Talk:Sbemailiarized Entertainment - Revision history

It's dot com: /* Featured Article? REALLY?!? */ yes, really

2010-04-11T16:46:30Z

Featured Article? REALLY?!?: yes, really

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:46, 11 April 2010
Line 12:		Line 12:
	::It's not very well written. It's only 4 sentences long and I had to read it over several times to understand what it's trying to say. It seems to me that half of it (2 sentences......) is explaining what a [[sbemail]] is. -{{User:Opus the Penguin/sig}} 20:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)		::It's not very well written. It's only 4 sentences long and I had to read it over several times to understand what it's trying to say. It seems to me that half of it (2 sentences......) is explaining what a [[sbemail]] is. -{{User:Opus the Penguin/sig}} 20:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
	:::I agree and disagree with you at the same time, Opus. On one hand, I think that the article is written perfectly fine, though perhaps it could be expanded a little. On the other hand, the '''''ENTIRE''''' article fits in the featured article box. I feel that it's a little short to be featured, but that's because not many people try to [[HRWiki:Featured_Article_Selection\|help select them]] these days. There's about four of the same people who discuss it, and usually there's no clear consensus when the feature is written. If you feel that this article isn't worth featuring, Opus, (as do I), maybe you should suggest what you would like featured. I'm not trying to put the blame on you at all, it's just that the wiki as a whole doesn't have many people who select the featured articles. I feel that there should be more who want to get involved, write a letter to your local Homestarman, or throw a trash can through a plate glass window! ''{singing}'' And that's how I become featured! {{User:StrongAwesome74/sig}} 22:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)		:::I agree and disagree with you at the same time, Opus. On one hand, I think that the article is written perfectly fine, though perhaps it could be expanded a little. On the other hand, the '''''ENTIRE''''' article fits in the featured article box. I feel that it's a little short to be featured, but that's because not many people try to [[HRWiki:Featured_Article_Selection\|help select them]] these days. There's about four of the same people who discuss it, and usually there's no clear consensus when the feature is written. If you feel that this article isn't worth featuring, Opus, (as do I), maybe you should suggest what you would like featured. I'm not trying to put the blame on you at all, it's just that the wiki as a whole doesn't have many people who select the featured articles. I feel that there should be more who want to get involved, write a letter to your local Homestarman, or throw a trash can through a plate glass window! ''{singing}'' And that's how I become featured! {{User:StrongAwesome74/sig}} 22:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
		+	::::It was featured to coincide with April Fools' Day. I remember thinking at the time (and I still think) that it was appropriate, despite how short the article is. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 16:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Strong Awesome: /* Featured Article? REALLY?!? */ My 2 cents.

2010-03-31T22:47:05Z

Featured Article? REALLY?!?: My 2 cents.

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:47, 31 March 2010
Line 11:		Line 11:
	:We also might just think it's cool. --[[User:DorianGray\|DorianGray]] 20:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)		:We also might just think it's cool. --[[User:DorianGray\|DorianGray]] 20:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
	::It's not very well written. It's only 4 sentences long and I had to read it over several times to understand what it's trying to say. It seems to me that half of it (2 sentences......) is explaining what a [[sbemail]] is. -{{User:Opus the Penguin/sig}} 20:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)		::It's not very well written. It's only 4 sentences long and I had to read it over several times to understand what it's trying to say. It seems to me that half of it (2 sentences......) is explaining what a [[sbemail]] is. -{{User:Opus the Penguin/sig}} 20:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
		+	:::I agree and disagree with you at the same time, Opus. On one hand, I think that the article is written perfectly fine, though perhaps it could be expanded a little. On the other hand, the '''''ENTIRE''''' article fits in the featured article box. I feel that it's a little short to be featured, but that's because not many people try to [[HRWiki:Featured_Article_Selection\|help select them]] these days. There's about four of the same people who discuss it, and usually there's no clear consensus when the feature is written. If you feel that this article isn't worth featuring, Opus, (as do I), maybe you should suggest what you would like featured. I'm not trying to put the blame on you at all, it's just that the wiki as a whole doesn't have many people who select the featured articles. I feel that there should be more who want to get involved, write a letter to your local Homestarman, or throw a trash can through a plate glass window! ''{singing}'' And that's how I become featured! {{User:StrongAwesome74/sig}} 22:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Opus the Penguin: I must disagree.

2010-03-31T20:51:50Z

I must disagree.

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:51, 31 March 2010
Line 10:		Line 10:
	This isn't the type of article I picture as a Featured Article. Are we simply running out of pages to nominate? -{{User:Opus the Penguin/sig}} 20:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)		This isn't the type of article I picture as a Featured Article. Are we simply running out of pages to nominate? -{{User:Opus the Penguin/sig}} 20:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
	:We also might just think it's cool. --[[User:DorianGray\|DorianGray]] 20:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)		:We also might just think it's cool. --[[User:DorianGray\|DorianGray]] 20:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
		+	::It's not very well written. It's only 4 sentences long and I had to read it over several times to understand what it's trying to say. It seems to me that half of it (2 sentences......) is explaining what a [[sbemail]] is. -{{User:Opus the Penguin/sig}} 20:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

DorianGray: /* Featured Article? REALLY?!? */ Reply

2010-03-31T20:43:04Z

Opus the Penguin: Why is this a featured article?

2010-03-31T20:38:23Z

Why is this a featured article?

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:38, 31 March 2010
Line 6:		Line 6:
	:When you look at the other instances, the Esquire double mean is the joke. Thus you just explained the joke. No, it won't be changed. {{User:Wbwolf/sig}} 15:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)		:When you look at the other instances, the Esquire double mean is the joke. Thus you just explained the joke. No, it won't be changed. {{User:Wbwolf/sig}} 15:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
	::The article doesn't explain the joke at all, though, it's just confusing. My interpretation of the joke is as follows: the first time, the logo reads Esq., you assume it's the title of social status, and the second time when it says GQ, you realize that Esq. could have also stood for the magazine - even though that abbreviation is typically only used to refer to the title. Regardless, this whole article strikes me as completely unnecessary, since Sbemailiarization has only occurred in two very closely related toons released a day apart. --[[User:Tim Tom\|Tim Tom]]		::The article doesn't explain the joke at all, though, it's just confusing. My interpretation of the joke is as follows: the first time, the logo reads Esq., you assume it's the title of social status, and the second time when it says GQ, you realize that Esq. could have also stood for the magazine - even though that abbreviation is typically only used to refer to the title. Regardless, this whole article strikes me as completely unnecessary, since Sbemailiarization has only occurred in two very closely related toons released a day apart. --[[User:Tim Tom\|Tim Tom]]
		+
		+	==Featured Article? REALLY?!?==
		+	This isn't the type of article I picture as a Featured Article. Are we simply running out of pages to nominate? -{{User:Opus the Penguin/sig}} 20:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

67.252.106.217 at 03:12, 30 March 2010

2010-03-30T03:12:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:12, 30 March 2010
Line 5:		Line 5:
	Should the info be changed? --[[User:OX\|OX]] 15:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)		Should the info be changed? --[[User:OX\|OX]] 15:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
	:When you look at the other instances, the Esquire double mean is the joke. Thus you just explained the joke. No, it won't be changed. {{User:Wbwolf/sig}} 15:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)		:When you look at the other instances, the Esquire double mean is the joke. Thus you just explained the joke. No, it won't be changed. {{User:Wbwolf/sig}} 15:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
		+	::The article doesn't explain the joke at all, though, it's just confusing. My interpretation of the joke is as follows: the first time, the logo reads Esq., you assume it's the title of social status, and the second time when it says GQ, you realize that Esq. could have also stood for the magazine - even though that abbreviation is typically only used to refer to the title. Regardless, this whole article strikes me as completely unnecessary, since Sbemailiarization has only occurred in two very closely related toons released a day apart. --[[User:Tim Tom\|Tim Tom]]

Wbwolf: That's the joke, son!

2010-03-29T15:58:07Z

That's the joke, son!

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:58, 29 March 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{featuredarticle}}		{{featuredarticle}}
	==Bill S. Preston Esq.==		==Bill S. Preston Esq.==
-	The "Esq." is not in reference to the men's magazine of the same name but rather the [~~http~~:~~//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/~~Esquire name suffix].	+	The "Esq." is not in reference to the men's magazine of the same name but rather the [[Wikipedia:Esquire\|name suffix]].

	Should the info be changed? --[[User:OX\|OX]] 15:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)		Should the info be changed? --[[User:OX\|OX]] 15:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
		+	:When you look at the other instances, the Esquire double mean is the joke. Thus you just explained the joke. No, it won't be changed. {{User:Wbwolf/sig}} 15:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

OX at 15:18, 29 March 2010

2010-03-29T15:18:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:18, 29 March 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{featuredarticle}}		{{featuredarticle}}
		+	==Bill S. Preston Esq.==
		+	The "Esq." is not in reference to the men's magazine of the same name but rather the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esquire name suffix].
		+
		+	Should the info be changed? --[[User:OX\|OX]] 15:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That'sBupkis: Featured Article

2010-03-29T00:49:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:43, 31 March 2010
Line 9:		Line 9:
	==Featured Article? REALLY?!?==		==Featured Article? REALLY?!?==
	This isn't the type of article I picture as a Featured Article. Are we simply running out of pages to nominate? -{{User:Opus the Penguin/sig}} 20:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)		This isn't the type of article I picture as a Featured Article. Are we simply running out of pages to nominate? -{{User:Opus the Penguin/sig}} 20:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
		+	:We also might just think it's cool. --[[User:DorianGray\|DorianGray]] 20:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)