HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2010 Weeks 1-10

From Homestar Runner Wiki

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

---

HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 1 (Jan 4-10)

It's been a while since we've featured a Sweet Cuppin' Cakes character, so this week I vote that we feature an article that I hold very near and dear to me, and my new sunglasses. The Wheelchair! The Wheelchair 23:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I guess we can do The Wheelchair. MHarrington 06:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Since this week is the 6th anniversary of Stinkoman and 20X6, how about something from that universe this week? japanese cartoon, Stinkoman and 1-Up have already been featured. How about the email trading cards in which they are featured for this week instead? It'll be a while since we've done an email, and Trading Cards are an interesting running gag on the site, to boot. wbwolf (t | ed) 16:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's actually the 7th anniversary, not the 6th. And Pan Pan, Under Construction and Twenty THANXty Six were featured (at least that last one will be this Thanksgiving), too, though. It's just too bad that they have still not yet completed Stinkoman 20X6 or we could do that, too. Anyway, how about doing Cheatball? That article is long enough, I would think. MHarrington 00:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess Cheatball could work instead. I wasn't sure at first if it'd be long enough. Another possibility could be 20X6 vs. 1936. Either one would be fine. wbwolf (t | ed) 17:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it should be one where Stinkoman loses, I defiantly, I mean, Definitely vote Cheatball The McArby! 02:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I know this is very late notice, but now that we're celebrating the 10th anniversary of homestarrunner.com, complete with throwback styles, I strongly think we should preempt this week's regularly-scheduled featured article and feature the timeline of Homestar Runner instead. The reasons are twofold: to coincide with the anniversary, which is a big one that can't wait till next year; and to explain the throwback styles we're doing and why we're doing them right now. — It's dot com 02:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm normally rather against changing the FA last-minute like this, and I'm normally against featuring list-type articles. Nonetheless, in this case, I'm convinced by DC's reasoning. I believe we can just include the first few entries on the page as a writeup and then use the (more...) link as usual. Let me try to make a writeup. Heimstern Läufer 05:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

After toying with it for a bit, I think User:Heimstern Läufer/TimelineWriteup this will work. It's different from just about anything else we've ever done, but for this occasion, I think it's worth deviating from our norms some. Heimstern Läufer 05:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea and it would fit the theme. Here's how it would look on the current main page: http://www.hrwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User:Stux/sandbox&oldid=691264 --Stux 05:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the gist of it, although I think the list could be pared down a little or reformatted for the main page, and I'd like to take a stab at making a version that has an image. I'm too sleepy to do it right now, so I'll do it in the morning. — It's dot com 05:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here's my version. These are what I think are improvements: It's prose, like our regular writeups, which makes the left and right columns be closer in size. It has an image that directly ties into our throwback styles. It highlights exactly why we've adopted the styles in the first place. — It's dot com 00:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Granted, this would've been better last week, since the anniversary was the 1st. However, I don't object changing at the last minute, and I think I prefer the prose styles better. In this instance, I feel that a 10 year commemoration trumps Stinkoman's birthday (we'll slip him a prawn later....) wbwolf (t | ed) 03:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not generally a big fan of writeups differing substantially from the actual content. (Even the summaries of toons we do have always seemed like a deviation to me.) In this case, though, it might be necessary, and really the difference in terms of content is fairly minimal. So, I suppose this can be done. I do wish there were a way to make the writeup and article more uniform while still looking attractive, but I don't know that there is a way. Heimstern Läufer 06:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think prose is necessary because it allows the image and bolded part to be incorporated more easily, which I view as integral to the effect. I've moved my working copy to the Featured Article template so that it can be polished if necessary. — It's dot com 07:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I also like the idea of using the cheat ball it is a well put-together article that deserves more attention plus the cheat ball is unexplainably adorable!--safariventureman 14:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess you missed the rest of this discussion? We decided to change plans and do Timeline of HR, not Cheatball. Heimstern Läufer 14:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 2 (Jan 11-17)

This week would be Trogdor's birthday, so let's do something like that. I'm thinking The S is for Sucks Dragon. MHarrington 06:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should be Trogdor related, I'd suggest Wormdingler, if we had more to go on, but Wormdingler has showed up only twice, and was only named last trogday, so Ima have to agree on The S is for sucks dragon. although we could take in a bit of a different direction... like maybe Stinkoman related. The McArby! 17:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yo man, I'm down. I mean, I totally support S Is For Sucks. wbwolf (t | ed) 16:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

sounds like a good idea! the s is for sucks is a great twist to make this trogday the best yet!--safariventureman 19:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

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)