HRWiki:Featured Article Selection

From Homestar Runner Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Week before Halloween (Oct 22-28): comment)
Line 271: Line 271:
===Week before Halloween (Oct 22-28)===
===Week before Halloween (Oct 22-28)===
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)
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)
===Week of Halloween (Oct 29-Nov 4)===
===Week of Halloween (Oct 29-Nov 4)===

Revision as of 14:42, 1 August 2012

Shortcuts:
HRW:FAS
FAS

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

Contents

Checklist

Checklist for new Featured Article:

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


Other Discussion | Stalled Discussions Archive 1

Featured Article Queue

Week Article Discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 21 (May 21–27) Sickly Sam discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 22 (May 28–Jun 3) Super NES discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 23 (Jun 4–10) Redirects - Bear Holding a Shark discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 24 (Jun 11–17) flag day discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 25 (Jun 18–24) Breakfast Cereal discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 26 (Jun 25–Jul 1) Redirects - Swimming Pool discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 27 (Jul 2–8) The Interview discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 28 (Jul 9–15) Redirects - Dangeresque (film series) discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 29 (Jul 16–22) video games discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 30 (Jul 23–29) strong badathlon 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) Career Day discussion

Redirects

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

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

Example:

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

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

Sickly Sam

Done HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 21 (May 21–27)

It's been a while since we've featured something Old-Timey-related. RickTommy (edits) 10:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a good idea! -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 01:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Guess I'll unstall this and say I support this for a future FA. — Ngamer01 16:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Super NES

Done HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 22 (May 28–Jun 3)

Well, it was the first-ever H*R animation. RickTommy (edits) 00:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a draft here, though the writeup needs some trimming. I'm in support for this. — Ngamer01 13:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with ngamer. This is a fine feature. — Defender1031*Talk 18:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

flag day

Done HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 24 (Jun 11–17)

Week of Flag Day (Jun 11-17)

flag day. RickTommy (edits) 06:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll support this. — Ngamer01 18:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
This works. — Defender1031*Talk 11:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm cool with featuring this too. --Stux 17:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Breakfast Cereal

Done HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 25 (Jun 18–24)

It has a long enough intro, starts with a quote from an interview, and is important to the TBC; what more could you want? RickTommy (edits) 08:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

draft -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 01:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Can you trim that draft down to a more reasonable size. We aren't trying to shove whole articles in FAs. =P — Ngamer01 13:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I've done so. RickTommy (edits) 14:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Better. I'll support this. Do note that Gfdgs never gave a vote for/against, so this can't be put in the FA queue yet, Rick. — Ngamer01 14:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
This would be a decent feature, i guess. — Defender1031*Talk 11:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The Interview

Done HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 27 (Jul 2–8)

It's one of the oldest toons that hasn't been featured yet. RickTommy (edits) 07:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

A classic. I'm actually rather surprised that it hasn't been featured yet. This, for a change, is a good suggestion. — Defender1031*Talk 11:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Count me in supporting this. — Ngamer01 18:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
In order to not have another week roll by without doing it, I drafted a writeup in next week's slot to get the ball rolling. It's my first FA writeup, so it could probably use some improvements. — Defender1031*Talk 04:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. Good jorb. — Ngamer01 20:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

video games

Done HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 29 (Jul 16–22)

As the first H*R toon I ever saw, I'd like to see it featured sometime soon. RickTommy (edits) 13:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll unstall this to give it a vote for approval. This sbemail did introduce Thy Dungeonman which got three games in the series. — Ngamer01 15:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Seems like it could make a good feature. I'll support this for next week. — Defender1031*Talk 16:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I support this suggestion. If Ngamer meant "the week starting with July 22" in the strong badathlon discussion, then July 16 - 22 will work for this one. The Knights Who Say Ni 19:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

strong badathlon

Done HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 30 (Jul 23–29)

Why not feature this one around the time of the Olympics? We talked about doing so four years ago, but the suggestion came in last minute, and that was under the old format when it was kind of hard to shift the weeks of FAs around, so we didn't get to it. Heimstern Läufer 07:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I support this. — Ngamer01 19:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
This is a great idea! — Defender1031*Talk 03:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Question. If we do feature this, when will it go up? The week of July 22nd since the opening Olympics ceremony is that Friday? — Ngamer01 15:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Featuring it the week after might be a little late and this might be a good lead-in. It'd be nice if there was something similarly-themed that could be featured the week after. Any other opinions? --Stux 17:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Ngamer - did you mean the week of July 23 - 29? I agree that this is a great idea. The Knights Who Say Ni 19:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I meant July 23-29. H*R Wiki weeks are different (Monday - Sunday) from calender weeks (Sunday - Saturday) after all. — Ngamer01 20:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Sure, that's a fine week to do it. Heimstern Läufer 17:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

cliffhangers

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

To do 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)

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

Career Day

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)

Carol

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)

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. 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)

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. --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. --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. --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. 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 TBC are omniscient beings. --Stux 15:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Not the 100th Email

As teasers to milestone e-mails, I believe that one of them should be featured. 124.181.68.22 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. --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? 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)

Nicknames

Another frequently edited article. RickTommy (edits) 04:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Week before Halloween (Oct 22-28)

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)

Week of Halloween (Oct 29-Nov 4)

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

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)

FAQ

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)

Legal

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)

Doreauxgard

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. -132.183.13.68 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)

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