HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Stalled Discussions Archive 2

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 02:26, 2 November 2012

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

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.

The Brothers Chaps' Fansite Acknowledgements

I mean, don't you just like it when the Brothers Chaps acknowledge this Wiki? RickTommy (edits) 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? — Defender1031*Talk 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. — Defender1031*Talk 14:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Scroll Button Songs

Surprised it was never featured. RickTommy (edits) 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. --Stux 14:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

EC'd: I agree with stux. I'm not convinced there's enough to write up. — Defender1031*Talk 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. — Defender1031*Talk 14:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

homestarrunner.com

It's been nominated several times before. That is all. RickTommy (edits) 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? — Defender1031*Talk 11:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Nicknames

Another frequently edited article. RickTommy (edits) 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. — 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". — Defender1031*Talk 17:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Strong Bad Emails (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). RickTommy (edits) 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. The Knights Who Say Ni 17:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Meet Marshie

We've featured Malloween Commercial, so how about featuring the original? RickTommy (edits) 13:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

FAQ

An important page on the site. RickTommy (edits) 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. Heimstern Läufer 03:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we'll be able to do an introduction of this. I support nomination. 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. --Stux 13:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I made a big draft of the FA. Click hear! -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 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. RickTommy (edits) 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. — Ngamer01 18:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with ngamer. Really not very interesting. — Defender1031*Talk 11:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Legal

An important page, since it can be accessed from the Navbar. RickTommy (edits) 09:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this has enough content to feature. --Stux 14:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Correction: The wiki page has too much content to feature. Here is proof! -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 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 — Ngamer01 13:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've done so. RickTommy (edits) 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. — Ngamer01 14:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with NGamer, the 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. --Stux 14:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Correction: it had 90% of the page content before it was shortened. RickTommy (edits) 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. — Defender1031*Talk 11:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The Announcer

An important minor character. RickTommy (edits) 03:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes he is important. I scribbled down a draft here. -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 01:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That draft is the entire article, and it's got grammatical errors and NPOV issues to boot. — Defender1031*Talk 18:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You mean the entire intro of the article, and what are the errors and issues, exactly? RickTommy (edits) 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. — Defender1031*Talk 11:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Doreauxgard

Another important pseudo-character. (Man, I hate sounding repetitive.) RickTommy (edits) 06:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's a write-up that G-man drafted. RickTommy (edits) 07:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Important how? — Defender1031*Talk 11:21, 3 June 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? RickTommy (edits) 13:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to stick to a pattern which has no basis aside from happenstance. — Defender1031*Talk 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. — 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. RickTommy (edits) 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. — Ngamer01 15:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Ngamer. It's not developed enough. — Defender1031*Talk 16:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)