HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Stalled Discussions Archive 2 - Revision history

RickTommy: archived

2013-01-04T23:25:42Z

archived

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:25, 4 January 2013
Line 73:		Line 73:
	:It's too soon for this to be featured even if it is SB's first GUI-based computer with rotating wallpapers. — [[User:Ngamer01\|Ngamer01]] 15:43, 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. — [[User:Ngamer01\|Ngamer01]] 15:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
	::Agree with Ngamer. It's not developed enough. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 16:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)		::Agree with Ngamer. It's not developed enough. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 16:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
		+
		+	===[[Firebert]]===
		+	It's been a while since we've featured something Cheat Commandos-related. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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? — [[User:Ngamer01\|Ngamer01]] 16:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
		+	::What does Firebert have to do with 20X6 and Trogdor here? {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 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... — [[User:Ngamer01\|Ngamer01]] 18:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
		+	::::Plus, the last week of 2012 happens to be the week of Decemberween/Christmas. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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. — [[User:Ngamer01\|Ngamer01]] 13:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC) (UTC)
		+
		+	===[[Jibblies]]===
		+	An important running gag. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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." {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 17:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
		+
		+	===[[Horrible Painting]]===
		+	An important pseudo-character. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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? — [[User:Ngamer01\|Ngamer01]] 16:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
		+	::I also agree with saving this for halloween. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 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? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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). {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 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. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 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. — [[User:Ngamer01\|Ngamer01]] 13:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
		+	:::::::I also think it's better to save it for Halloween if at all possible. -[[Special:Contributions/174.63.109.210\|174.63.109.210]] 01:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
		+
		+	===[[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. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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. — [[User:Ngamer01\|Ngamer01]] 16:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
		+	::I agree with Ngamer. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 17:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
		+	:::Completely untrue. Just look at the intro of the article. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 08:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
		+	:::: The intro paraphrased: "This is a crossover." Nothing H*R specific here outside of trivia. — [[User:Ngamer01\|Ngamer01]] 13:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
		+
		+	===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. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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. — [[User:Ngamer01\|Ngamer01]] 13:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
		+
		+	===[[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. — [[User:Ngamer01\|Ngamer01]] 23:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
		+	:It's a rather short article, but I support. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 22:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
		+
		+	===[[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 [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Drafts#Make-O Your Own Stinko\|here]]. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 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. — [[User:Ngamer01\|Ngamer01]] 13:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
		+
		+	===[[Carol]]===
		+	An important item/pseudocharacter. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 13:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
		+	:Could be cute. I'd have to see a good writeup before i'm convinced. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 16:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
		+	::[[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Drafts#Carol\|Here's]] a good write-up. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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." {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 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. — [[User:Ngamer01\|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. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 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. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 15:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
		+
		+	===[[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]]. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 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. --[[User:Stux\|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. — [[User:Ngamer01\|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. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 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? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 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. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 12:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
		+
		+	===[[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. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 13:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
		+	::I agree with DeFender on both points. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 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. — [[User:Ngamer01\|Ngamer01]] 16:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
		+	::::I also agree that Snowglobe isn't worth featuring. (That Other Anonny Guy) [[Special:Contributions/121.219.232.190\|121.219.232.190]] 11:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Defender1031: rv, it wasn't unfairly archived. it sat around for months and no one even liked it enough to respond.

2012-11-02T02:26:48Z

rv, it wasn't unfairly archived. it sat around for months and no one even liked it enough to respond.

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:26, 2 November 2012
Line 27:		Line 27:
	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). {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 11:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)		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). {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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. {{User:The Knights Who Say Ni/sig}} 17:11, 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. {{User:The Knights Who Say Ni/sig}} 17:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
		+
		+	=== [[Meet Marshie]] ===
		+	We've featured [[Malloween Commercial]], so how about featuring the original? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 13:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

	===[[FAQ]]===		===[[FAQ]]===

RickTommy: yes, I do think it was too early to archive some of these; moving those that have sections in the other archive there

2012-11-02T02:18:05Z

yes, I do think it was too early to archive some of these; moving those that have sections in the other archive there

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:18, 2 November 2012
Line 3:		Line 3:
	==Stalled Discussions==		==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. ''		:''Discussions in this section regard articles that, due to lack of consensus or consensus against, are not ready to be featured at this time. ''
-
-	~~=== [[Visor Robot]] ===~~
-	~~''An important minor character. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 10:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)''~~
-	~~:''"Important" in what way? {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 10:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)''~~
-	~~::''[[User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/Draft\|I made a draft]] --{{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}} 01:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)''~~
-	:::Well, it's important in that the Wiki gave it that name and the Brothers Chaps decided to use the name themselves, as an [[The Brothers Chaps' Fansite Acknowledgements\|acknowledgement]]. And nice write-up, G-guy. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 10:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
-	~~::::Meh. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 11:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)~~

	=== [[The Brothers Chaps' Fansite Acknowledgements]] ===		=== [[The Brothers Chaps' Fansite Acknowledgements]] ===
Line 15:		Line 8:
	: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? {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 11:18, 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? {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 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. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 14:17, 30 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. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 14:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
-
-	~~=== [[Inconsistencies within the Homestar Runner universe]] ===~~
-	~~''An interesting topic. TBC stated that it doesn't bother them, so it it would be ok to feature. --[[Special:Contributions/93.207.85.97\|93.207.85.97]] 13:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC) (That Anonny Guy)''~~
-	~~:''Featuring an article that has an incomplete template on it? I think not. --{{User:Super Martyo Brother/sig}} 08:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)''~~
-	::''The thing is that this article will likely never be fully completed, considering that some of the inconsistencies at times can be very small. I completely support this article. [[User:doctorwho295\|doctorwho295]] 10 February 2011''
-	~~:::''I support to! {{User:Power Pie/sig}} 02:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)''~~
-	::::''Oh, I didn't notice the Incomplete Notice when I suggested it. I see how that would normally keep an article from being featured. But like doctorwho said, this is an article that will probably never be considered complete and I think it can be featured in the current state. I would however accept it if it is decided against it. --[[Special:Contributions/93.207.86.183\|93.207.86.183]] 10:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC) (That Anonny Guy)''
-	:::::''I'm with SMB. Featured articles should be examples of the fine work of the wiki. If it's incomplete, it's not really a good specimen of our work. And to those who say it'll never complete, I say that if so, it'll never be suitable for featuring. And some articles never are. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 11:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)''
-	::::::But [[Crimes Committed by Strong Bad]], [[Marzipan and Coach Z's Relationship]], and [[Bubs's Shady Business Practices]] have incomplete templates on them, and they got featured. Either way, this article not only has a long enough intro, but starts with not one, but ''two'' quotes. So I support it too. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 13:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
-	~~:::::::Those pages are somewhat more clear-cut than this one is though. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 16:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)~~
-	::::::::Here's why I think this article should not be featured: although all four articles have an "Incomplete Notice" that doesn't paint the full picture. The three articles listed above ([[Crimes Committed by Strong Bad]], [[Marzipan and Coach Z's Relationship]], and [[Bubs's Shady Business Practices]]) can be considered to be fairly objective lists. We actually can get authoritative sources (such as the laws of various states and the federal district for "crimes" and "shady business", and toon transcripts for the "relationship" article where Marzipan and Coach Z appear and interact) that make it clear what goes in each article leaving only a small amout of room for disagreements. If we wanted to, the HRWiki community could ensure that all toons have been covered and remove the tags. We haven't because this is a laborious process. While we believe we've probably caught most, if not all, instances of the topic in question in each article, we can't know with 100% certainty that we've covered everything. So to be safe that "incomplete" tag is there until we can know for sure (see [[Talk:The_Geddup_Noise#Gettup_Noise_Approved\|the geddup noise talk page]]).
-	::::::::On the other hand, the "inconsistencies" article is reasonably more subjective, there is no clear guide that defines what goes in the article (except perhaps {{pl\|l=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inconsistency webster's dictionary}}), and what's worse, even if there were an objective meter we'd have to check every action in every toon against ''all other actions in all other toons and material'' if we even want to consider this list to be complete! Like Heim said, "Featured articles should be examples of the fine work of the wiki" and it's hard to place "inconsistencies" in that category. While the article covers an interesting topic, the subjective and loosely defined nature of this work makes it somewhat speculative and even presumes that [[The Brothers Chaps]] are omniscient beings. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 15:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
-	:::::::::Thanks for the lengthy response. But I would just like to point out that no-one except myself has addressed the well-written intro, which I think should be the major factor here. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 23:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
-	::::::::::I'll address it. It's not a factor when weighed against all the other objections raised. It's got a great intro, and I personally happen to really like that page, but when compared to the other great lists on the wiki such as [[Bubs's Shady Business Practices]], [[Crimes Committed by Strong Bad]], and [[Coach Z's Problems]], it just doesn't doesn't live up. Aside from those other pages being itemized, organized, and categorized, the most important thing, even if the inconsistencies page were all those things, is the inherent inability to maintain reasonable objectivity when it comes to what counts. I'd go even further as to say that it's a bad example because TBC don't really try to maintain much consistency when it comes to most of the things that get put on that page. Locations of landmarks, ages and life status of characters, even some of their knowledge. Other things on that list are questionable, such as "Strong Sad tells Strong Bad he never heard of Limozeen, but they watched Limozeen: "but they're in space!" together in best thing." are just kind of like "okay, so if i watched some weird show i didn't care about once with my brother who hates me, i also wouldn't necessarily remember the name of the show or the characters." Yes, the intro is very well-worded and contains one quote from Matt and another from Strong Sad, but the list itself, which is the main information set being documented by the article, is not up to par. Remember, "featured '''articles'''" are not "featured intros", and having a good intro to a list is just not enough. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 17:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

	===[[Scroll Button Songs]]===		===[[Scroll Button Songs]]===
Line 81:		Line 60:
	:[[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Drafts#Doreauxgard\|Here's]] a write-up that G-man drafted. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 07:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)		:[[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Drafts#Doreauxgard\|Here's]] a write-up that G-man drafted. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 07:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
	::Important how? {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 11:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)		::Important how? {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 11:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
-
-	~~===[[The Cheat's Gold Tooth]]===~~
-	~~''How about featuring TC's tricked-out grill. -[[Special:Contributions/132.183.13.68\|132.183.13.68]] 18:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)''~~
-	~~:''Maybe. It's not that significant but it's long enough. {{User:Wasd98/sig}} 01:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)''~~
-	::''Unfortunately, I think this is one of those articles that should be expanded a little before featuring. (Alternatively, if a writeup is made that expands on the topic, it can also be placed in the queue that way). --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 21:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)''
-	~~:::I've drafted an adequate write-up. ([[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Drafts#The Cheat's Gold Tooth]]) {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 06:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)~~
-	~~::::The writeup is long enough, but i don't think the topic is really all that interesting to feature. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 18:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)~~

	===[[your friends]]===		===[[your friends]]===

RickTommy: this one was unfairly archived

2012-11-02T02:06:25Z

this one was unfairly archived

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:06, 2 November 2012
Line 48:		Line 48:
	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). {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 11:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)		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). {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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. {{User:The Knights Who Say Ni/sig}} 17:11, 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. {{User:The Knights Who Say Ni/sig}} 17:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
-
-	~~=== [[Meet Marshie]] ===~~
-	~~We've featured [[Malloween Commercial]], so how about featuring the original? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 13:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)~~

	===[[FAQ]]===		===[[FAQ]]===

Ngamer01: The FAS page is getting to be very large, so archiving earlier stalled items. Forgive me if I wasn't supposed to archive some items just yet (ie too soon to archive 'em).

2012-11-01T16:43:09Z

The FAS page is getting to be very large, so archiving earlier stalled items. Forgive me if I wasn't supposed to archive some items just yet (ie too soon to archive 'em).

New page

{{Template:FAS Archive}}

==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. ''

=== [[Visor Robot]] ===
''An important minor character. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 10:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)''
:''"Important" in what way? {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 10:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)''
::''[[User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/Draft|I made a draft]] --{{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}} 01:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)''
:::Well, it's important in that the Wiki gave it that name and the Brothers Chaps decided to use the name themselves, as an [[The Brothers Chaps' Fansite Acknowledgements|acknowledgement]]. And nice write-up, G-guy. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 10:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
::::Meh. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 11:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

=== [[The Brothers Chaps' Fansite Acknowledgements]] ===
I mean, don't you just like it when the Brothers Chaps acknowledge this Wiki? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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? {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 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. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 14:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

=== [[Inconsistencies within the Homestar Runner universe]] ===
''An interesting topic. TBC stated that it doesn't bother them, so it it would be ok to feature. --[[Special:Contributions/93.207.85.97|93.207.85.97]] 13:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC) (That Anonny Guy)''
:''Featuring an article that has an incomplete template on it? I think not. --{{User:Super Martyo Brother/sig}} 08:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)''
::''The thing is that this article will likely never be fully completed, considering that some of the inconsistencies at times can be very small. I completely support this article. [[User:doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 10 February 2011''
:::''I support to! {{User:Power Pie/sig}} 02:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)''
::::''Oh, I didn't notice the Incomplete Notice when I suggested it. I see how that would normally keep an article from being featured. But like doctorwho said, this is an article that will probably never be considered complete and I think it can be featured in the current state. I would however accept it if it is decided against it. --[[Special:Contributions/93.207.86.183|93.207.86.183]] 10:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC) (That Anonny Guy)''
:::::''I'm with SMB. Featured articles should be examples of the fine work of the wiki. If it's incomplete, it's not really a good specimen of our work. And to those who say it'll never complete, I say that if so, it'll never be suitable for featuring. And some articles never are. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 11:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)''
::::::But [[Crimes Committed by Strong Bad]], [[Marzipan and Coach Z's Relationship]], and [[Bubs's Shady Business Practices]] have incomplete templates on them, and they got featured. Either way, this article not only has a long enough intro, but starts with not one, but ''two'' quotes. So I support it too. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 13:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Those pages are somewhat more clear-cut than this one is though. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 16:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Here's why I think this article should not be featured: although all four articles have an "Incomplete Notice" that doesn't paint the full picture. The three articles listed above ([[Crimes Committed by Strong Bad]], [[Marzipan and Coach Z's Relationship]], and [[Bubs's Shady Business Practices]]) can be considered to be fairly objective lists. We actually can get authoritative sources (such as the laws of various states and the federal district for "crimes" and "shady business", and toon transcripts for the "relationship" article where Marzipan and Coach Z appear and interact) that make it clear what goes in each article leaving only a small amout of room for disagreements. If we wanted to, the HRWiki community could ensure that all toons have been covered and remove the tags. We haven't because this is a laborious process. While we believe we've probably caught most, if not all, instances of the topic in question in each article, we can't know with 100% certainty that we've covered everything. So to be safe that "incomplete" tag is there until we can know for sure (see [[Talk:The_Geddup_Noise#Gettup_Noise_Approved|the geddup noise talk page]]).
::::::::On the other hand, the "inconsistencies" article is reasonably more subjective, there is no clear guide that defines what goes in the article (except perhaps {{pl|l=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inconsistency webster's dictionary}}), and what's worse, even if there were an objective meter we'd have to check every action in every toon against ''all other actions in all other toons and material'' if we even want to consider this list to be complete! Like Heim said, "Featured articles should be examples of the fine work of the wiki" and it's hard to place "inconsistencies" in that category. While the article covers an interesting topic, the subjective and loosely defined nature of this work makes it somewhat speculative and even presumes that [[The Brothers Chaps]] are omniscient beings. --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 15:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Thanks for the lengthy response. But I would just like to point out that no-one except myself has addressed the well-written intro, which I think should be the major factor here. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 23:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::I'll address it. It's not a factor when weighed against all the other objections raised. It's got a great intro, and I personally happen to really like that page, but when compared to the other great lists on the wiki such as [[Bubs's Shady Business Practices]], [[Crimes Committed by Strong Bad]], and [[Coach Z's Problems]], it just doesn't doesn't live up. Aside from those other pages being itemized, organized, and categorized, the most important thing, even if the inconsistencies page were all those things, is the inherent inability to maintain reasonable objectivity when it comes to what counts. I'd go even further as to say that it's a bad example because TBC don't really try to maintain much consistency when it comes to most of the things that get put on that page. Locations of landmarks, ages and life status of characters, even some of their knowledge. Other things on that list are questionable, such as "Strong Sad tells Strong Bad he never heard of Limozeen, but they watched Limozeen: "but they're in space!" together in best thing." are just kind of like "okay, so if i watched some weird show i didn't care about once with my brother who hates me, i also wouldn't necessarily remember the name of the show or the characters." Yes, the intro is very well-worded and contains one quote from Matt and another from Strong Sad, but the list itself, which is the main information set being documented by the article, is not up to par. Remember, "featured '''articles'''" are not "featured intros", and having a good intro to a list is just not enough. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 17:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

===[[Scroll Button Songs]]===
Surprised it was never featured. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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. --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 14:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
::EC'd: I agree with stux. I'm not convinced there's enough to write up. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 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. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 14:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

===[[homestarrunner.com]]===
It's been nominated several times before. That is all. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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? {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 11:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

===[[Nicknames]]===
Another frequently edited article. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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. — [[User:Ngamer01|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". {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 17:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

=== [[Strong Bad Email]]s (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). {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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. {{User:The Knights Who Say Ni/sig}} 17:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

=== [[Meet Marshie]] ===
We've featured [[Malloween Commercial]], so how about featuring the original? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 13:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

===[[FAQ]]===
An important page on the site. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 03:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
::I think we'll be able to do an introduction of this. I support nomination. [[User:doctorwho295|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. --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 13:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
:I made a big draft of the FA. [[User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/Draft|Click hear!]] --{{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}} 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. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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. — [[User:Ngamer01|Ngamer01]] 18:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
::::I agree with ngamer. Really not very interesting. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 11:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

===[[Legal]]===
An important page, since it can be accessed from the Navbar. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 09:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
:I don't think this has enough content to feature. --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 14:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
::Correction: The wiki page has too much content to feature. [[User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/Draft|Here is proof!]] --{{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}} 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 — [[User:Ngamer01|Ngamer01]] 13:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
::::Okay, I've done so. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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. — [[User:Ngamer01|Ngamer01]] 14:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
::::::I agree with NGamer, the [[HRWiki:Featured_Article_Selection/Drafts#Legal|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. --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 14:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Correction: it had 90% of the page content before it was shortened. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 11:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

=== [[The Announcer]] ===
An important minor character. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 03:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
:Yes he is important. I scribbled down a draft [[User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/Draft|here]]. --{{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}} 01:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
::That draft is the entire article, and it's got grammatical errors and NPOV issues to boot. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 18:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
:::You mean the entire intro of the article, and what are the errors and issues, exactly? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 11:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

=== [[Doreauxgard]] ===
Another important pseudo-character. (Man, I hate sounding repetitive.) {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 06:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
:[[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Drafts#Doreauxgard|Here's]] a write-up that G-man drafted. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 07:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
::Important how? {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 11:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

===[[The Cheat's Gold Tooth]]===
''How about featuring TC's tricked-out grill. -[[Special:Contributions/132.183.13.68|132.183.13.68]] 18:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)''
:''Maybe. It's not that significant but it's long enough. {{User:Wasd98/sig}} 01:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)''
::''Unfortunately, I think this is one of those articles that should be expanded a little before featuring. (Alternatively, if a writeup is made that expands on the topic, it can also be placed in the queue that way). --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 21:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)''
:::I've drafted an adequate write-up. ([[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Drafts#The Cheat's Gold Tooth]]) {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 06:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
::::The writeup is long enough, but i don't think the topic is really all that interesting to feature. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 18:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

===[[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? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 13:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
:I don't see any reason to stick to a pattern which has no basis aside from happenstance. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 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. — [[User:Ngamer01|Ngamer01]] 15:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

===[[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. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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. — [[User:Ngamer01|Ngamer01]] 15:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
::Agree with Ngamer. It's not developed enough. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 16:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)