HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2011 Weeks 1-10

From Homestar Runner Wiki

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

---

Week	Article	Discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 1 (Jan 3–9)	Cheatball	discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 2 (Jan 10–16)	Trogday 08	discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 3 (Jan 17–23)	retirement	discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 4 (Jan 24–30)	Minor Teen Girl Squad Characters	discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 5 (Jan 31–Feb 6)	Sloshybowl	discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 6 (Feb 7–13)	The Brothers Strong	discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 7 (Feb 14–20)	Strong Bad and Strong Sad's Relationship	discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 8 (Feb 21–27)	Naked Homestar Runner	discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 9 (Feb 28–Mar 6)	Answering Machine	discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 10 (Mar 7–13)	sisters	discussion

Contents 1 Cheatball 2 Week of Trogday (Jan 10-16) 3 retirement 4 Minor Teen Girl Squad Characters 5 Sloshybowl 6 The Brothers Strong 7 Strong Bad and Strong Sad's Relationship 8 Naked Homestar Runner 9 Answering Machine 10 sisters

[edit] Cheatball

HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 1 (Jan 3–9)

How about something 20X6-related instead? Perhaps either Make-O Your Own Stinko or Stinkoman 20X6 (I know we're waiting until it's finished, but at the rate the site is going, I don't think it'll ever be finished)? RickTommy (edits) 12:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

How about discussion rather than just throwing out ideas while ignoring previous suggestions? Heimstern Läufer 12:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If we're going to do an interview or public appearance, how about a more notable one? I can't really think of one (I'm not really into that sort of stuff), and besides, I wholeheartedly believe that we should do something 20X6-related this week. RickTommy (edits) 12:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

RickTommy, that's the same thing you suggested for last week before it was deleted. So stop hogging the spotlight. --209.148.176.136 12:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What's more, Stinkoman 20X6 is still incomplete. And judging by how things are looking on the website now, I think it will always remain incomplete. MHarrington 02:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, I said almost those exact words. Yes, it doesn't look like it will ever be finished. So it's no use waiting for it to be finished before we can feature it. RickTommy (edits) 06:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

We could do Make-o Your Own Stinko... PowerPie

I'd prefer to wait a while before featuring this one; too early to give up hope. But Sinko-related articles are just as good! --Stux 21:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I sound pushy but I really really think Make-o Your Own Stinko should be featured. PowerPie 01:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Given the new recommendation format all you need to do is create a separate entry for Make-o Your Own Stinko so that it can be added to the queue. --Stux 15:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

How? PowerPie 01:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Easy just follow the format for the other sections and add a header for the article in the wikicode like so:

==[[Make-o Your Own Stinko]]==

followed by your explanation for it. --Stux 21:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

How about featuring it for Jan 3-9? Well, it looks like Jan 3-9 is reserved for Cheatball, whose write-up was moved in favour of Timeline of Homestar Runner. So what should we do about that? RickTommy (edits) 05:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, RickTommy, the format of FAs has changed and articles are no longer reserved by date unless there's a compelling reason for it. If you'd like a specific 20X6 article please suggest it the way all other articles are suggested. In moderation of course. --Stux 19:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

But Jan 3-9 is 20X6 week. RickTommy (edits) 22:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

To elaborate on the above, Stinkoman was created on this this week a few years back. PowerPie 19:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think everyone knows that. :) RickTommy (edits) 00:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually like the idea of doing this one for the Stinkoman's birthday. Poor guy never got any Stinkoman-shaped pancakes, but at least we can give him an FA, right? Heimstern Läufer 09:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, while populating the queue I discovered that the Cheatball was already postponed to this year. While the actual Stinkoman 20X6 article is in the queue (not set in stone yet of course), do we want to keep 20X6 and pre-empt the poor Cheatball again or do we want to postpone 20X6 instead? --Stux 20:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Since there were no comments either way I decided to keep the Cheatball and retain the hope that the game will be completed in the near future and not turn into a Duke Nukem Forever :) --Stux 16:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Week of Trogday (Jan 10-16)

HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 2 (Jan 10–16)

Trogday 08. RickTommy (edits) 05:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I see no need to specifically celebrate Trogday. --Stux 19:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, we always do. RickTommy (edits) 22:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"Always" is a strong word, but it certainly is a common practice. Trogday 08 is perfectly fine by me. Heimstern Läufer 09:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] retirement

HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 3 (Jan 17–23)

It's the longest toon on the site - I think it should be featured sometime soon. RickTommy (edits) 22:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It's the resolution of the Lappynapped Situation, and has the return of the Tandy and Compy. doctorwho295 29 November 2010

[edit] Minor Teen Girl Squad Characters

HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 4 (Jan 24–30)

No FA this week, redirect from 5 years ago. --Stux 21:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Sloshybowl

HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 5 (Jan 31–Feb 6)

We haven't featured a Superbowl-themed article yet, so how about either Superbowl Dealie or Sloshybowl? RickTommy (edits) 02:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, I like that idea. I'm for either of them: both are funny, both are just as related to the topic as the other, and both are popular. User:doctorwho295 18 December 2010

It appears that there's been a change to the current FA, using this article instead. I say: too late. Just because everyone is slacking off on FAS does not mean at all (at least to me) that we should switch articles in the middle of the week to compensate. I hate to be blunt, but if people wanted this to be the featured article for the week of the Superbowl, they should have participated and put this into the spotlight sooner, if not to overthrow the nomination for The Brothers Strong. The nomination for The Brothers Strong went through the exact same thing. My sincere apologies to Ni, whose edits I'm sure are hearty and in good faith (and possibly hesitant considering the "if that's okay" in the edit summary, though that might be modifying the move of TBS), but I'm afraid I'm not for this sudden change at all. —Soiled Bargains ^(talk|ctrb) 05:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Brothers Strong

HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 6 (Feb 7–13)

Another important article that I'm surprised hasn't been featured yet. RickTommy (edits) 23:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That hasn't been featured yet? Yes, it should be featured soon The Knights Who Say Ni 23:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. doctorwho295 26 December 2010

Me too. --93.207.85.97 13:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC) (That Anonny Guy)

Eh, if we must. After all, we really need to get rolling with these things again, and the people are getting restless. I guess 124.180.209.239 (Talk | contribs), the guy who made the edit I just linked to, made our decision for us. —Soiled Bargains ^(talk|ctrb) 00:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Strong Bad and Strong Sad's Relationship

HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 7 (Feb 14–20)

The most obvious relationship on the site, and one that I have audibly cried at. RickTommy (edits) 10:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

An interesting topic, but the intro is pretty short. Could we maybe expand it? Then it'd probably make a fine feature. Heimstern Läufer 17:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I expanded it some:

Strong Bad's relationship with Strong Sad usually consists of Strong Bad hurting or making fun of Strong Sad, though not all the time. He has given Strong Sad various insulting nicknames and often hurts him. However, Strong Sad and Strong Bad occasionally get along, usually when Strong Bad is in need of an assistant. It appears that Strong Bad is at least partly responsible for his little brother's depression; Strong Sad writes that in his big brother's absence, "[He feels] cooler, and less like [he sucks] so bad.".

PowerPie 01:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea. Maybe the trend of SS getting revenge on SB could be mentioned somewhere in there? --93.207.89.184 12:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC) (That Anonny Guy)

Looks featurable now. And yes, the trend of SS getting revenge on SB could be mentioned somewhere in there. RickTommy (edits) 06:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Since FAs seem to be in a bit of trouble currently, I was so bold to expand Power Pie's writeup a little. Consider this:

Strong Bad's relationship with Strong Sad usually consists of Strong Bad hurting or making fun of Strong Sad, though not all the time. He has given Strong Sad various insulting nicknames and often hurts him. However, Strong Sad and Strong Bad occasionally get along, usually when Strong Bad is in need of an assistant. It appears that Strong Bad is at least partly responsible for his little brother's depression; Strong Sad writes that in his big brother's absence, "[He feels] cooler, and less like [he sucks] so bad.". It does however happen that Strong Sad stands up to his tormentor. This includes revealing embarassing details about Strong Bad’s childhood or making him believe that staying in a deep, dark hole is "edgy". Most of the time though, their relationship is one of abuse pointed towards the younger brother, just as in many families in real life.

--93.207.85.69 18:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC) (That Anonny Guy)

This is definitely an article worthy of a feature. Significant to the site? Yes. Well-written intro? Yes. Pictures? Yes. Starts with a quote from an interview (like all good articles)? Yes. -- Super Martyo boing! 08:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Naked Homestar Runner

HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 8 (Feb 21–27)

A funny running gag. --93.207.85.97 13:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC) (That Anonny Guy)

Agreed. Not only that, but there's several instances of it, and it's quite unique to the Homestar universe. -- Super Martyo boing! 08:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Answering Machine

HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 9 (Feb 28–Mar 6)

An important item. RickTommy (edits) 10:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I like it, but it seems too short. I'll try to expand it as much as I can, but in it's current state I don't think it's good.... doctorwho295 17 August 2010

I agree with the above. PowerPie 01:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we've done this article already. MHarrington 16:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we have. It looks like we've done Marzipan's Answering Machine before, but Answering Machine doesn't appear in bold on the nominations page. The Knights Who Say Ni 17:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'll make the comment to go with RickTommy's move. I expanded the article some. It's now three paragraphs (wow, huge improvement!), and I also provided a lot more detail and cleaned up some awkward sentences and grammar errors. -- Super Martyo boing! 05:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Seeing your expansions, this article looks more proper and I support nomination. doctorwho295 10 February 2011

[edit] sisters

HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 10 (Mar 7–13)

Before I forget, I had previously suggested this one in the old format but was too soon to feature. I think it'd be a nice feature for the next time we do an email. --Stux 21:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's important enough for a week to itself... RickTommy (edits) 07:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not? I think it's a real classic and would make a good feature. (That Anonny Guy)--79.221.32.92 10:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It's too short. PowerPie 01:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Just because a 'toon is too short doesn't mean it can't be featured. On the contrary, this particular email had an impact on many future emails, and it's also become an oft-quoted 'toon. I agree with TAG. -- Super Martyo boing! 05:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No more opinions on this? I still think this should be featured. I know there has been a week of dailies featuring Tandy emails, but a single one can be worth featuring for a week IMHO. --93.207.85.97 13:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC) (That Anonny Guy)

I agree with featuring it. It's an important e-mail that was referenced in future e-mails and the page itself seems full of good information and seems complete. Jennifer 13:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I still say no. If we ever have another daily of Tandy e-mails, maybe it could be part of that, but I still do not think it is important enough for a week to itself. RickTommy (edits) 22:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It is definitely important enough for a week to itself. It's one of the classics, being quoted and referenced (as I said earlier) in later 'toons. It established the "DELETED!" screen as more than just a one-off gag. It fleshed out Strong Bad's character as the "player" who screws up any chance he gets with the ladies. The article itself is short, yes, but there's more than enough for a prose write-up. -- Super Martyo boing! 08:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with the above. The length of the article shouldn't conflict with anything else. If the article affects the site a lot, that it should be featured. I think Super Martyo Brother says all of the reasons. doctorwho295 25 February 2011