HRWiki:Featured Article Selection

From Homestar Runner Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Article discussions)
(April Fools (Nonsense): uhh... no.)
Line 150: Line 150:
===April Fools (Nonsense)===
===April Fools (Nonsense)===
I think that for April Fools Day 2012, We should feature...something nonsense. Something that doesn't make sense...Something that's impossible to understand, like [[User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/draft#Nonsense|this]]. {{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}} 21:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I think that for April Fools Day 2012, We should feature...something nonsense. Something that doesn't make sense...Something that's impossible to understand, like [[User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/draft#Nonsense|this]]. {{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}} 21:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 +
:So basically, you want to throw a bunch of unrelated homestar-related words together and call it a featured article? That is neither a "feature" nor an "article". (And yes, i get that it's april fools, but that's only one day, not an entire week, and i don't find this particularly funny, and like has been said before, it's not a good prank if everyone knows about it beforehand.) {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 00:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
===[[Main Pages]] (daily feature)===
===[[Main Pages]] (daily feature)===

Revision as of 00:40, 29 January 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.

Contents

Checklist

Checklist for new Featured Article:

Discussion archives

Other Discussion | 2005, Weeks 26-29 | 2005, Weeks 30-39 | 2005, Weeks 40-52

2006, Weeks 1-10 | 2006, Weeks 11-20 | 2006, Weeks 21-30 | 2006, Weeks 31-40 | 2006, Weeks 41-52

2007, Weeks 1-10 | 2007, Weeks 11-20 | 2007, Weeks 21-30 | 2007, Weeks 31-40 | 2007, Weeks 41-52

2008, Weeks 1-10 | 2008, Weeks 11-20 | 2008, Weeks 21-30 | 2008, Weeks 31-40 | 2008, Weeks 41-52

2009, Weeks 1-10 | 2009, Weeks 11-20 | 2009, Weeks 21-30 | 2009, Weeks 31-40 | 2009, Weeks 41-53

2010, Weeks 1-10 | 2010, Weeks 11-20 | 2010, Weeks 21-30 | 2010, Weeks 31-40 | 2010, Weeks 41-52

2011, Weeks 1-10 | 2011, Weeks 11-20 | 2011, Weeks 21-30 | 2011, Weeks 31-40 | 2011, Weeks 41-52

Stalled Discussions Archive 1

Featured Article Queue

Week Article Discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 1 (Jan 2–8) 20X6 vs. 1936 discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 2 (Jan 9–15) Redirects - dragon discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 3 (Jan 16–22) Redirects - Stinkoman discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 4 (Jan 23–29) different town 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.

20X6 vs. 1936

Done HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 1 (Jan 2–8)

Suprised it was never featured. -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 21:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a good suggestion! --Stux 14:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to third this as I liked the exchange between The Homestar Runner and Stinkoman. — Ngamer01 18:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I guess it could make a great feature for Jan 2-8. RickTommy (edits) 21:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Why then, Rick? — Ngamer01 18:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Because that's 20X6 week. RickTommy (edits) 21:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
What's 20X6 week? That's not a thing. — Defender1031*Talk 01:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
He's referring to the anniversary of the release of japanese cartoon, the email that was the beginning of 20X6. this was pointed out by Stinkoman at the end of Happy Trogday. i'm also surprised this article hasn't been featured. but at the rate we're going, i think that anniversaries such as this hold less importance towards when a cartoon may be featured, and i wouldn't restrict it to that week. The Knights Who Say Ni 02:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I want to nominate this for the week of Trogday in 2012, and I have. Soiled Bargains (talk|ctrb) 18:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
O_o If this will be the article for Trogweek, what will be the article for Stinkoweek? -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 16:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
You should probably read a bit more closely. I'm not sure if Soiled Bargains was being serious or not when he made that suggestion. I have, however, questioned his suggestion below. RickTommy (edits) 23:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I started a draft in hopes this can be the 1st FA of 2012. Feel free to review it and tweak it as needed. — Ngamer01 17:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

different town

Done HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 4 (Jan 23–29)

We usually feature a Sbemail [the week of July 18-24]. How about different town, your friends, long pants, dangeresque 3, or theme song? RickTommy (edits) 08:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, sounds fine to me. doctorwho295 20:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Hehe, RickTommy's still trying to invoke the old format. ;) Any of these Sbemails would be fine to feature on any given week. --93.207.89.92 14:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC) (That Anonny Guy)
Header changed to just "a sbemail" as there's really no significance to any particular week. Heimstern Läufer 15:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The anonny is right. This kind of nomination is horribly vague and has no place here under the current format. If you want to nominate any of those emails on their own, singular merits, then that would be fine. — It's dot com 21:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I have drafted very creative write-ups for your friends and different town. (User:RickTommy/sbemailwriteups) RickTommy (edits) 12:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I no longer see the FA WIP of your friends and different town needs some adjusting to be less of a list. — Ngamer01 02:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Of the two, i'd like to see different town featured. I can probably expand it. The Knights Who Say Ni 06:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I moved this discussion since different town got featured. Any input for your friends will need to be put in a new discussion. — Ngamer01 14:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Article discussions

Hiatuses

Given how long it's been since the last toon, I guess it sounds appropriate to emphasise that fact by featuring this article. RickTommy (edits) 12:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that featured articles are supposed to be the best the wiki has to offer and given that that page is up for discussion, I don't think this is a good idea. — Defender1031*Talk 13:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
One, I've expanded it, and two, it's been up for discussion since October last year. RickTommy (edits) 01:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The expansion made the article more of a mess. In my opinion, it's still not good enough for any consideration of a feature based on article standards. And the article shouldn't be featured for the purpose of educating people on a current event, though I don't know if we would want to feature it on the basis that hiatuses are now "infamous" among H*R fans. — Ngamer01 17:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I made a detailed draft of "Hiatus" for FA. You can see it here -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 01:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, your draft only addresses the minor hiatuses. It should address every phase of the hiatus, since this hiatus is much more important than the minor ones. Speaking of which, should that Wiki discussion mentioned on the page be linked? And should we rewrite HRWiki:Keep your pants on? RickTommy (edits) 00:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I re-wrote the draft. I think we should nominate this FA for next week. -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 15:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Once again, I don't think that the lack of something is worth documenting, much less featuring. — Defender1031*Talk 16:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, by "The mysterious question is now answered. No, [t]he website is not dead.", what do you mean? What are you referring to that says this? And what about my questions above? RickTommy (edits) 20:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't answer the above question. We should not re-write HRW:KYPO. The "Mysterious question" is "Is the website dead, or is TBC just taking a long break?", and some people think that a "dead website" is a website that...Ummm...It's hard to explain. For example, If homestarrunner.com was "dead" then there would be no more toons, and no more updates to the website ever again. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 15:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, a dead website is one where the domain is left to expire... Clearly TBC care enough to continue to renew their domain. — Defender1031*Talk 23:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh. 'm srry. -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 23:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Character Cards

Maybe Character Cards!--Cheergly hands on deck! 15:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This article doesn't have a lot of content on it. Does it have enough for a minimal FA writeup? — Ngamer01 02:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
No. -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 01:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Schenectady Crispies

One of the very first articles to be suggested for featuring ([1]). RickTommy (edits) 06:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

But this cereal is too generic. It's not notable enough and there's the breakfast cereals suggestion further down this page that is more important. I'm going to say no to this. — Ngamer01 18:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I made a very detailed draft here. -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 01:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Cheat Commandos (toon)

The introduction of Cheat Commandos. RickTommy (edits) 06:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to second this. This would make a good feature whenever. — Ngamer01 18:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Thirded. (That Other Anonny Guy) 101.160.57.137 22:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

FeedBurner Page

Although I personally dislike the FeedBurner page, I guess it could make a good feature, since it is important because can be accessed from the Navbar. RickTommy (edits) 09:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

There have been some exclusive content on there. I'm going to second this. This would make a good early October feature next year for the third anniversary of that Feedburner Page going live. — Ngamer01 02:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there a particular reason we're bringing anniversaries into this? (I did once suggest an anniversarial feature, but it was more of a funny reference to a quote from that toon.) RickTommy (edits) 04:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Support. It would make a great feature whenever. (That Other Anonny Guy) 101.160.57.137 22:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

April Fools (Nonsense)

I think that for April Fools Day 2012, We should feature...something nonsense. Something that doesn't make sense...Something that's impossible to understand, like this. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 21:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

So basically, you want to throw a bunch of unrelated homestar-related words together and call it a featured article? That is neither a "feature" nor an "article". (And yes, i get that it's april fools, but that's only one day, not an entire week, and i don't find this particularly funny, and like has been said before, it's not a good prank if everyone knows about it beforehand.) — Defender1031*Talk 00:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Main Pages (daily feature)

Sometime soon, can we have a week of daily articles? I was thinking maybe stuff on Old Flash Stuff or some Main Pages. RickTommy (edits) 10:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

A Main Page daily would be awesome! PowerFile:Homestar Kamikaze Green Favicon.pngPie 01:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
As long as it's in November or later, for the at least 6 month spacing of dailies, A week of dailies would be nice. Although, hard to choose just 7 Main Pages to feature. StrongAwesome 22:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the best way to go about this. If you have seven articles in mind for a daily, then you should propose those seven articles, but don't just say "We should do a daily." --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 05:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I think we should do this daily before the end of the year. RickTommy (edits) 00:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
There is no pressing need for a daily to occur before the end of the year. Moreover, adequate no topic has been suggested for a daily. A daily shouldn't be made for the sake of having a daily, it should be used to showcase stuff that doesn't always fit in one weekly FA. The new format can help encourage that, but we should always pick dailies carefully. --Stux 21:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, might I add that in the future, dailies will need to be more frequent, since we will eventually run out of articles that are important enough for a week to themselves? RickTommy (edits) 13:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
If we start running out of articles, we might need to go in the other direction; that is, keep the certain featured article for longer than a week so that we don't run out so quickly. but that shouldn't happen for a very long time, so i don't think we need to worry about it. The Knights Who Say Ni 17:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Either way, I think that we should do this daily soon, as it has been a while since our last one. Anyway, my theme for the daily: Main Pages, as was said at the start of this conversation. Anyway, the main pages we should feature are: 1, 7, 13, 15, 17, 23, and the Homsar Main Page. RickTommy (edits) 06:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
We did two weeks of dailies earlier this year. After that, I would suggest we wait a while before another set, at least until the new year. Heimstern Läufer 09:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Fair 'nough. PowerFile:Homestar Kamikaze Green Favicon.pngPie 20:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Until the updates start flowing again, I say we just don't do any period. Like Ni, I'm worried about time and the amount articles we have. Soiled Bargains (talk|ctrb) 23:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Unless we get a really good set of articles approved by at least a few people, we should hold off on the dailies. doctorwho295 5 February 2011
Now it's been nearly a year since our last daily. So can we now do this one? RickTommy (edits) 06:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
What set of dailies do you suggest and why? That's really the first step here. For my part, I'm really not sold on doing a set of dailies soon, still, but maybe others will want to. Heimstern Läufer 08:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Probably the Main Page dailies that I mentioned above. RickTommy (edits) 09:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
OK. I don't think we've ever featured a Main Page before, so I'd be interested in knowing if we could manage much of a writeup for one. What would one of those look like? Heimstern Läufer 09:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
For a Main Page daily, how about this: 1, 7, 15, 18, 20, 22 and 26? doctorwho295 22 March 2011
  1. One of them should be one of the special Main Pages.
  2. Here, I also suggested a Main Page daily, and I also said that we will probably do three more Main Page dailies sometime in the future. But this means that one Main Page will miss out, so that one will get a week to itself, and MP22 seems to be the most important one, so that will be the one. Actually, that comment was made before MP26 was released, so this means that two MPs will get a week to themselves. But MP22 is still one of those two.
  3. And speaking of MP26, it's too new to be featured.
  4. Just FYI, earlier in this discussion, I also wrote a list of the Main Pages we should feature.
RickTommy (edits) 12:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm for this. Now we just need to come to some kind of consensus for which ones to feature. I'd pick ones that feature running gags or are done in the alternate universes: 3 ("wear a bikini"), 10 (Old-Timey), 11 ("today's forecast is total crap"/"more than two problems"), 17 (20X6), 22 (virus), 23 (backwards), and either the Strong Bad or Homsar main page. Regarding the list above: (1) Yes. (2) That discussion is obsolete. Any points you made there don't apply here unless you restate them and they gain consensus. (3) I agree that 26 is too new only because, well, it's still on the main page list of what's new. (4) You sure did. — It's dot com 01:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
The main pages don't really have enough info. They might need a...test write. -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 14:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I think we need to try to gather more interest for the FAS before we do a daily. doctorwho295 00:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
It's reaching the year-and-a-half mark now. I seriously think this daily should be done soon. RickTommy (edits) 09:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Just because you seriously think the daily should be done soon doesn't mean we have to. As mentioned before, there is limited FA interest and the lack of updates kind of makes a daily a lower priority. I believe that for something like this to be considered: 1) consensus has to be reached as to *which ones* to feature and 2) once there is consensus write-ups should be made ahead of time so show that these pages indeed to have sufficient content for featuring. --Stux 13:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I say go for the ones that It's dot com suggested, though probably with 22 replaced with 1, since I still think that 22 should get a week to itself. Never mind, 22 it is, but I still would like to know which two main pages should get a week to themselves. RickTommy (edits) 01:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Rick just made some daily writeups despite not having majority consensus. I don't think we should do dailies unless there's a clear majority for dailies considering the limited amount of qualified articles are left that have not yet to get FAs and the fact H*R is on a very extended hiatus. I suggest we don't do dailies so that instead we could give these main pages their own weeks in the future. — Ngamer01 18:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Week of Main Pages? No; it can't be done safely considering the amount articles we have left to feature. Month of Main Pages? Yes, that would work. Soiled Bargains (talk|ctrb) 19:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I also agree. Bringing up these dailies like this is too hasty. I like the idea of spreading out the Main pages over a wider period of time. It is definitely NOT too late to revert back and pick a traditional FA (redirect or otherwise). --Stux 19:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
How about 6 months of main pages? Cover all of them! that way, we don't have to think so much about what to feature for the next half a year! it's brilliant! — Defender1031*Talk 21:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Ngamer01: We haven't done a daily all year, and of the couple of weeks we have left, I thought this would be the best one to do it. And while it has decreased our traffic and our edit count, I'm not sure how the hiatus is relevant to this. As for the lack of consensus, It's dot com suggested the main pages that could be in this daily, and I went for exactly the ones he suggested. As for giving the main pages their own weeks: you're joking, right? I will say this a third time: sometime in the future, we could do three more main page dailies (I'm guessing that Soiled Bargains meant that we could do those three more consecutively?), leaving only two to get a week to themselves. RickTommy (edits) 04:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
There is no rule that says we have to have at least 1 daily per calendar year so there is no urgency in that matter. The issue is that sufficient consensus about all the details hasn't been reached. Dot com made some good suggestions that supported featuring main pages but an agreement has not been reached about a time or a set. The discussion wasn't even pushed to the queue (which should only happen once consensus has been reached). First we must reach an agreement before featuring, then we feature. --Stux 17:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Let's get some agreement, then. RickTommy (edits) 21:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
A main page daily FA, what a great idea! Let's do it! -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 01:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Glad you agree! Can we do this daily soon, then? I've waited a long time. RickTommy (edits) 00:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The week after next week maybe? Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 21:51, 28 January 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)

Intro

Another important H*R page. RickTommy (edits) 06:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I think this has a little more information than the above [the index page], but there might be a need for more. Any other opinions on this? doctorwho295 19 March 2011
Agreed. It's better than the Index Page but I'm not sure if it's interesting enough. (That Anonny Guy) --93.207.75.209 11:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I have drafted a write-up here. RickTommy (edits) 05:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Cinder Block

An important pseudo-character. RickTommy (edits) 00:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not that important. It doesn't even get counted in the population. — It's dot com 02:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The only reason the Cinder Block is on in the first place is when Strong Badia is on. I would rather feature Strong Badia if we ever feel the need to have this mentioned. doctorwho295 12:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Umm, Strong Badia has already been featured, and I doubt it wouldn't have already been featured. RickTommy (edits) 12:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 01:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The Umpire

The Umpire. He would make a Great article!!! Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 14:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

There's not much information on the page. I don't think I can support this. doctorwho295 00:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
OK. But I'm suprised 20X6 vs. 1936 was never featured. Let's feature that instead. -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 14:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I think The Umpire has enough content. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc (Talk | contribs) 01:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC) (left unsigned)

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)

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)

Bubs and Coach Z's Relationship

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

Yes, But maybe there's not enough content on the page for a short FA. -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 01:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose until the article can be expanded. (That Other Anonny Guy) 101.160.57.137 22:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Flash

Without it, most of H*R wouldn't be possible. RickTommy (edits) 08:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes! PowerFile:Homestar Kamikaze Green Favicon.pngPie 23:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
True, but it'd be like featuring "paper" on a wiki about a book series. Sure the books are all made out of it, but is it REALLY all that important? Now, if paper played a major role in the universe of the book series, or, returning from the analogy, if flash featured prominently in-universe, that might be a different story. — Defender1031*Talk 16:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, paper in this case would be more analogous to bits and bytes. </nitpick> PowerFile:Homestar Kamikaze Green Favicon.pngPie 13:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Good point. Replace "paper" in my argument to "The english language" then. — Defender1031*Talk 14:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, either way, it might prove best to reconsider. {PowerFile:Homestar Kamikaze Green Favicon.pngPie 13:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I drafted a draft for a Flash FA here. -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 01:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Breakfast Cereal

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)

Bad Graphics Ghost

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)

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)

Phone Time XL8

Now that we've featured the Answering Machine, I guess we should feature its successor. RickTommy (edits) 10:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Good idea! -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 01:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sickly Sam

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)

Dangeresque 3: The Criminal Projective

Well, since we've featured the first three episodes of SBCG4AP... RickTommy (edits) 10:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Week of the Superbowl (Jan 30-Feb 5)

Superbowl Dealie. RickTommy (edits) 10:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's short, but it is fitting for the date. I support. (That Other Anonny Guy) 101.160.57.137 22:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Week of Valentine's Day (Feb 13-19)

Marzipan's Answering Machine Version 6.0. RickTommy (edits) 10:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Support. It's an overlooked toon, and it is quite fitting for the date. (That Other Anonny Guy) 101.160.57.137 22:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Super NES

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

Doreauxgard

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

A Splode

One of the more infamous phrases on the site. RickTommy (edits) 06:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this has enough content to feature. --Stux 14:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Correction: I know this doesn't have enough content to feature. -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 01:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The Virus

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)

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.

Swears

I know it's not exactly an appropriate article for featuring, but it's still a rather popular one. RickTommy (edits) 12:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. You say it's not appropriate for featuring, but you're suggesting featuring it? For my part, I don't really think this article should appear on the Main Page, as interesting an article as it may be. Heimstern Läufer 14:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The article itself would be up for nomination, but because of the subject matter it shouldn't go up. doctorwho295 01:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I do think this article is interesting, but, yeah, it's probably not best to link to it from the main page. — It's dot com 01:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
We could make it a Featured Article WITHOUT using any swears or links to this page. -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 17:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
No, we really couldn't. Part of the point of featuring an article is to make an easy link to the article. Per subject matter of the page, I'm against featuring this article. The Knights Who Say Ni 18:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Me Too! -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 19:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Snowglobe

Snowglobe. RickTommy (edits) 00:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

As with Halloween, given that we're in a hiatus I don't think we have a need for two weeks of D-ween themed articles. --Stux 14:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah let's save this one for next Decemberween. — Ngamer01 02:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I will repeat what I said before: we managed to do two weeks last year (even if that was the time H*R temporarily came out of the hiatus...). RickTommy (edits) 04:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Let me put it like this. You do realize once all the qualified FAs are used up, that the wiki will definiately have to go into FA reruns permanently (unless TBC makes way more H*R content). The question is, do you want the definite reruns to happen sooner (use all available FAs at once so that we go into reruns immediately after) or later (be stingy with the remaining FAs to put off definite reruns as long as possible)? — Ngamer01 16:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Of course I want them to happen later. Actually, how about the third option (I've suggested something similar below): once all the important articles are done, change to daily articles, and do every article except the ones that definitely cannot be featured (such as disambiguations and censored articles), then we do re-runs or just tie a big bow on the project altogether. RickTommy (edits) 21:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC) 00:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Wormdingler

Wormdingler. RickTommy (edits) 01:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You know, how about we spice things up and nominate 20X6 vs. 1936 for this week instead? We could save Wormdingler for Troggie's 10th birthday instead. Soiled Bargains (talk|ctrb) 18:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
And why is that, exactly? RickTommy (edits) 04:24, 27 November 2011 (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)

Drafts

You can write write-ups for articles you want featured here.

Personal tools