HRWiki:Featured Article Selection

From Homestar Runner Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(→HRWiki:Featured article for 2008, week 47 (Nov 17-23))
(autoreplace: A Death-Defying Decemberween → A Death Defying Decemberween)
 
(includes 1940 intermediate revisions)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
<div style="background-color: #CCFFCC; border: 1px solid #009900; margin: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em; text-align:center">
 +
'''[[HRWiki:Featured article nominations|Nominations]] for [[HRWiki:featured articles|Featured article]] selection are closed.  This is an archive. Please do not add discussion here.'''
 +
</div>
{{shortcut|FAS||[[FAS]]}}
{{shortcut|FAS||[[FAS]]}}
-
Welcome to '''[[HRWiki:Featured articles|featured article]] selection'''. Please help us choose and create write-ups for our best, most interesting, or otherwise noteworthy articles to appear on the [[main page]]. For ideas, check out the [[HRWiki:Featured article nominations|featured article nominations]].
+
 
 +
[[Category:HRWiki History|{{PAGENAME}}]]
 +
 
 +
Welcome to '''[[HRWiki:Featured articles|featured article]] selection'''. Please help us choose and create write-ups for our best, most interesting, or otherwise noteworthy articles to appear on the [[main page]]. For ideas, check out the [[HRWiki:Featured Article Nominations|featured article nominations]]. For drafts, see [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Drafts|this page]].  
==Checklist==
==Checklist==
-
{{talkchecklist|Checklist for new Featured Article:|noeditsection=true}}
+
{{talkchecklist|Checklist for new Featured Article:|noeditsection=true|inactive=true}}
*Make sure the article is proof-read up to a high standard.
*Make sure the article is proof-read up to a high standard.
*At 0000 [[Wikipedia:Coordinated Universal Time|UTC]] Monday, [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=purge purge the main page cache].
*At 0000 [[Wikipedia:Coordinated Universal Time|UTC]] Monday, [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=purge purge the main page cache].
-
*[[HRWiki:Protected page|Protect]] and add {{[[Template:mprotected|mprotected]]}} to the new image; Unprotect and remove {{[[Template:mprotected|mprotected]]}} from old image.
+
*[[HRWiki:Protected page|Protect]] and add {{[[Template:mprotected|mprotected]]}} to the new image; unprotect and remove {{[[Template:mprotected|mprotected]]}} from old image.
-
*Semi-protect the live FA write-up; Unprotect the old FA write-up.
+
*Semi-protect the live FA write-up; unprotect the old FA write-up.
*Add {{[[Template:featuredarticle|featuredarticle]]}} to FA's talk page.
*Add {{[[Template:featuredarticle|featuredarticle]]}} to FA's talk page.
-
*Update [[HRWiki:Featured article nominations]] with descriptive edit summary &mdash; see [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=HRWiki:Featured_article_nominations&action=history history].
+
*Update [[HRWiki:Featured Article Nominations]] with descriptive edit summary &mdash; see [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=HRWiki:Featured_Article_Nominations&action=history history].
*Update [[HRWiki:Featured articles]] with descriptive edit summary &mdash; see [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=HRWiki:Featured_articles&action=history history].
*Update [[HRWiki:Featured articles]] with descriptive edit summary &mdash; see [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=HRWiki:Featured_articles&action=history history].
-
|}<br/>
+
|}<br/>  
==Discussion archives==
==Discussion archives==
-
<center>[[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/General Discussion|Other Discussion]] | [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2005 Weeks 26-29|2005, Weeks 26-29]] | [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2005 Weeks 30-39|2005, Weeks 30-39]] | [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2005 Weeks 40-49|2005, Weeks 40-52]]
+
<center>
 +
{| {{standardtable}}
 +
! Year !! Weeks 1-10 !! Weeks 11-20 !! Weeks 21-30 !! Weeks 31-40 !! Weeks 41-52
 +
|-
 +
| 2005
 +
|
 +
|
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2005 Weeks 26-29|2005, Weeks 26-29]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2005 Weeks 30-39|2005, Weeks 30-39]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2005 Weeks 40-49|2005, Weeks 40-52]]
 +
|-
 +
| 2006
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2006 Weeks 1-10 |2006, Weeks 1-10]] 
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2006 Weeks 11-20|2006, Weeks 11-20]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2006 Weeks 21-30|2006, Weeks 21-30]]  
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2006 Weeks 31-40|2006, Weeks 31-40]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2006 Weeks 41-52|2006, Weeks 41-52]]
 +
|-
 +
| 2007
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2007 Weeks 1-10 |2007, Weeks 1-10]] 
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2007 Weeks 11-20|2007, Weeks 11-20]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2007 Weeks 21-30|2007, Weeks 21-30]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2007 Weeks 31-40|2007, Weeks 31-40]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2007 Weeks 41-52|2007, Weeks 41-52]]  
 +
|-
 +
| 2008
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2008 Weeks 1-10 |2008, Weeks 1-10]] 
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2008 Weeks 11-20|2008, Weeks 11-20]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2008 Weeks 21-30|2008, Weeks 21-30]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2008 Weeks 31-40|2008, Weeks 31-40]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2008 Weeks 41-52|2008, Weeks 41-52]]
 +
|-
 +
| 2009
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2009 Weeks 1-10 |2009, Weeks 1-10]] 
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2009 Weeks 11-20|2009, Weeks 11-20]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2009 Weeks 21-30|2009, Weeks 21-30]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2009 Weeks 31-40|2009, Weeks 31-40]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2009 Weeks 41-53|2009, Weeks 41-53]]
 +
|-
 +
| 2010
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2010 Weeks 1-10 |2010, Weeks 1-10]] 
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2010 Weeks 11-20|2010, Weeks 11-20]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2010 Weeks 21-30|2010, Weeks 21-30]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2010 Weeks 31-40|2010, Weeks 31-40]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2010 Weeks 41-52|2010, Weeks 41-52]]
 +
|-
 +
| 2011
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2011 Weeks 1-10 |2011, Weeks 1-10]] 
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2011 Weeks 11-20|2011, Weeks 11-20]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2011 Weeks 21-30|2011, Weeks 21-30]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2011 Weeks 31-40|2011, Weeks 31-40]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2011 Weeks 41-52|2011, Weeks 41-52]]
 +
|-
 +
| 2012
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2012 Weeks 1-10 |2012, Weeks 1-10]] 
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2012 Weeks 11-20|2012, Weeks 11-20]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2012 Weeks 21-30|2012, Weeks 21-30]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2012 Weeks 31-40|2012, Weeks 31-40]]
 +
| [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2012 Weeks 41-52|2012, Weeks 41-52]]
 +
|}
-
[[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2006 Weeks 1-10|2006, Weeks 1-10]] | [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2006 Weeks 11-20|2006, Weeks 11-20]] | [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2006 Weeks 21-30|2006, Weeks 21-30]] | [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2006 Weeks 31-40|2006, Weeks 31-40]] | [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2006 Weeks 41-52|2006, Weeks 41-52]]
 
-
[[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2007 Weeks 1-10|2007, Weeks 1-10]] | [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2007 Weeks 11-20|2007, Weeks 11-20]] | [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2007 Weeks 21-30|2007, Weeks 21-30]] | [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2007 Weeks 31-40|2007, Weeks 31-40]] | [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2007 Weeks 41-52|2007, Weeks 41-52]]
+
[[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/General Discussion|Other Discussion]] |
-
 
+
[[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Stalled Discussions Archive 1|Stalled Discussions Archive 1]] |
-
[[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2008 Weeks 1-10|2008, Weeks 1-10]] | [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2008 Weeks 11-20|2008, Weeks 11-20]] |
+
[[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Stalled Discussions Archive 2|Stalled Discussions Archive 2]]
-
[[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2008 Weeks 21-30|2008, Weeks 21-30]] | [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2008 Weeks 31-40|2008, Weeks 31-40]]  
+
</center>
</center>
-
==Article discussions==
+
==Featured Article Queue==
-
=== [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2008, week 40]] (Sep 29-Oct 5) ===
+
{| {{standardtable}}
-
I think we sorely need to do something related to [[Puppet Stuff]]. How about [[Everybody Knows It]]? [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 07:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
+
! Week !! Article !! Discussion
-
:[[Everybody Knows It]] is a bit on the short side. I'm not sure if a writeup would be long enough or not. If not, I still think featuring something Puppet-related is a good idea. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 23:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
+
{{FA queue| 3 Dec 2012 |2-Part Episode: Part 1}}
-
::Well, then how about the [[Biz Cas Fri]] series? [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 01:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
+
{{FA queue|10 Dec 2012 |2-Part Episode: Part 2}}
-
:::Incidentally, because many of the Puppet Stuffs are short, it might be worth considering a week of Puppet Stuff dailies (not necessarily this week). The Biz Cas Fris are probably long enough for a week, though. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 02:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
+
{{FA queue|17 Dec 2012 |Decemberween in July Dailies|alternatediscussion=yes|decision=Decemberween in July}}
-
::::That's it! We have NOT done dailies in a LONG time. The ones we could feature are: [[Everybody Knows It]], [[Puppet Time]], [[Homestar vs. Little Girl]], [[Homestar vs. Little Girl 2]], [[Strong Bad vs. Little Girl!]], [[Homestar vs. Other Little Girl]] and [[Marshie vs. Little Girl]]. How about that? Mind you, it's just a prototype, but it should give an idea. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 05:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
+
{{FA queue|24 Dec 2012 |The Last Featured Article|alternatediscussion=yes|decision=A Death Defying Decemberween}}
-
:::::My only problem with this list would be Marshie vs. Little Girl and Homestar vs. Little Girl 2 are both Halloween themed.  If we do this, it would be better to move it closer to Halloween (maybe Week 43) and/or substitute some of the [[Biz Cas Fri]] shorts... which should get featured anyway.  But, I would concede these are all mid-importance articles that work well for dailies. {{User:Wbwolf/sig}} 05:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
+
|}
-
::::::I think Mr. Wolf is exactly right about the Halloween ones. Also, they're quite possibly long and involved enough for a whole week. Another thing we haven't considered are the Puppet Jam sessions, all of which are rather short and unlikely to make a good week-long feature. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 05:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
+
-
:::::::Well, I'm fine with this. One way or another, though, we need to include something with the puppet stuff. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 05:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
+
-
::::::::Sure, and we have plenty of time to refine the list. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 05:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
+
-
:::::::::As for the Puppet Jams, we don't have to necessarily feature any of the separate ones; we could do an article on that series as a whole. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 05:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
+
-
::::::::::Hey, I got it. How about doing the week thus, as per the dailies-type to give you an idea. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 16:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
+
-
Listed below is a list of the dailies for this week:
+
-
==== [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2008, week 40, day 1]] ====
+
-
[[Everybody Knows It]]. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 16:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
+
-
==== [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2008, week 40, day 2]] ====
+
===Redirects===
-
[[Puppet Time]]. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 16:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
+
This is a placeholder topic for 5-year redirects.  Due to overall decreased activity, FAs are now being reused more often.  The common practice has become to redirect to the FA exactly 5 years prior to the current FA.  When an article is re-used, mark it in the following manner:
 +
<pre>
 +
{{FA queue|<date>|Redirects|alternatediscussion=yes|decision=<article name>}}
 +
</pre>
 +
Example:
 +
<pre>
 +
{{FA queue|15 Aug 2011 |Redirects|alternatediscussion=yes|decision=1-Up}}
 +
</pre>
-
==== [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2008, week 40, day 3]] ====
+
Please keep this discussion in the FA page at all times, but do copy it to archive pages as well.
-
[[Puppet Jam]] series. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 16:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
+
-
:Again, the problem is this is just a short intro and a list; articles that are featured, even as dailies, should have some content beyond what's on the front page.  How about [[Bad Jokes]] as a representative of the series, instead? {{User:Wbwolf/sig}} 19:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
+
-
::Well, once again, we could do it like with Summer Short Shorts, where we describe each of the shorts in brief, with an intro to the series as a whole. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 19:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
+
-
:::No, as below, we shouldn't feature multiple articles in a single writeup. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 19:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
+
-
::::Well, what if we just had said short intro, a description of the series as a whole and a description of one of the shorts (like [[Bad Jokes]]), as Wbwolf suggested? [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 19:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
+
-
:::::Like featuring [[Bad Jokes]], and as part of that, including a blurb about the series of which it's part? Yeah, we could do that. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 17:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
+
-
::::::Yeah, that's about the size of it. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 23:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
+
-
:::::::Please note the changes made to this writeup. While some info about the series as a whole is fine, even desirable, the featured article is nonetheless Bad Jokes, not Puppet Jam, and therefore it must be the article with the bold links. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 08:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
+
-
::::::::Okay, I'll do it like that then. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 01:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
+
-
==== [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2008, week 40, day 4]] ====
+
==Article discussions==
-
[[Homestar vs. Little Girl]]. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 16:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
+
-
==== [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2008, week 40, day 5]] ====
+
== Discussions of Articles Needing Expansion ==
-
[[Strong Bad vs. Little Girl!]]. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 16:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
+
:''Discussions in this section regard articles that, per consensus, require further expansion of the article itself before the article should be featured.''
-
:I think we should put this before the Biz Cas Fri series, as this was the debut of the Strong Bad puppet on H*R.com, and that puppet plays an important role in BCF. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 17:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
+
-
::All right, consider it done. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 17:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
+
-
==== [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2008, week 40, day 6]] ====
+
==Stalled Discussions==
-
[[Biz Cas Fri]] series. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 16:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
+
:''Discussions in this section regard articles that, due to lack of consensus or consensus against, are not ready to be featured at this time. ''
-
:The problem here is [[Biz Cas Fri]] points to a disam page.  Similar to the problem when trying to feature the Lappynapped! saga, we shy away from making special pages just to be featured.  In order to pick one, I would lean towards [[Biz Cas Fri 1]]. {{User:Wbwolf/sig}} 19:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
+
-
::Well, then, why don't we do it like we did with Summer Short Shorts? We look at each of the parts in the series individually, but on one article. We dedicate one or two sentences a time to each of the three shorts in the series. Same goes for the [[Puppet Jam]] series. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 19:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
+
-
:::No, we shouldn't feature multiple articles in one writeup. It's a featured article, not featured articles. With Summer Short Shorts, we're still featuring only one article. Not three, as we would for Biz Cas Fri. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 19:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
+
-
::::Well, I think it could work. What we should do is feature an intro to the series, complete with where the name for this series came from: namely, the [[other days]] email. And maybe a description of just one of the shorts featured, like [[Biz Cas Fri 1]]. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 19:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
+
-
:::::We could feature [[Biz Cas Fri 1]] and include a description of the series as a whole in the opening of the writeup, which is maybe kind of the sort of thing you had in mind. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 17:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
+
-
::::::Yeah, that's about the size of it. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 23:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
+
-
:::::::It would make ''much'' more sense if we feature a full article, namely [[Biz Cas Fri 1]] over a simple disambiguation page (or even try to feature several articles at once). So I'd say go ahead with [[Biz Cas Fri 1]]. --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 08:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
+
-
::::::::Yes, I think that's the plan: Feature Biz Cas Fri 1, but include a bit of info about the series as a whole in the writeup. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 08:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
+
-
==== [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2008, week 40, day 0]] ====
+
==General discussion==
-
[[Homestar vs. Other Little Girl]]. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 16:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
+
-
:It would be nice to feature one of the DVD exclusive Puppet Stuff features if we're going to do a series.  [[Real Live E-Mails]] would be a likely candidate.  ([[Puppets On The Road]] is long enough that could be featured on its own.) {{User:Wbwolf/sig}} 17:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
+
-
What about [[Strongbadia the free]] ? [[User:HomsarGuy|HomsarGuy]] 19:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:We're doing a week of [[Puppet Stuff]]-related articles this week. Plus, Strong Badia the Free is too new to new to be a Featured Article. {{User:Homestar-winner/sig}} 19:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::Actually, I think [[Real-Live E-Mails]] (''note the dash in the name'') would a fitting treat to end the FA week (as we already have two "vs. Little Girl" articles listed). --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 22:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::The only problem with [[Real-Live E-Mails]] (and [[Puppets On The Road]], too) is that it's available only on DVD and not on the website. And Other Little Girl is different than Little Girl. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 23:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::::I don't think the fact that it's DVD-only is a problem for featuring it. No opinion on whether it's preferable to feature it or Other Little Girl. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 01:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::::Well, we should make a decision soon, because time is running out. I've already put up the first three days of this week. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 01:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::::::I've given it a little thought, and I've decided that I agree with Mr. Wolf that a DVD exclusive would be desirable. It could even drum up interest in the DVDs, which would be good for TBC (OK, it's not that likely we'll make them more money, but still, it shows off an easily-neglected element of their work). {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 08:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::::::All right, we can do a DVD-only feature, I guess. However, which one should we do: [[Real Live E-Mails]] or [[Puppets On The Road]]? Of course, it was suggested that the latter is long enough to do for a week, so maybe "E-Mails". Either way, it will be chronologically and climatically a good last feature to do for the week. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 01:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::::::::Another advantage of doing [[Real-Live E-Mails]] is we can mention the [[Marshie]] puppet, which we wouldn't be able to do elsewhere.  {{User:Wbwolf/sig}} 01:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::::::::Okay, [[Real-Live E-Mails]] it is, then. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 01:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
 
-
=== [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2008, week 41]] (Oct 6-12) ===
 
-
How about some kind of clothing, like [[Bowler Hats]]? [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 06:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:May I suggest instead one of the reoccurring names in the Homestar Runner universe, [[A. Chimendez]].  We finally appeared in a short, and [[Wikipedia:Bill Meléndez|Bill Melendez]], his name inspiration recent passed away.  I think it would be a fitting tribute. {{User:Wbwolf/sig}} 00:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::Yeah, that would work, I guess, except the article is just a trifle short. If we could add more, that would help greatly. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 06:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::I don't think we should do Chimendez right before Gunhaver: Too much Cheat Commandos. (True, Chimendez is not exclusively CC, but his only appearance as something more than a name is in a Cheat Commandos toon.) If we want to do Chimendez this week, I think we should come up with something instead of Gunhaver for next. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 06:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::::Then I think we should go back to [[Bowler Hats]] and save [[A. Chimendez]] for another time. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 20:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::::Bowler hats could use a little more content before being featured article. We haven't done a running gag in a while, though, so what about [[Couch Mumbling]]? {{User:HRjcm/sig}} 19:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::::::Nah, too bare-bones, and uses an unneccary graph instaed of links. How 'bout [[Death]]?
 
-
:::::::Once again, [[Death]] is too bare-bones for inclusion. We'd have to update that one greatly. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 20:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::::::::I don't see how either can have more content than they already do. {{User:HRjcm/sig}} 20:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::::::::Fine, how about... [[New Paper]]? It's both a running gag, ''and'' a character. {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 00:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::::::::::The content for Bowler Hats is enough. Yes, it would be better for it to be slightly longer, but still, it's a good paragraph plus some appearances, and it's a nice explanation of one of the H*R universe's most peculiar phenomena. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 01:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::::::::::Exactly. Like pants (or more often, the lack thereof). [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 03:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:Are you serious? Death and Couch Mumbling are too short, yet Bowler Hats isn't?!? I'm keeping a firm "no" on this one. Enough fighting over Bowler Hats, and there's a two againts two ratio, so we need an idea we ''all'' agree on fast. [[Death]] and [[Couch Mumbling]] already have two ayes and 1 nay, Bowler Hats has two "nays", so it's out. Those are your 2 choices: pick one. {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 20:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::Listen carefully, That game dude386: In an FA, there are two elements: the prose introduction, which appears as a writeup, and the subsequent content (referenced in the writeup as "more". For an article to work as an FA, it must have a reasonably long prose intro, regardless of how much it has in other sections. Couch Mumbling does not have enough prose at present. Bowler Hats does, by a hair, and it also has a bit more content thereafter. Furthermore, you are out of line in making ultimatums of this sort. Please stop. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 09:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::No, people can still vote for Bowler Hats if they want to. Bowler Hats isn't my favorite choice for a Featured Article, but it sounds like it would work better than any of the other suggested articles. New Paper would be good to feature sometime, but I feel we should wait until 2009 to feature it. {{User:Homestar-winner/sig}} 21:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::I still have my bets on Couch Mumbling. If Floppy Disc Container made it, this should, too. {{User:HRjcm/sig}} 22:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::::We don't have enough time for this! I'm hearing nothing but Bowler Hats bias, however, looking at it, it woudn't fit the Featured Article square, even with it's lists, so, no. Let's go with Couch Mumbling or New Paper, or Death. C'mon, folks! Place ya bets! {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 23:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::::Well, in that case, I say [[Couch Mumbling]]. That one, in fact, does have a decent amount of text for an article. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 00:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::::::Yeah, Couch Mumbling is okay. {{User:Homestar-winner/sig}} 00:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::::::Looks like we have a winner! (Yes! I single handedly (+ assist) changed the intended FA! The [[Grumblecakes]] are mine!){{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 01:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::::::::Hold on, folks. This prose intro is '''far''' too short for a featured article. (Guh, I go out of town for a few days...) Someone expand this real fast, please. Bowler Hats had enough prose for an introduction. This one does not. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 09:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::::::::I don't see anyone making [[Couch Mumbling]] featureable. It needs to be more developed to feature, but nobody, including its proponents, has put any work into exapnding it to featureable scope. This isn't some frathouse vote, it's a selection of the articles o this wiki which best show our competence and all. As TGD386 has "single handedly changed the intended FA" (which is nothing to be proud of) leaves us at the end of a deadline with nothing to feature - that time might have been better spent developing one or more artivcles to featureable status. Ideas of where to go from here are welcome. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 10:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::::::::::I just expanded the article. Now it goes beyond the picture seen. I hope this helps. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 16:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 
-
 
-
=== [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2008, week 42]] (Oct 13-19) ===
 
-
For this week, how about [[Gunhaver]]? I sincerely believe that the [[Cheat Commandos]] body of work has been too lightly tapped for too long now. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 15:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:Hmm, it'll be a bit recent after Commandos in the Classroom, but it's true, we haven't done much CC. I'm cool with it. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 17:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::And in fairness, we had So and So for Week 4 of this year, followed three weeks later by TGS Issue 12. So this is nothing compared to that. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 00:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::Why not use [[Cheat Commandos...O's]]? Frankly, it's a crime that it hasn't been done yet! {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 20:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::::Because [[Cheat Commandos...O's]] doesn't have a two story hot tub! (Oh, and the last CC article we featured was a toon. And Gunhaver is a character.) {{User:Acam30/sig}} 20:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::::Exactly. We've never done any Cheat Commandos characters, save for Blue Laser, and even that is for the group as a whole, not any one character. I just think it's time that CC characters got their due, kinda like what is happening (slowly but surely) with the Teen Girl Squad. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 20:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::::::Oh! Sorry, I meant the cereal "Cheat Commandos..O's", not the toon. Do we not have an article on that one yet? Anyways, why not do [[Mrs. Commanderson]]? Or, to a greater extent, [[Firebert]]? {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 00:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::::::Hi, That game dude386. Lemme introduce you a little to how things are done here: We discuss featured article suggestions rather than just throwing out suggestions. So, for example, since Gunhaver had already been suggested, if you wanted to suggest something else, your really need to explain why that suggestion is preferable to the original. As yet, you haven't given any reason not to go with the original suggestion (and by the way, I still think Gunhaver is the best way to go, since he's one of the most prominent CC characters). {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 01:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::::::::So we're going with [[Gunhaver]] then? Fo' shizzle? {{User:Acam30/sig}} 01:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::::::::I suppose so. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 03:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::::::::::Yeah, why not? I thought having a combo-character (O's in [[specially marked]], Commanderson in [[Teen Girl Squad]], and Firebert in [[army]] & [[more armies]]) would be nice, but yeah, Gunhaver's the best CC character. {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 21:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
 
-
=== [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2008, week 43]] (Oct 20-26) ===
 
-
Well, it's starting to be getting around [[Halloween]] once again. Since we've featured two Halloween-themed items per year in the past (one for the week before Halloween; one for the week during Halloween (one of the major Halloween toons)), I think we should do something like that again. However, I have a few possibilities for this particular week: namely, [[The Goblin]] and the two Halloween-themed emails, [[halloweener]] and [[ghosts]]. Do any of those appeal to anyone? [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 15:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:I would like to see [[The Goblin]] featured. He doesn't get enough recognition sometimes, but it just wouldn't be a Homestar Runner Holloween without him. {{User:Acam30/sig}} 02:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::Does [[the goblin]] really have enough content to make a good FA though? {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 02:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::It's doable, though more content would be great if we could add it. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 02:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::::I think it's high time that The Goblin got a page. And with Halloween right around the corner, why not do it then, since he is featured in several of the Halloween toons anyway? I think that article also has enough content for it, though if we can add more, it would be even better. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 03:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::::So... we've agreed on [[The Goblin]] then? {{User:Acam30/sig}} 01:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::::::I proposed having [[The Goblin]] last year, but I think took it in some other direction.  I think he's long overdue to get an FA. {{User:Wbwolf/sig}} 01:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::::::Yes, he is about as overdue for an FA as Nebulon was. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 03:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
 
-
=== [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2008, week 44]] (Oct 27-Nov 2) ===
 
-
Well, this week would be a time where we'd feature an actual [[Halloween]] toon. The ones that had already been featured in the past were: Halloween Potion-ma-jig (for 2006) and Homestarloween Party (for 2007). Anyway, this year, I think we ought to do [[Pumpkin Carve-nival]]. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 07:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:[[The House That Gave Sucky Treats]] would also work.  I don't know which is more worthy though. {{User:Bad Bad Guy/sig}} 14:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::Any of them would be worthy, but I think we've already featured a "choose-your-own"-type Halloween toon recently: namely, Halloween Potion-ma-jig. So I think we should hold off on that kind of toon until a little later and just do something regular, yet a bit older. That's one reason why I picked [[Pumpkin Carve-nival]] for the Halloween toon of the year. Plus, the King of Town is dressed as [[Mario]] in that one and I love Mario. And then there are all those twists near the end of the toon, as well. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 15:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::Oh, yeah, and Pumpkin Carve-nival also beget an interesting little catch phrase now common in the H*R universe: namely, "witches' brew". [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 14:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::::But, do we really need to feature a Halloween article two weeks in a row? Since it's the start of November, maybe we should feature a Thanksgiving-related article or toon. {{User:HRjcm/sig}} 23:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::::Well, firstly, we've had two Halloween articles each in the past, and secondly, we don't usually do Thanksgiving stuff until it's actually around Thanksgiving time itself. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 04:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::::::Yes, we usually do two, kind of like how TBC frequently do two 'Ween-type toons: One short, one full-length. Likewise, we tend to feature one full-length toon on the week that includes Halloween itself, and a different type the week before (such as a short Halloween toon or Halloween-related running gag). {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 04:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::::::I couldn't have said that better myself. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 17:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::::::::We've all agreed on [[Pumpkin Carvenival]] for the time being then? {{User:Acam30/sig}} 01:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::::::::For the time being, yes. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 04:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
 
-
=== [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2008, week 45]] (Nov 3-9) ===
 
-
We should do [[Taranchula]] this week. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 00:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:With the appearance of the standee in [[Strong Badia The Free]] (and likely references in [[Baddest Of The Bands]]), this might be a fun one to do. {{User:Wbwolf/sig}} 17:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::What's a standee? [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 20:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::A [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/standee standee] is a cardboard cutout, usually roughly life size, of a figure.  Originally used for advertising movies, but they are now sold on their own.  A Taranchula standee is a plot point in the Strong Mad portion of SBtF. {{User:Wbwolf/sig}} 21:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::::Oh, that's what it is. Unfortunately, however, there isn't much information to give on standees, though. The only standees I can think of are [[Cardboard Marzipan]] and [[Cardboard Homestar]]. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 22:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::::Would the numerous stand ins for Original Bubs be counted as standees? [[User:Stribbs|Stribbs]] 22:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::::::Cardboard Marzi is probably of featureable length. No comment on whether to feature her or go with the original suggestion for the week at this point, though. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 00:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::::::I think y'all are misunderstanding me.  There is a [[Taranchula]] standee featured in Strong Badia The Free.  That, and likely references to the band in the next game will make [[Taranchula]] a pertinent FA.  {{User:Wbwolf/sig}} 01:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::::::::Gotcha. Taranchula is fine by me. Incidentally, it'd probably be good to look at Cardboard Marzi sometime. But not now. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 05:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::::::::A few months ago, incidentally, we were considering having Cardboard Marzipan as an article, but we took a pass on it for a variety of reasons, including that it was a bit short. So no comment. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 21:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
 
-
=== [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2008, week 46]] (Nov 10-16) ===
 
-
For this week, we should have [[What's Her Face]]. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 22:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:Somthing TGS-themed, yes, but I think that [[Teen Girl Squad Issue 1]] is more deserving. Or, [[Arrow'd Guy]]. Both are truly deserving articles. {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 20:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::But we have not featured any of the girls themselves since Week 4 (when we had So and So). And TGS Issue 1 was also seen in the email [[comic]]. As for [[Arrow'd Guy]], no comment. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 20:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::The fact is, looking at the page, it just doesn't seem... special enough. It's not a highlight of TGS '''or''' HR Wiki. It's good, but it's not... deserving. But, how about a TGS running gag? If so, I'd like to put [[Ow! My X!]] and [[-'d]] on the table. {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 00:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::::I think featuring one of the girls themselves whould be better... but if you really want to do a running gag, my vote would be for [[-'d]]. {{User:Acam30/sig}} 01:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::::If we're going to be doing a running gag article a few weeks from now (I'm thinking a clothing gag for the 41st week), I think a second running gag (even one entirely different) a few weeks later would be a bit superfluous. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 03:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::::::Then why ''not'' feature [[What's Her Face]]?  It's been a while since we did something TGS related, I think. {{User:Acam30/sig}} 11:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::::::That's what I suggested the first time, wasn't it? [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 15:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::::::::I'm still thinking if we do a TGS character, [[Arrow'd Guy]] is WAY overdue. What's-Her-Face we can do for 2009's TGS character, and '''''I'll''''' root for her, but Arrow'd Guy needs to go first. {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 21:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::::::::And in fairness, we had [[So-And-So]] this year, so let's not do another girl this year. {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 21:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:..So, we're doing Arrow'd Guy, right? {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 23:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::I suppose so. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 00:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::But The game dude is the only one who wants Arrowed Guy. I think So and So would be better. {{User:Homestar-winner/sig}} 00:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::::We've already done So and So, which is why I was suggesting [[What's Her Face]]. We'll do the Arrow'd Guy next time we do a TGS-themed article. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 00:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::::Oh, right, I meant What's Her Face. {{User:Homestar-winner/sig}} 00:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::::::Grood! What's Her Face it is then! ...right? {{User:Acam30/sig}} 01:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::::::''And in fairness, we had So and So for Week 4 of this year, followed three weeks later by TGS Issue 12. So this is nothing compared to that.'' ... this battle is FAR from over. You've already agreed on Arrow'd Guy, anyway! {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 01:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::::::::No she didn't. {{User:Homestar-winner/sig}} 01:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::::::::''I suppose so.'' That sounds like a yes to me. {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 01:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::::::::::Arrow'd Guy is the best-quality TGS main character '''''article'''''. Not the character himself; the '''''article'''''{{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 01:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::::::::::First of all, that quote was said by MHarrington. Second of all, What's Her Face also has a good article, and I just don't think it seems right to feature other TGS characters before we feature all of the main ones. If we Feature What's Her Face now, we can do The Ugly One in 2009 and then be finished with all of the main TGS characters. {{User:Homestar-winner/sig}} 01:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::::::::::Twice a year isn't really fair; besides, Arrow'd Guy is hardly NOT a TGS member, as he's only NOT been with them on 3 accounts. {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 02:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
I think we need some other users' comments to help us decide. {{User:Homestar-winner/sig}} 02:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::::::::::::If you hadn't stirred this whole arguement up again, we wouldn't have had this problem. Not to play the blame game, but I think I've already proved my point. What's-Her-Face we can do in March. Arrow'd Guy is overdue. If we get more opinions, I'll listen. But, if no one else comes, we're doing Arrow'd Guy. {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 20:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::::::::::::But it sounds to me like more people would rather feature What's Her Face. {{User:Homestar-winner/sig}} 20:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
It sounds to ''me'' like no one here is willing to compare Whats-Her-Face's and Arrow'd Guy's articles. Remember: It's not the '''''subject''''' of the article anymore; it's the '''''quality'''''. {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 21:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:Actually, it's both subject ''and'' quality. And I'm still sticking to What's Her Face, partly since it's been a while since we've done a TGS article and I want to do another one of the girls herself. We can do Arrow'd Guy sometime next year. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 05:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::Really game dude, you are the only person who actually wants to feature Arrow'd Guy. I know wiki discussion are not based on majority rules, but... this is getting a little ridiculous in my opinion. So I'll say the same thing you did. If we get more opinions, ''I'll'' listen, but until then, it sounds like everyone else had pretty much agreed on What's Her Face. {{User:Acam30/sig}} 11:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::: *Sigh*, very well. I can see that you guys are holding steadfast, and it's time to back off. But I want it  to be known that by at least next March we can do Arrow'd Guy... '''''before''''' The Ugly One, OK? {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 23:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::::Don't worry, we'll have the Arrow'd Guy sometime. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 01:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 
-
 
-
That game dude386, I have to tell you in no uncertain terms that you need to lay off on this combative attitude. This area is for friendly discussion, not battles over featured articles. Your comments here, as well as the ones above about the Bowler Hats article, are over this line. You do not have the authority to say "no" about any article. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 09:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:The more I read this discussion, the more astounded I am at the things you've said here. After many others stated favour for What's Her Face, you said, "..So, we're doing Arrow'd Guy, right?" Where on earth would you get that idea, when you're the only one who supported it? "... this battle is FAR from over. You've already agreed on Arrow'd Guy, anyway!" People have every right to change their minds, and making a "battle" out of this is a completely unacceptable attitude here. "If we get more opinions, I'll listen. But, if no one else comes, we're doing Arrow'd Guy." There were already many opinions stated, were these not enough for you? And how can you possibly say "we're doing Arrow'd Guy" when you're the only one who supported it against several of other opinions? It seems like you were just trying to force your opinion through by refusal to concede. It wouldn't have worked, by the way, as the writeup would have been of What's Her Face, since that's where consensus was, and had you tried to write one of Arrow'd Guy, I would have deleted it as against consensus.
 
-
:Now, I realize that you eventually conceded, but I want to stress this: Insisting on what you want when others don't agree with it is going to do nothing but alienate you from others and lessen your chances to influence others via discussion. We operate by consensus, not by one person's opinion, no matter how inspired he or she may find his or her own opinion. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 13:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::When I send an idea for an article, TGD, it doesn't always get used, but even when it doesn't, I still try to accept a different person's suggestion. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 16:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::Same with me. Just go with the flow. Some people disagree, some people agree. Don't battle the majority, ''especially'' when it's only you. But back to the Featured Article, I support What's Her Face. But TGD, this will probably be the way it goes, probably: The Ugly One will be featured first, then Arrow'd Guy. Maybe even an TGS Issue before Arrow'd. Maybe. But for now, I support What's Her Face. {{User:Sam the Man/sig}} 12:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::I'm sorry I came off as being arguementative. I only was trying to show a better article, I mean, I read the Whats-Her-Face article, and didn't think that it'd make a good FA. So I looked at a few more, and found the Arrow'd Guy article. I never wanted to fight, but I was appaled at the reason anyone ever gave to favor Whats-Her-Face: to complete the set. That wasn't fair to the rest of the many deserving TGS articles. I wouldn't have ever fought it if someone said '''why''' Whats-Her-Face's article was prefferable. That's all I wanted. No one ever did. They just screamed at me. And over Bowler Hats, let's face it, that was a bad idea. Had it had Homsar's unique feats, there wouldn't have been a problem. Anyways, I never wanted to get into a fight, but... well... "Then why ''not'' feature [[What's Her Face]]?  It's been a while since we did something TGS related, I think." and "I want to do another one of the girls" is all anyone ever said. And Heimstern Läufer; that was an unrelated attack on me. If you must, email me, but '''''PLEASE''''' don't spam the H*R Wiki. {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 20:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::::Don't insult a sysop. It will come to bite you back. {{User:Sam the Man/sig}} 20:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::::No insult was intended. If there was, I apologise. I'll take out that last sentence. {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 20:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 
-
 
-
=== [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2008, week 47]] (Nov 17-23) ===
 
-
For this week, let's make it [[Don and Harriet Chapman]], Mike and Matt's parents. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 19:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:To me, it looks the article is just a little short to featured. (Unfortunately, I can't think of something else to put here.) {{User:Wbwolf/sig}} 14:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::The question is CAN it be added on to, with the available information we have? {{User:Lazylaces/sig}} 14:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::I don't think there's really anything else we know that's not already there. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 14:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::::And I think there is a reasonable amount of text there anyway. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 05:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::::This one's really borderline, especially since there's no appearances section to help fill out the end. It could be done, I think; I just wish there were more content. But as I've said, I don't think there's any more available. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 05:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::::::Well, I just thought that A) we need to do more actual people in TBC's lives, and B) I think the people who actually helped to make TBC possible deserve someplace to be mentioned. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 17:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::::::I think we should definitely feature a real live person for this week, but the question is still who, becasue there are some people saying the [[Don and Harriet Chapman]] is too short. {{User:Acam30/sig}} 01:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::::::::Well, having seen the article, I think that Don and Harriet Chapman is doable, partly because that one has a reasonable amount of text anyway. Mind you, a little more would be good, but we do have something reasonable. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 03:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::::::::Now I have a suggestion. Since we sometimes do a sbemail related to a holiday one week before the holiday ([[what I want]] for example), as suggested by MHarrington, how about we do [[colonization]] this week? {{User:Sam the Man/sig}} 22:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 
-
 
-
=== [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2008, week 48]] (Nov 24-30) ===
 
-
Thanksgiving in the US, so we might do something related to that. [[Toikey TV]] was last year's T-Day toon, and one of the only substantial toons related to that holiday we haven't featured yet. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 08:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:Sure, we could do that, considering that where Thanksgiving toons are concerned, for the past few years, we've done an article on the previous year's Thanksgiving toon (i.e., Fall Float Parade (2005 toon) in 2006 and Let Us Give Tanks (2006 toon) in 2007). Doing it like this would carry on that little tradition (if we're doing a tradition). [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 02:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::Making a tradition out of an american tradition... me likey, me likey! Let's go for it! {{User:Acam30/sig}} 01:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::Toikey TV seems the best chose for this week. Unless there's any other Thanksgiving toon we forgot about. {{User:Sam the Man/sig}} 12:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::::I only greive that we didn't do Canada's Thanksgiving. Oh, well, no objections here, me hungry for some turkey! {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 20:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::::In response to Sam's post, there probably is that [[colonization]] email, but that's kind of it. (Some Stupid Turkey is very short.) [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 22:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::::I believe that [[Toikey TV]] is the most appropriate toon to feature this week and is also the one with the most support. --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 22:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::::Okay, I'm cool with [[Toikey TV]]. [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 22:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 
-
 
-
=== [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2008, week 49]] (Dec 1-7) ===
 
-
Well, fall's just about over, and winter's nearing. Plus Decemberween is nearing. I'm thinking of a winter article. Any suggestions? {{User:Sam the Man/sig}} 12:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:Well, it's not actually winter until around 21 December, so I think that might be a bit premature at this point. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 12:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::Yeah, let's not get have Decemberween before... Decemberween. I think we should do something [[SBCG4AP]] related. Yea or neh? {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 20:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::Well, SBCG4AP's last episode will probably be around this time, so we might be able to fit an SBCG4AP related article this week. Probably the [[SBCG4AP Dev Blog]] would be most deserving. But, maybe not. {{User:Sam the Man/sig}} 20:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 
-
::::Hmm... well, I think it's doable, but certainly not the best. So as to avoid another week 46, I'm just gonna say that it seems to be a little disorganised, looking at the fun facts, so I personally say "no". Another idea would be [[Homestar Ruiner]]. I know it says it needs cleanup, but I can't see where it says why on the talk page. {{User:That_game_dude386/sig}} 21:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 
-
:::::Well, that's not winter-themed, so I'm thinking of something like, say... the [[winter pool]] email, maybe? [[User:MHarrington|MHarrington]] 22:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 
-
 
-
==General discussion==
 
===Daily Featured Blocks (On Occasion)===
===Daily Featured Blocks (On Occasion)===
In order to make daily featured articles for one week, create pages like:
In order to make daily featured articles for one week, create pages like:

Current revision as of 22:13, 4 November 2022

Nominations for Featured article selection are closed. This is an archive. Please do not add discussion here.

Shortcuts:
HRW:FAS
FAS

Welcome to featured article selection. Please help us choose and create write-ups for our best, most interesting, or otherwise noteworthy articles to appear on the main page. For ideas, check out the featured article nominations. For drafts, see this page.

Contents

[edit] Checklist

Checklist for new Featured Article:(INACTIVE)

[edit] Discussion archives

Year Weeks 1-10 Weeks 11-20 Weeks 21-30 Weeks 31-40 Weeks 41-52
2005 2005, Weeks 26-29 2005, Weeks 30-39 2005, Weeks 40-52
2006 2006, Weeks 1-10 2006, Weeks 11-20 2006, Weeks 21-30 2006, Weeks 31-40 2006, Weeks 41-52
2007 2007, Weeks 1-10 2007, Weeks 11-20 2007, Weeks 21-30 2007, Weeks 31-40 2007, Weeks 41-52
2008 2008, Weeks 1-10 2008, Weeks 11-20 2008, Weeks 21-30 2008, Weeks 31-40 2008, Weeks 41-52
2009 2009, Weeks 1-10 2009, Weeks 11-20 2009, Weeks 21-30 2009, Weeks 31-40 2009, Weeks 41-53
2010 2010, Weeks 1-10 2010, Weeks 11-20 2010, Weeks 21-30 2010, Weeks 31-40 2010, Weeks 41-52
2011 2011, Weeks 1-10 2011, Weeks 11-20 2011, Weeks 21-30 2011, Weeks 31-40 2011, Weeks 41-52
2012 2012, Weeks 1-10 2012, Weeks 11-20 2012, Weeks 21-30 2012, Weeks 31-40 2012, Weeks 41-52


Other Discussion | Stalled Discussions Archive 1 | Stalled Discussions Archive 2

[edit] Featured Article Queue

Week Article Discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 49 (Dec 3–9) 2-Part Episode: Part 1 discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 50 (Dec 10–16) 2-Part Episode: Part 2 discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 51 (Dec 17–23) Decemberween in July Dailies - Decemberween in July discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 52 (Dec 24–30) The Last Featured Article - A Death Defying Decemberween discussion

[edit] Redirects

This is a placeholder topic for 5-year redirects. Due to overall decreased activity, FAs are now being reused more often. The common practice has become to redirect to the FA exactly 5 years prior to the current FA. When an article is re-used, mark it in the following manner: 

{{FA queue|<date>|Redirects|alternatediscussion=yes|decision=<article name>}}

Example: 

{{FA queue|15 Aug 2011 |Redirects|alternatediscussion=yes|decision=1-Up}}

Please keep this discussion in the FA page at all times, but do copy it to archive pages as well.

[edit] Article discussions

[edit] Discussions of Articles Needing Expansion

Discussions in this section regard articles that, per consensus, require further expansion of the article itself before the article should be featured.

[edit] 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.

[edit] General discussion

[edit] Daily Featured Blocks (On Occasion)

In order to make daily featured articles for one week, create pages like:

  • [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2005, week 50, day 1]]
  • [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2005, week 50, day 2]]
  • [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2005, week 50, day 3]]
  • [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2005, week 50, day 4]]
  • [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2005, week 50, day 5]]
  • [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2005, week 50, day 6]]
  • [[HRWiki:Featured article for 2005, week 50, day 0]] (redirect day 7 to this)
Retrieved from "http://hrwiki.org/wiki/HRWiki:Featured_Article_Selection"
Personal tools