HRWiki:Featured Article Selection

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 19:34, 19 January 2010 by TimMierz (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Checklist

Checklist for new Featured Article:

Make sure the article is proof-read up to a high standard.
At 0000 UTC Monday, purge the main page cache.
Protect and add {{mprotected}} to the new image; Unprotect and remove {{mprotected}} from old image.
Semi-protect the live FA write-up; Unprotect the old FA write-up.
Add {{featuredarticle}} to FA's talk page.
Update HRWiki:Featured Article Nominations with descriptive edit summary — see history.
Update HRWiki:Featured articles with descriptive edit summary — see history.

Discussion archives

Other Discussion | 2005, Weeks 26-29 | 2005, Weeks 30-39 | 2005, Weeks 40-52

2006, Weeks 1-10 | 2006, Weeks 11-20 | 2006, Weeks 21-30 | 2006, Weeks 31-40 | 2006, Weeks 41-52

2007, Weeks 1-10 | 2007, Weeks 11-20 | 2007, Weeks 21-30 | 2007, Weeks 31-40 | 2007, Weeks 41-52

2008, Weeks 1-10 | 2008, Weeks 11-20 | 2008, Weeks 21-30 | 2008, Weeks 31-40 | 2008, Weeks 41-52

2009, Weeks 1-10 | 2009, Weeks 11-20 | 2009, Weeks 21-30 | 2009, Weeks 31-40 | 2009, Weeks 41-53

2010, Weeks 1-10

Article discussions

HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 3 (Jan 18-24)

Looking Old. Not only is it that email's anniversary, but featuring it this week is a reference to a line from that email. Plus, we haven't yet done any emails from 2005 or 2007, yet we've done at least two emails from every other year. Jc iindyysgvxc 10:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking that while we should do emails from 2007, I think we should wait until they do the winter Olympics in February. I got an idea in mind for a set of dailies that follow a common theme. In the meantime, how about doing one of a live person for an article. I'm thinking Jackie Chapman. MHarrington 16:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate on your masterdly plan for Olympic emails? As it stands, we don't know why you're not keen on looking old for this week, and of course we all know it's important to explain why you're not going with someone else's suggestion. Heimstern Läufer

00:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, in terms of looking old, I was just thinking that we need to do something from 2005 before anything else, and it's been a while since we've done an article on a live person. Besides, what is the reference to the email's line, anyway? As for the Olympics plan, I was thinking of a full week of the references to DNA evidence running gag. I was thinking of doing the six emails (165-170) that reference it and close out the week with the Big Toon. MHarrington 01:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, I think the big toon would easily be worth an entire week, not just a day, and I think the same could be said of some of those emails (in particular, strong badathlon would be a good feature during the Olympics, though it would fit the Summer Olympics a lot better than the Winter). I don't really think they should be dailies. Heimstern Läufer

06:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: "what is the reference to the email's line, anyway?" Surely you can guess? Okay ... it's "time to relate to some 18 to 24 year olds". And the week we are doing it is the 18th to the 24th. Get it?

Oh, that joke. Well, I still think we should do an email from 2005 before 2007, for some reason. I think we should do Jackie Chapman this week. That article has a decent amount of text anyway, and it's been a long time since we've done any articles on real-live humans. I believe the last one was on Ryan Sterritt in July 2008. MHarrington 02:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned that Jackie's article might be a tad short. It's got enough content for a writeup, but not much beyond that.

I also think we could use some outside opinions here. It's not clear to me why we seem to be so intent on not doing looking old, though I'm not fixed on it. Heimstern Läufer

03:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the section above, I think Jackie should be featured as soon as possible (as opposed to this week), if she's to be featured at all. — It's dot com 03:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, since it's not known when the site will be back to normal, I think we'll just use this section as a kind of placeholder until further notice. MHarrington 18:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

why don't we stick with looking old for now and we can discuss this this master plan of MHarrington for the next weeks article --safariventureman 20:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the baby break is more or less over now, so I think we can do Jackie Chapman this week. It was said we should do her around the time the baby break ended, and now it almost is. MHarrington 19:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually what was said before was that it should be done during the Baby Break, if at all. See above. I also continue to think Jackie's bio is too short to feature. Heimstern Läufer

12:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I didn't know it was supposed to be "during", I thought it was just ASAP. And you also said that while short, the article has enough content for a writeup, though not much else. I thought that the writeup was reasonable enough. MHarrington 17:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we missed our change to feature Jackie Chapman. In retrospect, it should've been done back in December when it was a relevant topic since I do agree with Heim that it's a tad short. I actually wouldn't mind seeing looking old featured since it would both celebrate its 3nniversary and fit the them of H*R being 10 years old. We can always feature a 2005 email at a later date. --Stux 20:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say looking old is our best bet at this late date, largely because most of the other suggestions have problems as elaborated above. Heimstern Läufer

15:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 4 (Jan 25-31)

For this week, how about the Strong Bad Email geddup noise? I kinda picked something from 2005, and a bit out of left field, too. MHarrington 17:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

While I have no problem with geddup, but we're featuring another sbemail this week. So we're not doing two in a row, how about a different article. Compé seems like a good candidate. wbwolf (t | ed) 02:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

How about Mendelev and Dongelev? Their Feast Days are in January, and this is the only chance they have. SBE-mail Checker Dan 02:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, okay... MHarrington 04:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The Mendelev and Dongolev article is a bit on the short side, just like Jackie Chapman's. I also would discourage against featuring two emails in a row. While the Compé article would be the best option, I think it's a little too soon to feature it at the moment. The Compé is still too young, maybe when it's older. After scanning the nominations page, I came up with a pseudo-random suggestion: what about Strong Bad's Technology (though I'm aware it's mostly a list)? Any other reasonable suggestions? --Stux 23:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, that, too, is a bit short. MHarrington 17:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

If by "that" you mean the introduction, then yes, you're right the introduction is a bit on the short side. But the rest of the article has content, albeit in list form. I'm not sure what's been done in the past about such articles. Perhaps it might not be a bad idea to start thinking of a set of guidelines to aid in article selection and procedure. That aside, since it's the site's 10-nniverssary, I'd like to suggest that we feature In Search of the Yello Dello instead (since it's 10 years old and all, and it's not bold in the nominations page). That's my final answer Regis. --Stux 18:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

An excellent idea. Way overdue to get featured, since it was one of the first major toons on the site. wbwolf (t | ed) 18:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 5 (Feb 1-7)

I'm very surprised that Characters, Toons, and Games haven't been done yet. Maybe we could do one of them? Jc iindyysgvxc 11:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Not one of those currently has a prose intro that is long enough to be a proper featured article, so far as I can see. Also, we're getting out too far once again. The latest week we discuss should be, at most, ten weeks in advance of the current week, and this is eleven weeks out. Heimstern Läufer

11:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes! Once and for all, let's keep this below ten articles before we add any new ones, please? MHarrington 05:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

How about one that has been suggested but passed up: the Taranchula Black Metal Detector? MHarrington 17:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

According to the 2010 Calendar, this month is Renaldo's retirement party. So, how about something from Dangeresque? Something that was suggested before was Dangeresque Roomisode 1: Behind The Dangerdesque. How about it? wbwolf (t | ed) 06:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've already got a Dangeresque-themed idea in mind, but it's not for a few more weeks at least. I want to do some dailies involving characters, but it needs to wait for at least two months, to allow for six months since October. MHarrington 00:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like there's not much of a consensus here yet. The Characters/Toons/Games pages seem tough to have interesting write-ups for (they're really just menus and lists). The Black Metal Detector doesn't seem too interesting in and of itself; it's used used in buried and SBCG4AP, but it doesn't do anything a normal detector doesn't besides its method of beeping. Dangeresque seems to be in the works for the future. Where does that leave this week? I'm not sure if this is poor form, but I'd like to nominate an article that has been largely my work: Flipped Images. It's a fairly subtle effect, often used to parody low-quality animation like CCDos and PBTC, and something that rarely has attention drawn to it. It'd at least be worth a look, I think. Plus, if it were featured, the list of appearances might grow some, I'm sure there are some omissions. --TimMierz 19:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 6 (Feb 8-14)

For this week, how about Sickly Sam's Big Outing? MHarrington 02:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a good choice of Valentine-themed FA. Heimstern Läufer

03:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we already used TGS #12 before, so Sickly Sam's Big Outing is the only Vamlumtimes Day toon left. Therefore by the Process of Elimination, we should use Sickly Sam's Big Outing. C-Son-L Sweaters 18:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 7 (Feb 15-21)

How doing another set of dailies this week? I'm thinking of characters from Dangeresque, since people wanted a set of dailies themed to that series. How about: Dangeresque, Dangeresque Too, Renaldo, Cutesy Buttons, Perducci, Killingyouguy and either Craig or Baron Darin Diamonocle. MHarrington 16:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have three more ideas for a set of dailies: Main Pages (since we haven't done any Main Pages yet), e-mails from the second half of the Tandy era (last time we did a week of e-mails, we precisely covered the first half of the Tandy era [and that was a whiiiiile ago]), and Powered by The Cheat toons (since there are exactly 7 of them available). Jc iindyysgvxc 23:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If we have some recent articles on emails done up, I think we should put off the Tandy-era emails until later in the year, but not necessarily give up on that one. Besides, I chose Dangeresque characters because we haven't really done much of anything related to Dangeresque at all, short of the series as a whole. MHarrington 02:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of Dangeresque dailies, but I still think this is too early. We just had a set in October. I think the very maximum of dailies we should ever have is two sets a year, and that there should always be at least six months between them. Heimstern Läufer

03:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Then why don't we try for the first week of March. In the meantime, how about doing an article on the suffix -èd? MHarrington 06:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I helped expand that intro lately, but I think it needs to be rejiggered a bit. Otherwise, a decent selection. wbwolf (t | ed) 16:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I say we do SOMETHING Dangeresque related, since Febuary is the month of Renaldo's Retirement Party. SBE-mail Checker Dan 03:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Well, we'll see what the people in charge say. Of course, it's not like it hasn't happened that there has been an under-six-month hiatus between dailies before. In 2007, there was only a three-month buffer zone between daily articles, in 2007: Week 29 (in July) and Week 41 (in October). We'll have to just wait and see. MHarrington 06:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 8 (Feb 22-28)

1987? (I wonder how that page has so many hits, more than some e-mails...) Jc iindyysgvxc 11:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm kinda on the fence on that one... MHarrington 16:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That one might work. I don't think we've featured any of the year articles, and this one is probably the best of the bunch, since we have some clues why they refer to that year so often. wbwolf (t | ed) 16:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 9 (Mar 1-7)

Now that it's the third month and officially six months after October, I think we should try again to do a set of dailies for this week. Once again, I'd like to do a set on "Dangeresque" characters, since we've never really done anything here, short of the the series as a whole. Here's what I think we should do: Dangeresque (Monday), Dangeresque Too (Tuesday), Renaldo (Wednesday), Cutesy Buttons (Thursday), Perducci (Friday), Killingyouguy (Saturday) and either Craig or Baron Darin Diamonocle (Sunday). MHarrington 20:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Great idea! --SamuelGuy10 21:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Six months after October is April, not March. Heimstern Läufer

23:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think the time is right now to do this. MHarrington 03:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I still think it's too early after the most recent set of dailies. It's a real pain from the sysops' perspective of making sure all our main page images are protected, and even without that factor, I'm convinced the minimum gap between sets of dailies should be six months (making twice a year the maximum we're ever going to get). Heimstern Läufer

04:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

But if we were to do this in April, then wait about six months to do this, wouldn't the next one have to wait to be available until November? Usually, we do one right around October or so. Well, anyway, how about doing something like... another character relationship! I'm thinking of Marzipan and Coach Z's Relationship. That one has a surprisingly sufficient amount of text to justify it, in my book. MHarrington 07:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no memory of us "usually" doing a set of dailies in October. If that's indeed the case, I've no doubt it's just coincidence, nothing intentional. As for Marzi and Coach Z, though, I rather like that idea. Heimstern Läufer

02:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 10 (Mar 8-14)

Pi? RickTommy 08:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The prose intro is far too short at this point. Heimstern Läufer

13:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to use this for an article, here's a start for a write-up:

Pi is a numerical constant for the ratio between a circle's circumference and its diameter, written as π, and numerically as 3.14. This number was often used in the Homestar Runner universe, such as a price ($3.14), a time (3:14), "tt" replaced by π, and even a mini-game in Strong Badia the Free as "Pizza π". (more...)

That's Bupkis! 13:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is still too short, since there is not much beyond the write up. Also, a reminder: it's not necessary to do write-ups for articles at this point, we should just stick with discussion of the merits of articles. As an alternate, would it be too soon to feature another email, such as long pants? wbwolf (t | ed) 16:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to throw The Beatles into this discussion. cash money ^t_c 19:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's too short. MHarrington 03:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

More accurately, the intro is too short. Given the nature of the topic, I'm not sure if it would benefit from a longer intro; that would work better in Wikipedia. wbwolf (t | ed) 05:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 11 (Mar 15-21)

Atari Strong Bad, Lil' Strong Bad, or Atari Homestar. RickTommy 12:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You really couldn't have waited another, what, twelve hours so that you would have stayed within ten weeks as we've asked you to several times now?

As for your suggestions, both Atari articles are too short. Lil' SB might be a possibility. Heimstern Läufer

13:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 12 (Mar 22-28)

Marzipan's House? RickTommy 02:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 13 (Mar 29-Apr 4)

It's April Fools' Day, so how about homestarrunner.com Pay Plus? RickTommy 02:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we should do something that was proposed long ago: Sbemailiarized!. MHarrington 04:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

General discussion

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)