky decorations almost a week after halloween. — Defender1031*Talk 12:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

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.

Visor Robot

An important minor character. RickTommy (edits) 10:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

"Important" in what way? — Defender1031*Talk 10:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I made a draft -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 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 acknowledgement. And nice write-up, G-guy. RickTommy (edits) 10:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Meh. — Defender1031*Talk 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? RickTommy (edits) 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? — Defender1031*Talk 11:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
After seeing the attempt at a draft, I am now convinced that there is not enough tying it all together to provide a cohesive writeup. — Defender1031*Talk 14:17, 30 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. -- 13:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC) (That Anonny Guy)

Featuring an article that has an incomplete template on it? I think not. --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 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. doctorwho295 10 February 2011
I support to! PowerFile:Homestar Kamikaze Green Favicon.pngPie 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. -- 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. Heimstern Läufer 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. RickTommy (edits) 13:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Those pages are somewhat more clear-cut than this one is though. — Defender1031*Talk 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 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 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. --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. RickTommy (edits) 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. — Defender1031*Talk 17:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Scroll Button Songs

Surprised it was never featured. RickTommy (edits) 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. --Stux 14:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
EC'd: I agree with stux. I'm not convinced there's enough to write up. — Defender1031*Talk 14:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
After seeing the attempt at a draft, I am now convinced that there is not enough information outside of the list itself to provide a cohesive writeup. — Defender1031*Talk 14:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It's been nominated several times before. That is all. RickTommy (edits) 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? — Defender1031*Talk 11:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


Another frequently edited article. RickTommy (edits) 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. — 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". — Defender1031*Talk 17:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Strong Bad Emails (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). RickTommy (edits) 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. The Knights Who Say Ni 17:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Meet Marshie

We've featured Malloween Commercial, so how about featuring the original? RickTommy (edits) 13:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


An important page on the site. RickTommy (edits) 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. Heimstern Läufer 03:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I think we'll be able to do an introduction of this. I support nomination. 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. --Stux 13:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I made a big draft of the FA. Click hear! -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 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. RickTommy (edits) 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. — Ngamer01 18:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with ngamer. Really not very interesting. — Defender1031*Talk 11:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


An important page, since it can be accessed from the Navbar. RickTommy (edits) 09:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this has enough content to feature. --Stux 14:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Correction: The wiki page has too much content to feature. Here is proof! -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 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 — Ngamer01 13:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I've done so. RickTommy (edits) 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. — Ngamer01 14:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with NGamer, the 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. --Stux 14:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Correction: it had 90% of the page content before it was shortened. RickTommy (edits) 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. — Defender1031*Talk 11:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The Announcer

An important minor character. RickTommy (edits) 03:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes he is important. I scribbled down a draft here. -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 01:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
That draft is the entire article, and it's got grammatical errors and NPOV issues to boot. — Defender1031*Talk 18:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
You mean the entire intro of the article, and what are the errors and issues, exactly? RickTommy (edits) 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. — Defender1031*Talk 11:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


Another important pseudo-character. (Man, I hate sounding repetitive.) RickTommy (edits) 06:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's a write-up that G-man drafted. RickTommy (edits) 07:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Important how? — Defender1031*Talk 11:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The Cheat's Gold Tooth

How about featuring TC's tricked-out grill. - 18:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. It's not that significant but it's long enough. Rondleman! Stuff I did.Talk. 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). --Stux 21:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I've drafted an adequate write-up. (HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Drafts#The Cheat's Gold Tooth) RickTommy (edits) 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. — Defender1031*Talk 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? RickTommy (edits) 13:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to stick to a pattern which has no basis aside from happenstance. — Defender1031*Talk 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. — Ngamer01 15:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


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. RickTommy (edits) 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. — Ngamer01 15:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Ngamer. It's not developed enough. — Defender1031*Talk 16:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

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)
Personal tools