HRWiki:Featured Article Selection

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 10:11, 25 April 2012 by Heimstern Läufer (Talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search
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

2012, Weeks 1-10

Stalled Discussions Archive 1

Featured Article Queue

Week Article Discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 11 (Mar 12–18) Redirects - Aliases Used in Prank Calls discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 12 (Mar 19–25) PhoneTime XL8 discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 13 (Mar 26–Apr 1) Redirects - House of the Brothers Strong discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 14 (Apr 2–8) Redirects - Pan Pan discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 15 (Apr 9–15) Rotten Eggs discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 16 (Apr 16–22) Redirects - Cool Tapes discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 17 (Apr 23–29) The Umpire discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 18 (Apr 30–May 6) Redirects - Fhqwhgads 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.

Phone Time XL8

Done HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 12 (Mar 19–25)

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)
Might as well make it official since DeFender approved this into the queue. I support this for next week. — Ngamer01 14:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Rotten Eggs

Done HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 15 (Apr 9–15)

For the week of Easter (Apr 2-8). RickTommy (edits) 12:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm in favor, but Easter's the following week. I think we're better off doing this then. --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 05:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
(Edit conflict'd) I'm pretty sure I said at about this time last year that TBC haven't come up with a good enough Easter-themed toon yet. Rotten Eggs was included in that conclusion, and i don't think anything's changed since then to make it any more featurable. The Knights Who Say Ni 05:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
SMB - Easter is April 8, which falls in the range of April 2-8, not the following week, which is April 9-15. The Knights Who Say Ni 05:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to get into religion here, but Easter is a weird holiday for us Catholics in that it's immediately proceeded by its own antithesis. Forgive me for wanting to prevent an Easter-themed article from running during Holy Week. Also, Easter technically lasts fifty days.
To the point of its featurability, I think honestly the article itself is what we need to look at here. What impresses me about this article is the solid amount of references and trivia we were able to pull out of a forty-second one-off gag. To me, it's certainly an example of the quality work this community has done. Length alone does not a good article make, though, so you may disagree with my analysis. --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 05:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I've already changed my mind; it would make a good feature. and that was before I saw your response. And yes, Easter does technically last 49 days (the 50th day is Pentecost), and I really do understand your hesitation to not feature "Easter" during Holy Week, but hunting for Easter eggs (which is the main idea of this toon) is most likely to only happen on the first of those 49 days. That day is in this FA week. If there were some way to bend the rules so that the feature started on April 8 instead of April 9, i would be inclined to agree with you even more. The Knights Who Say Ni 06:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Also considering the basis of the 'toon is finding rotten eggs after Easter, I think our current schedule makes sense. --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 02:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The Umpire

To do HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 17 (Apr 23–29)

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)
Seeing your draft, I support. RickTommy (edits) 23:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm in support for The Umpire. — Ngamer01 13:44, 11 April 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)
Yes, it does, actually. I've drafted a write-up (HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Drafts#Character Cards). RickTommy (edits) 23:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Then I guess I can support this as long as the article's intro is expanded to match the writeup. — Ngamer01 13:44, 11 April 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)

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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm for it. It's one of my favorite games in the series. — Ngamer01 13:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Super NES

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)

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)

Doreauxgard

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

video games

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)

Meet Marshie

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

A Videlectrix Game

It's been quite some time since we've done a game. We have available: Secret Collect., Rhino Feeder, Population: Tire, Pigs on Head, Thy Dungeonman 2, 50K Racewalker, and Thy Dungeonman 3. RickTommy (edits) 11:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

cliffhangers

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)

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): 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)

April Fools' 2006

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)
DeFender already pretty much said it, but I'll say it in my own words: we only ever feature mainspace articles. That's not a mainspace article, nor is it in any other namespace (okay, it's in your subpage, but it's still not part of its own article). Anyway, for an April Fools' feature, I'll go for April Fools' 2006. RickTommy (edits) 12:43, 29 January 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)

Drafts

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

Personal tools