HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2010 Weeks 11-20

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] HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 11 (Mar 15-21)

Atari Strong Bad, Lil' Strong Bad, or Atari Homestar. RickTommy 12:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You really couldn't have waited another, what, twelve hours so that you would have stayed within ten weeks as we've asked you to several times now?
As for your suggestions, both Atari articles are too short. Lil' SB might be a possibility. Heimstern Läufer 13:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 12 (Mar 22-28)

Marzipan's House? RickTommy 02:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Senor Mortgage? RickTommy 00:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't know, it's too short. MHarrington 03:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The original idea of featuring Marzipan's house might work better. It seems to have a decent amount of text, and we haven't done a place in a while now (not since the Movie Theater toward the end of last year). Heimstern Läufer 04:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 13 (Mar 29-Apr 4)

It's April Fools' Day, so how about homestarrunner.com Pay Plus? RickTommy 02:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we should do something that was proposed long ago: Sbemailiarized!. MHarrington 04:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Quick question: do you mean Sbemailiarized! or April Fool 09? RickTommy talk 05:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Ummm... RickTommy talk 09:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Sbemailiarized. Actually, I will do Sbemailiarized Entertainment. MHarrington 16:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 14 (Apr 5-11)

It's Easter (well, it actually was last week), so how about either Eggs or Rotten Eggs? RickTommy 00:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

We're getting a little ahead here. But anyways, I don't think we did either of them. Eggs may not have much of a write-up. That'sBupkis! 00:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
How about to change things up we put easter eggs as the featured article? Just an idea.--safariventureman 02:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I think anything with the word "egg" in it will work. Maybe even Eggs (Running gag) could work Rondleman! Stuff I did.Talk. 22:03 16 February, 2010 (UTC)
No, it's way too short. MHarrington 16:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Why are we even looking at Easter toons for this week when the article won't even come up until the day after Easter? This would really make more sense some other year when Easter and April Fool's Day don't conflict. Heimstern Läufer 08:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, back in 2007, we had a similar situation, when we were supposed to feature Matt Chapman on his birthday, but that had to be moved to the following week since it coincided with Hallowe'en. RickTommy 07:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Matt Chapman's birthday and H'ween will always conflict since they occur on the same day every year. By contrast, Easter is a moveable feast, and in future years, this conflict won't always happen. Heimstern Läufer 08:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any worty articles nominated at all here, since I also agree with what Heimy said. I'd like to suggest the Corpy NT6. My reasoning would be because from work, the email done, erm, at work, was released on the 9th, which falls into this week. StrongAwesome 22:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
The Corpy would probably work, I think. MHarrington 00:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 15 (Apr 12-18)

It's Cheatday, so how about cheatday? RickTommy 05:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems like you have decided that the limit is 11 weeks, as opposed to 10, which you have been reminded of repeatedly. But cheatday sounds like a good idea. StrongAwesome 12:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that'd be a good idea. MHarrington 07:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
It's a tad early after having just featured a sbemail (assuming best thing or geddup noise goes through above). Still, it is fitting for the day. Heimstern Läufer 08:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I guess cheatday would fit, even though it has been a shade recent for to do another SBEmail. MHarrington 18:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 16 (Apr 19-25)

How about either Pom Pilot or Corpy NT6? Or, since it's Earth Day, Pistols for Pandas? RickTommy 10:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

They both have sufficient text amounts, but not really enough appearances. And as for P4P, no comment. MHarrington 07:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the Corpy's not so bad (partly because of the gallery), but Pom Pilot does seem to me to be too short. P4P could be done, though I do kind of get the feeling we're doing too much recent stuff these days maybe. Heimstern Läufer 07:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
If we're going to talk about P4P, we should do the organization itself before we do the toon. MHarrington 18:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Since we're already doing the Corpy NT6, that and Pom Pilot are out. Pistols For Pandas (organization) certainly could work. As lateral move, we could also do bike thief. wbwolf (t | ed) 01:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 17 (Apr 26-May 2)

For this week, how about something "live"? I'm thinking the the SXSW Panel from March 14, 2005. Combine the intro with a summary of the script and it would work, I think. MHarrington 07:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Certainly would be good to something real-world. Yeah, I think that would work, from what I can see in the article. Maybe might be good to prepare the writeup a bit early so we can be sure it works (note: not saying right now. Just sometime as it gets closer.) Heimstern Läufer 07:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I am not disagreeing with that article at all; in fact, I think that it would be great to do something real-life, seeing as how we haven't in a while. But, perhaps out of my silliness and stupidity, I feel that The Couch should be featured for this specific week. StrongAwesome 18:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Good idea. The Couch. RickTommy (edits) 10:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
What about the couch? --Essence of Ghost Water 12:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Glad you asked. First off, it is a pretty decent article, but for what inspired me to nominate it would be Opti's post here. Call me stupid, but since Opti never recommended an article, and he doesn't come here often nowadays, The Couch is in his sig. StrongAwesome 19:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I think The Couch would be great to have on the front page for a while... Not only is it a well-written artical, it also makes the Main Page more appealing and comfy! (no, but seriously it is a great article) nova scotia 19:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
So what should be done for today? MHarrington 15:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The Couch would make an excellent FA; let's go with that. wbwolf (t | ed) 18:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I am soooo glad the couch got picked for this week! What a good choice! I only just remembered this edit of mine from 2008, and I couldn't have picked a better article myself! =] OptimisticFool 02:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

[edit] HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 18 (May 3-9)

Since it's been a while since our last set of dailies, how about Dangeresque characters, as MHarrington has previously suggested? Heimstern Läufer 07:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. But I have two other daily ideas:
  • Stuff in Old Flash Stuff (we can start off with Old Flash Stuff, then do six of the nine items in OFS. I'm wondering which three items will have to miss out; those three will probably need to be the three most important ones so they can have their own week.)
  • Main Pages (we can do six main Main Pages, then one of the secret ones. Sometime in the future, we will probably do three more MP dailies in this format. However, this means that one MP will get a week to itself; as Main Page 22 seems to be the most important Main Page, it will probably be the one.)
RickTommy 11:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Are you suggesting these ideas for this week or just sometime in the future? If the former, I really think the Dangeresque ones should take priority since they were suggested a while ago. Heimstern Läufer 11:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
If we're going to do the Dangeresque characters for a dailies set, how about this (as per what has been said repeatedly):
That seems a bit solid, don't you think? MHarrington 03:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but maybe with one of them replaced with The Stunt Double. RickTommy talk 08:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
No, I think it's pretty solid how it is right now. MHarrington 05:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I would really like to have Sultry Buttons included. She's an easily overlooked character because she's only in SBCG4AP (though she plays a critical role in it), and I think it's good for us to emphasize these lesser-known ones. And no, I don't think she should be substituted for Cutesy, as including them both (preferably consecutively, even) emphasizes the unclear relationship between the two. Heimstern Läufer 07:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
What if we fleetingly mentioned Sultry in Cutesy's article? MHarrington 05:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the list we have now is fine! But we should stick with the characters in the toons and the games.So I say no Sultry Buttons Rondleman! Stuff I did.Talk. 18:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
And I say otherwise. The very interest of Sultry Buttons is eliminated if she's but a footnote in Cutesy's bio. She deserves a full day on the main page. Heimstern Läufer 10:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Heinsterm Fauler. --Essence of Ghost Water 12:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
No way! I'd rather do the Stunt Double, as he's the Dangeresque series' raison d'etre. Anyway, can we move the dailies to next week, and do A Mother's Day Message instead, since it's Mother's Day? RickTommy (edits) 08:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Please, RickTommy, let's be nicer in how we discuss. It's true, though; we really do have an overabundance of Dangeresque characters. If only we could have a ten-day week at some point in which to do them all.
If we move this ahead a week, we'd be shoving Huudge or Sterrance off the list until later. Since there's no real consensus there, that could be done, but I'm not too sure we should. I also think we've been trying a little too hard of late to have seasonally themed FAs and that we could lighten up on that a bit. Heimstern Läufer 09:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
A Mother's Day Message would be a good idea, but Mother's Day is on the 9th, and that's the last day it would even be up. I want to go with Dangeresque, but the Mothers Day toon is a good idea too... nova scotia 19:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
First off: while celebrating Mother's day is not a bad idea, I think we're more invested in taking the Dangeresque route and since it's coming up soon, we should finalize preparations for those dailies. We can always feature A Mother's Day Message next week (even if it's a day late) or shelve it till next year since we only have one Mother's day toon to feature and we celebrate Mother's day every year.
Now, on to Dangeresque: I think the current proposed order is pretty good. However, given the importance of both Sultry Buttons and Cutesy Buttons, why not feature them both on the same day? It's the perfect place to lampshade the ambiguity between the two characters. Moreover, this could be moved to then end on Sunday as part of a "special daily double feature" :). The lineup would then be as follows:
What do you guys think? How does that look? --Stux 17:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I think we should put the Buttons characters on Thursday and push the other characters down by one day. And we should focus primarily on Cutesy, though we could fleetingly mention Sultry in the description. MHarrington 20:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Why do you so insist on a fleeting mention of Sultry? Are you listening to anyone else's ideas at all? Incidentally, though I hadn't thought of it until Stux mentioned it, the idea of simultaneous featured articles is not unprecedented: On the day of the 2008 US Presidential Election, Wikipedia featured both Barack Obama and John McCain (and even randomized the order so as not to give preference to one or the other). I think that'd be an interesting idea to pursue. Heimstern Läufer 23:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
That's a great idea, Heimstern. But again, what about the Stunt Double? RickTommy (edits) 02:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
The Stunt Double is indeed important to the origins of the Dangeresque franchise, but his article is a tad shorter than most. More important is the reason it's shorter: He's not really much of a character. Him showing up to get beaten up, smashed, even diamond'd is funny, but doesn't leave much character for him. That's why, unless we're able to extend this week by adding Whackday, Spleenday, Rootenskahootenday and Schnozday (which would actually be a fun idea), I would prefer to exclude the Stunt Double in favour of the others above. Heimstern Läufer 08:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
It seems like we have more than double the number of Dangeresque characters than we have days in the week. Would it be so crazy for completion's sake to do TWO weeks worth of these dailies, lumping together a few sets of characters to make them all fit into 14 days and shift all the suggestions for the following weeks down by one? — Defender1031*Talk 09:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
And now, I choose to recite a list:
  1. Dangeresque
  2. Dangeresque Too
  3. Renaldo
  4. Perducci
  5. Killingyouguy
  6. Cutesy Buttons
  7. Hot Tub and The Stunt Double
  8. Uzi Bazooka and Baron Darin Diamonocle
  9. Professor Experimento
  10. Sultry Buttons
  11. Szechuan Steve and Craig
  12. Dadgeresque and Kidnapping Victim
  13. The Informant
  14. The Monster
— Defender1031*Talk 10:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I think some are too short to merit an article appearance. And I think it's fine just to do a week of all the main characters. This is why I think Cutesy should be the main point of one article and Sultry could appear in Cutesy's article. Sultry only appeared in Dangeresque 3, whereas Cutesy appeared more often. This is why I've thought that Sultry should appear only fleetingly, if at all. I think we should still do the week idea I've thought of earlier. MHarrington 20:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I really like Heimstern's idea of extending the week with several fake days. But the "two whole weeks" idea is pretty good too. nova scotia 20:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, these ARE fake days... I figure we call the second sunday "twelvesday", monday "flinglesday", tuesday... alright seriously... MHarrington, I don't appreciate being summarily shot down. How about keeping an open mind to other people's ideas? Further, part of the point of doing dailies is to cover shorter articles that work as part of a group, but wouldn't merit a whole week to themselves. — Defender1031*Talk 20:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The Rootenskahootenday idea wasn't mine, incidentally. I got that from DorianGray, who I think told me he got it from some commercial or something. Given that it's not practical, though, I'm going to support Deffy's suggestion. I really think we have too many characters for a single week. MHarrington, I know you're convinced of giving Sultry but a fleeting mention, but I've already expressed my own disagreement, and I'm clearly not the only one who wants additional characters covered. I agree with Deffy that you should listen more to what others are interested in, as you seem single-mindedly focused on doing it how you want to. Some of the characters on the list are in fact too short, even for a daily feature, which is why we've suggested the doubleheader idea. I know, this is new, but if we never try new things, we'll never get any innovation. (Note: I may want to tweak the list a little, but I'm basically supportive of the idea.) Heimstern Läufer 23:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm really liking Deffy's two-week daily double-header idea. I hadn't realized Dangeresque's character ensemble was so rich and varied. Since we can't fit all the characters into one week, this would be the perfect way to showcase them :). A few things: even though I haven't played the game, Sultry's article has just as much content as Cutesy's and so it seems that they are of relatively equal importance; therefore, I'd certainly would like to see them featured separately. The feature order could be tweaked a little too: 'major' characters should be spread across the two weeks a little more. We don't want to clump all the minor characters to the end of the 2nd week. Other than that, I like it! It looks good! I'm geeked! :) Now to bed, tomorrow's another long work day :S Good night everybody! --Stux 03:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with what Stux said. If we went with two whole weeks, we would have to work out who should go where, since we don't want to crowd all the major characters on one said and the minor on the other. Plus, we'd be doing some things we've never done before, like having more than one article in one day. MHarrington 17:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
You do realize Stux said he's in support of the two weeks idea, right? Heimstern Läufer 23:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Outdenting to get back to talking about the list and suggest a tweak: I think both Uzi Bazooka and Diamonocle could sustain their own days, whereas I'm not so sure The Informant can. How about combining him with The Monster and giving Uzi and Diamonocle their own days? Heimstern Läufer 23:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Maybe we could do that. I think we should definitely show Diamonocle first, then Uzi. Actually, I just don't think we should be doing two whole weeks worth of characters, at least not all at once. It would probably get real old real fast for some people out there. MHarrington 06:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Stux and Heim. I pretty much threw that list together real quick to give a vague idea of how it could be done. I support any tweaks to it that will make it better. Squish it, (danger)skew it, turn it all around for all I care. — Defender1031*Talk 08:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
MHarrington, I do understand your concerns about it getting a little old, and I don't think we should do this often. But in this case, I think it's merited as a compromise between various people wanting certain characters featured and as a recognition that we've got lots to choose from, and it hardly seems fair to give some of them the shaft (and it's unlikely we'll ever feature any more Dangeresque characters after this, so for each one, it's now or never, pretty much). I do think we should probably not do this again, or if we do, not for a very long time. Heimstern Läufer 08:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh man, with 32 40 comments (not counting this one), this has turned out to be the second-longest discussion for a particular week in FA. RickTommy (edits) 00:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that that has to do with anything in this discussion. If anything, it shows that the wiki is getting more involved in things like this. Anydangway, my two cents. I think that The Informant And The Monster should come immediately after Hot Tub and The Stunt Double, Since they're all played by Double S. StrongAwesome 00:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
We need to organize the listing of characters. MHarrington 06:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I just started the list, but not finished it. Any help would be greatly appreciated. MHarrington 19:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Guys: splitting the suggestions up would be problematic. It would be best to arrive at a single list first then go with that list. We can use the links below to then write the articles. One thing's for sure, Dangeresque (character) will be featured first, but I'd like to balance things out a little bit among the two weeks. I will submit a formal list shortly. --Stux 01:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so here is my suggested order:
Click here to see. I tried to balance primary characters with minor characters and I also added the missing character from the {{Dangeresque}} template (The Chief). Also, I made a subsection of the list so that we just have one list and we move things around in-place (within reason) without having a plethora of lists. Suggestions for moves can continue on this thread. I'd say that the list should be finalized no later than tomorrow evening. Though the sooner, the better. We can start making writeups on a separate section within this thread or their target week templates since we can just move the text around. The text should only be moved when we're ready to publish though. --Stux 02:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

[edit] 2-week FAS order

  1. Dangeresque - this one is 99% set in stone
  2. Renaldo
  3. Killingyouguy
  4. Cutesy Buttons
  5. The Chief and Uzi Bazooka
  6. Perducci
  7. Hot Tub and The Stunt Double
  8. Dangeresque Too (to start off "week too")
  9. The Informant and The Monster
  10. Professor Experimento
  11. Sultry Buttons
  12. Szechuan Steve and Craig
  13. Dadgeresque and Kidnapping Victim
  14. Baron Darin Diamonocle
This seems about right to me. Renaldo second as the traditional sidekick (after all, Dangeresque Too didn't appear until the second installment in the franchise), then mix up some major and minor characters. Dangeresque Too to start Week Too is a nice touch, too. Heimstern Läufer 02:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
You forgot one character: Istanbul.
He's not really a character, though. It's just The Cheat letting you know we're in Istanbul. Heimstern Läufer 02:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and I would just like to point out that Dangeresque, Too is actually the first installment in the franchise. This Time, It's Not Dangeresque 1 is the second. RickTommy (edits) 02:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Sort of, but, as you know, he's talking about the order in which they were written and released, which is what's important. — It's dot com 05:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm currently working on the first week, but where there are two things in one day, I'm only doing one. Maybe someone else can help with the other one. MHarrington 06:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, all 14 days have some sort of articles. Please proofread and/or improve format as needed. Save for one change I may make (regarding S. Sad's ordering) there should be no more changes to ordering unless there's a pressing reason. We're almost good to go! Thanks MHarrington for writing the first few! They served as a great template since these are some of the first FAs (if not the first) I've written. --Stux 20:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Easy-to-use links to dailies

HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 18, day 1

For today, Dangeresque. MHarrington 19:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 18, day 2

For today, Dangeresque Too. MHarrington 19:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually I would like to push this further down.
HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 18, day 3

For today, Renaldo. MHarrington 19:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 18, day 4

Cutesy Buttons, just to cover the 4 main characters (in my opinion) first. StrongAwesome 19:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 18, day 5

Perducci. A few more main characters to round out. MHarrington 19:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 18, day 6

Killingyouguy. MHarrington 19:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

HRwiki:Featured article for 2010, week 18, day 0
HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 19, day 1
HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 19, day 2
HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 19, day 3
HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 19, day 4
HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 19, day 5
HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 19, day 6
HRwiki:Featured article for 2010, week 19, day 0

[edit] HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 19 (May 10-16)

How about a Limozeen character - Larry, perhaps? RickTommy 07:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's been, like, nine or ten weeks since the best thing email was articled, so I don't know. MHarrington 07:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I think waiting for a bit before featuring Larry would be for the best. Heimstern Läufer 04:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

How about Da Huuuuuudge? PowerFile:Homestar Kamikaze Green Favicon.pngPie

How about Sterrance instead? RickTommy (edits) 11:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Please discuss; don't just throw out ideas without discussing what others have already said. Heimstern Läufer 11:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Da Huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuudge is a better choice than Sterrance. --Essence of Ghost Water 12:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Umm, Sterrance is much more important, as he (?) has appeared in more than twice as many toons as Da Huuuuuuuudge has. RickTommy (edits) 08:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm down with Da Huuuuuudge, it's slightly off-beat which is cool and emphasizes TBC's weird humor. --Stux 18:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I think we should do Sterrance first before we do Da Huuuuuuuudge. We should do both soon, though. MHarrington 20:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Reasons why, everyone. So far, I've only seen reasons from RickTommy and Stux. This is not discussion; it's turning into the town meeting from unnatural. (And yes, I do think we should kill it.) Heimstern Läufer 23:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Sterrance, because it was the one SB claimed to have gotten right. And it appeared more often than Da Huuuuuuuudge. MHarrington 06:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Per the above discussion, this week's discussion has been shelved. Please continue regular discussion for the following weeks. Thanks!
Actually, let me take this opportunity to ask: what should we do for the following weeks? Simply skip the suggestions made for this week or push everything down 1 week? (Or maybe even push everything down until this point since no solid discussion has emerged that week? --Stux 01:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

[edit] HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 20 (May 17-23)

Five years since the first featured article! Maybe we should do something special to mark the occasion? RickTommy 07:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't really think of anything. MHarrington 05:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking maybe Index Page, the most imprtant page on the site (not really, but it's often the first page that one looks at on the site), or an early toon like Pom Pom Too, or one of the earliest articles to be suggested as a featured article: Schenactady Crispies, or, as has been mentioned a couple of times not long ago: homestarrunner.com. RickTommy (edits) 00:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know. MHarrington 18:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
So, the new main page did not appear until May 23, 2005 which was the first day of week 21 on 2005 (see ISO_week_date). I see that this year that date falls on Week 20 (after getting this wrong a couple of times). If it's that important, we can just re-feature Homestar Runner as a one-time retro-feauture with a short and subtle 1-line message saying that we've been doing 5 years of FAs. For some reason I feel it would be nice to do this on week 21 rather than week 20 (and match the week numbers). Otherwise, I think we should really treat this like any other FA week. Looking at the oft-ignored nominations page I see that we have never featured Parsnips A-Plenty and it might be due for a feature. --Stux 18:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I suggest Museum. It just seem fitting for 5 years, I guess it's the title. nova scotia 20:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Look before you leap. Museum has been featured already. StrongAwesome 21:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the anniversary of FAs is significant enough to merit an article celebrating it. Heimstern Läufer 23:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Maybe not, but still, can we do any of the ideas that either I or Stux suggested? RickTommy (edits) 11:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
In preparation of next week's FA and after going through the Nominations page I noticed something old that hasn't been featured yet: How about sisters? --Stux 01:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but it's too soon after we last featured an e-mail. RickTommy (edits) 05:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Ummm, it's nearly time, so we need more input. And my question above hasn't been answered. RickTommy (edits) 01:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
IT'S GOING TO BE SOON! CAN WE HAVE SOME MORE FEEDBACK?! RickTommy (edits) 10:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
That will quite enough panicking and shouting. Doje hapjok. OK. Here are my thoughts: I agree that it's too early to feature another email at this point, though sisters would be a good one for the future. Pom Pom, Too is a fascinating idea in one sense, but I think it may be too short for a decent writeup. I'm thinking going ahead with Parnsips A-Plenty could be our best plan at this point. Heimstern Läufer 11:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I have an idea: why don't we try for Sterrance, which was proposed last week before being bumped in favor of a list of Dangeresque characters? MHarrington 15:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I think Parsnips A-Plenty works for this week. As for Sterrance, why don't we just move him to the next week? There isn't really a discussion right below, so I think it would work. StrongAwesome 19:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
These two weeks flew by waaay too quickly! As for the FA, I've tentatively copied the Sterrance text but I'd rather see Parsnips since there isn't much content on the former article. However, I gotta sit down and watch it again before summarizing as it's been a while since I've seen it. I wanted to be sure we had something before the UTC changeover. --Stux 18:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Why don't we just go ahead with that for this week and shove Parsnips down to next week, where there's no result yet. Heimstern Läufer 23:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools