HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Stalled Discussions Archive 2

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive. Please do not add discussion here. Click here to go back to the main FAS historical page.



Contents

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] homestarrunner.com

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)

[edit] Nicknames

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Meet Marshie

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

[edit] 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! --HweEloR.png 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)

[edit] 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! --HweEloR.png 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)

[edit] The Announcer

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

Yes he is important. I scribbled down a draft here. --HweEloR.png 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Firebert

It's been a while since we've featured something Cheat Commandos-related. RickTommy (edits) 01:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I do support this, but could we save him for the final week of 2012 since 20X6 and Trogdor would get the two weeks afterwards? — Ngamer01 16:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
What does Firebert have to do with 20X6 and Trogdor here? — Defender1031*Talk 17:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
They all have debuts that happened in January. Though if we're looking at this from a Cheat Commandos perspective, Firebert officially didn't appear with the Cheat Commandos until May 2004... — Ngamer01 18:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Plus, the last week of 2012 happens to be the week of Decemberween/Christmas. RickTommy (edits) 08:47, 1 November 2012
Hmm... I was hoping we could do something special for Firebert, but I guess since 20X6 and Trogdor always have priority at the start of January, then I'm fine with Firebert being featured at any time. — Ngamer01 13:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC) (UTC)

[edit] Jibblies

An important running gag. RickTommy (edits) 01:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

"Important"? To quote a very wise man, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." — Defender1031*Talk 17:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Horrible Painting

An important pseudo-character. RickTommy (edits) 01:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Good suggestion and I support it, but could we save this guy for the week before Halloween week next year? — Ngamer01 16:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I also agree with saving this for halloween. — Defender1031*Talk 17:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
But once again, what about giving a fair chance to suggestions that I or anyone else may have in mind for that week? RickTommy (edits) 08:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
That aside, I'm not sure I think it's that great an idea to save Horrible Painting for then. It's not all that Halloweeny an item/pseudocharacter. It was the subject of Jibblies 2, it's true, but that's only one appearance out of quite a few. Next Halloween is also a long, long time away, and I'd like to hope we might have finally gotten around to replacing FAS by then (I know, I'm probably hoping too much). Heimstern Läufer 11:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
It was very significantly used as a halloween item though, and is extremely halloweeny, which is probably why TBC retconned it into being a halloween item. The better point you raise is how far away it is and the somewhat likely possibility that the system will be gone by then. For that reason, I guess it makes sense to feature whenever, as I do rather like the horrible painting and would hate to see it go unfeatured after being suggested. — Defender1031*Talk 12:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
If FAS gets the announcement that it'll end soon, then I do want the Horrible Painting to get it's feature before FAS closes. Otherwise I'd rather see this next year to kick-off the week before Halloween week even if Halloween week itself has a reran FA. — Ngamer01 13:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I also think it's better to save it for Halloween if at all possible. -174.63.109.210 01:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Poker Night at the Inventory

Well, it's a crossover, it was made by the creators of SBCG4AP, and it was released during the hiatus. RickTommy (edits) 01:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

But the game isn't Homestar Runner related. The most you'd get out of a FA writeup is "This is a crossover. The rest of the writeup is just a H*R trivia list!" I don't support it. — Ngamer01 16:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Ngamer. — Defender1031*Talk 17:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Completely untrue. Just look at the intro of the article. RickTommy (edits) 08:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
The intro paraphrased: "This is a crossover." Nothing H*R specific here outside of trivia. — Ngamer01 13:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Week of Trogday (Jan 7-13)

Either 8-Bit is Enough or Wormdingler, the latter of which I suggested for the week of Trogday of this year. RickTommy (edits) 08:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Somebody was hoping we could have Wormdingler featured to celebrate Troggie's 10th anniversary, but I'm fine with 8-Bit is Enough to celebrate Troggie's 10th too. I support both, but I'll also support whatever wiki consensus specifically decides. — Ngamer01 13:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Nibbles

Another random suggestion, but how about this lil' guy even though he appeared in just one toon? He's notable for having Marshie hating the little guy and I found their whole exchange funny in bottom 10. — Ngamer01 23:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a rather short article, but I support. RickTommy (edits) 22:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Stinkoman 20X6

Either Stinkoman 20X6 or Make-O Your Own Stinko. In the case of Stinkoman 20X6, I know it's been suggested several times that we wait until it's finished before we feature it, but at the rate H*R is going, it probably won't be finished. As for Make-O Your Own Stinko, it's the very first article for which I have drafted a write-up, which you can see here. RickTommy (edits) 08:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

For many years, I was opposed to featuring Stinkoman 20X6 before its completion, but now that it seems about as likely to be finished as Schubert's 8th Symphony is, I am no longer opposed. Indeed, given its importance, I would consider it a good choice for featuring. Heimstern Läufer 11:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah let's go with Stinkoman 20X6. This may be it's last chance at a feature especially if FAS closes at some point later. — Ngamer01 13:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

[edit] 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)
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)

[edit] Marzipan's Answering Machine Version 7.0

I know [the week before 'Ween] 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)

[edit] Snowglobe

Since we had a re-run for the week before D'ween last year, I think that we should make up for it by doing three D'ween articles this year. For this week, Snowglobe, the article that was suggested for the week before D'ween last year. RickTommy (edits) 13:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to do three this year just because one was a rerun last year. I also am not sure there's enough to say about snowglobe to feature. It's pretty much just a dumb snowglobe with a timer. — Defender1031*Talk 13:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with DeFender on both points. Heimstern Läufer 14:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I also agree. Snowglobe just doesn't offer enough for a quality writeup now that I take a second look at it. — Ngamer01 16:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I also agree that Snowglobe isn't worth featuring. (That Other Anonny Guy) 121.219.232.190 11:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Personal tools