HRWiki talk:Featured articles - Revision history

Soiled Bargains: /* Laziness */ Reply; here to serve.

Soiled Bargains — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 03:16:57 GMT

Laziness: Reply; here to serve.

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:16, 27 January 2011
Line 87:		Line 87:

	Okay, I've been noticing a serious problem here lately. There seems to be no motive, no effort, and no initiative to write these things anymore. For the past month I've been coming on this wiki of ours and I see this very short, choppy featured article on the main page that doesn't even begin to touch the bottom of {{t\|whatsnew}}. What's the problem? Why are we accepting these short and completely inappropriately lengthed featured articles? <!--By the way, I'm not saying I have a problem with me doing it. I'm just saying something's really wrong here.--> {{User:MichaelXX2/sig}} 01:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)		Okay, I've been noticing a serious problem here lately. There seems to be no motive, no effort, and no initiative to write these things anymore. For the past month I've been coming on this wiki of ours and I see this very short, choppy featured article on the main page that doesn't even begin to touch the bottom of {{t\|whatsnew}}. What's the problem? Why are we accepting these short and completely inappropriately lengthed featured articles? <!--By the way, I'm not saying I have a problem with me doing it. I'm just saying something's really wrong here.--> {{User:MichaelXX2/sig}} 01:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
		+	:Well, I don't think a lot of us are that interested in being involved. Or it may be the simple problem of thinking of recommendations. I'll gladly volunteer since it appears we need more people helping out. {{User:Soiled Bargains/sig}} 03:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

MichaelXX2: /**/Laziness

MichaelXX2 — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 01:30:50 GMT

: Laziness

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:30, 27 January 2011
Line 83:		Line 83:
	==archived errors==		==archived errors==
	I discovered a slight error while looking through the archives trying to find out when a certain article was featured. is fixing this error frowned upon? {{User:The Knights Who Say Ni/sig}} 17:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)		I discovered a slight error while looking through the archives trying to find out when a certain article was featured. is fixing this error frowned upon? {{User:The Knights Who Say Ni/sig}} 17:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
		+
		+	== Laziness ==
		+
		+	Okay, I've been noticing a serious problem here lately. There seems to be no motive, no effort, and no initiative to write these things anymore. For the past month I've been coming on this wiki of ours and I see this very short, choppy featured article on the main page that doesn't even begin to touch the bottom of {{t\|whatsnew}}. What's the problem? Why are we accepting these short and completely inappropriately lengthed featured articles? <!--By the way, I'm not saying I have a problem with me doing it. I'm just saying something's really wrong here.--> {{User:MichaelXX2/sig}} 01:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The Knights Who Say Ni: it could be, since it's archived, but it might not be, since it's wrong.

The Knights Who Say Ni — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 17:14:59 GMT

it could be, since it's archived, but it might not be, since it's wrong.

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:14, 19 January 2011
Line 80:		Line 80:
	Why are we linking to the articles in the text if we already have the '''(more...)''' link? It's redundant. {{User:Thy Not Dennis/sig}} 10:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)		Why are we linking to the articles in the text if we already have the '''(more...)''' link? It's redundant. {{User:Thy Not Dennis/sig}} 10:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
	:Since it's for those browsing our main page, many of whom may be here for the first time, we like to have a link at either end, so they can either immediately navigate to the full text of the article or so they can conveniently do so at the end of the writeup. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 11:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)		:Since it's for those browsing our main page, many of whom may be here for the first time, we like to have a link at either end, so they can either immediately navigate to the full text of the article or so they can conveniently do so at the end of the writeup. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 11:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	==archived errors==
		+	I discovered a slight error while looking through the archives trying to find out when a certain article was featured. is fixing this error frowned upon? {{User:The Knights Who Say Ni/sig}} 17:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

RickTommy: Reverted edits by Gfdgsgxgzgdrc

RickTommy — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 01:26:52 GMT

Reverted edits by Gfdgsgxgzgdrc

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:26, 28 June 2010
Line 67:		Line 67:
	''Note: This discussion can be removed once it is done if it is declined.''		''Note: This discussion can be removed once it is done if it is declined.''
	:Does anybody think we should start a new archive? {{User:Sam the Man/sig}} 23:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)		:Does anybody think we should start a new archive? {{User:Sam the Man/sig}} 23:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
-	~~::mabey {{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}}~~

	==tis true?==		==tis true?==
Line 81:		Line 80:
	Why are we linking to the articles in the text if we already have the '''(more...)''' link? It's redundant. {{User:Thy Not Dennis/sig}} 10:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)		Why are we linking to the articles in the text if we already have the '''(more...)''' link? It's redundant. {{User:Thy Not Dennis/sig}} 10:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
	:Since it's for those browsing our main page, many of whom may be here for the first time, we like to have a link at either end, so they can either immediately navigate to the full text of the article or so they can conveniently do so at the end of the writeup. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 11:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)		:Since it's for those browsing our main page, many of whom may be here for the first time, we like to have a link at either end, so they can either immediately navigate to the full text of the article or so they can conveniently do so at the end of the writeup. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 11:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
-
-	~~== april fools!! ==~~
-
-	~~How bout next april-fools day we do a [[/april fools FA\|AF FA]]? if so, what would it be? {{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}}~~

Gfdgsgxgzgdrc: /* april fools!! */

Gfdgsgxgzgdrc — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 00:59:07 GMT

april fools!!

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:59, 28 June 2010
Line 84:		Line 84:
	== april fools!! ==		== april fools!! ==

-	How bout next april-fools day we do a [[/april fools FA\|AF FA]]? {{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}}	+	How bout next april-fools day we do a [[/april fools FA\|AF FA]]? if so, what would it be? {{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}}

Gfdgsgxgzgdrc: /**/april fools!!

Gfdgsgxgzgdrc — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 00:48:31 GMT

: april fools!!

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:48, 28 June 2010
Line 81:		Line 81:
	Why are we linking to the articles in the text if we already have the '''(more...)''' link? It's redundant. {{User:Thy Not Dennis/sig}} 10:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)		Why are we linking to the articles in the text if we already have the '''(more...)''' link? It's redundant. {{User:Thy Not Dennis/sig}} 10:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
	:Since it's for those browsing our main page, many of whom may be here for the first time, we like to have a link at either end, so they can either immediately navigate to the full text of the article or so they can conveniently do so at the end of the writeup. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 11:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)		:Since it's for those browsing our main page, many of whom may be here for the first time, we like to have a link at either end, so they can either immediately navigate to the full text of the article or so they can conveniently do so at the end of the writeup. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 11:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	== april fools!! ==
		+
		+	How bout next april-fools day we do a [[/april fools FA\|AF FA]]? {{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}}

Gfdgsgxgzgdrc: /* New Archive? */

Gfdgsgxgzgdrc — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 00:45:22 GMT

New Archive?

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:45, 28 June 2010
Line 67:		Line 67:
	''Note: This discussion can be removed once it is done if it is declined.''		''Note: This discussion can be removed once it is done if it is declined.''
	:Does anybody think we should start a new archive? {{User:Sam the Man/sig}} 23:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)		:Does anybody think we should start a new archive? {{User:Sam the Man/sig}} 23:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
		+	::mabey {{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}}

	==tis true?==		==tis true?==

Heimstern Läufer: /* Links in text */ reply for Thy Not Dennis

Heimstern Läufer — Wed, 20 May 2009 11:10:14 GMT

Links in text: reply for Thy Not Dennis

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:10, 20 May 2009
Line 79:		Line 79:

	Why are we linking to the articles in the text if we already have the '''(more...)''' link? It's redundant. {{User:Thy Not Dennis/sig}} 10:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)		Why are we linking to the articles in the text if we already have the '''(more...)''' link? It's redundant. {{User:Thy Not Dennis/sig}} 10:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
		+	:Since it's for those browsing our main page, many of whom may be here for the first time, we like to have a link at either end, so they can either immediately navigate to the full text of the article or so they can conveniently do so at the end of the writeup. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 11:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thy Not Dennis: /**/Links in text

Thy Not Dennis — Wed, 20 May 2009 10:29:19 GMT

: Links in text

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:29, 20 May 2009
Line 75:		Line 75:
	==Why hasn't the "articles" page been updated?==		==Why hasn't the "articles" page been updated?==
	Isn't the Featured Articles page usually updated by now? I thought it was decided for us to do [[Date Nite]] for this week. [[User:MHarrington\|MHarrington]] 04:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)		Isn't the Featured Articles page usually updated by now? I thought it was decided for us to do [[Date Nite]] for this week. [[User:MHarrington\|MHarrington]] 04:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	== Links in text ==
		+
		+	Why are we linking to the articles in the text if we already have the '''(more...)''' link? It's redundant. {{User:Thy Not Dennis/sig}} 10:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Bad Bad Guy: Talk:NIGGERSHIT 1 moved to HRWiki talk:Featured articles over redirect: undoing vandalism

Bad Bad Guy — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 02:32:33 GMT

Talk:NIGGERSHIT 1 moved to HRWiki talk:Featured articles over redirect: undoing vandalism

← Older revision

Revision as of 02:32, 23 February 2009