HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Stalled Discussions Archive 2

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.

---

Contents 1 Stalled Discussions 1.1 Visor Robot 1.2 The Brothers Chaps' Fansite Acknowledgements 1.3 Inconsistencies within the Homestar Runner universe 1.4 Scroll Button Songs 1.5 homestarrunner.com 1.6 Nicknames 1.7 Strong Bad Emails (daily feature) 1.8 Meet Marshie 1.9 FAQ 1.10 Legal 1.11 The Announcer 1.12 Doreauxgard 1.13 The Cheat's Gold Tooth 1.14 your friends 1.15 Compé

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.

Visor Robot

An important minor character. RickTommy (edits) 10:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

"Important" in what way? — Defender1031*Talk 10:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I made a draft -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 01:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's important in that the Wiki gave it that name and the Brothers Chaps decided to use the name themselves, as an acknowledgement. And nice write-up, G-guy. RickTommy (edits) 10:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Meh. — Defender1031*Talk 11:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

Inconsistencies within the Homestar Runner universe

An interesting topic. TBC stated that it doesn't bother them, so it it would be ok to feature. --93.207.85.97 13:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC) (That Anonny Guy)

Featuring an article that has an incomplete template on it? I think not. -- Super Martyo boing! 08:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The thing is that this article will likely never be fully completed, considering that some of the inconsistencies at times can be very small. I completely support this article. doctorwho295 10 February 2011

I support to! PowerPie 02:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't notice the Incomplete Notice when I suggested it. I see how that would normally keep an article from being featured. But like doctorwho said, this is an article that will probably never be considered complete and I think it can be featured in the current state. I would however accept it if it is decided against it. --93.207.86.183 10:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC) (That Anonny Guy)

I'm with SMB. Featured articles should be examples of the fine work of the wiki. If it's incomplete, it's not really a good specimen of our work. And to those who say it'll never complete, I say that if so, it'll never be suitable for featuring. And some articles never are. Heimstern Läufer 11:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

But Crimes Committed by Strong Bad, Marzipan and Coach Z's Relationship, and Bubs's Shady Business Practices have incomplete templates on them, and they got featured. Either way, this article not only has a long enough intro, but starts with not one, but two quotes. So I support it too. RickTommy (edits) 13:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Those pages are somewhat more clear-cut than this one is though. — Defender1031*Talk 16:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's why I think this article should not be featured: although all four articles have an "Incomplete Notice" that doesn't paint the full picture. The three articles listed above (Crimes Committed by Strong Bad, Marzipan and Coach Z's Relationship, and Bubs's Shady Business Practices) can be considered to be fairly objective lists. We actually can get authoritative sources (such as the laws of various states and the federal district for "crimes" and "shady business", and toon transcripts for the "relationship" article where Marzipan and Coach Z appear and interact) that make it clear what goes in each article leaving only a small amout of room for disagreements. If we wanted to, the HRWiki community could ensure that all toons have been covered and remove the tags. We haven't because this is a laborious process. While we believe we've probably caught most, if not all, instances of the topic in question in each article, we can't know with 100% certainty that we've covered everything. So to be safe that "incomplete" tag is there until we can know for sure (see the geddup noise talk page).

On the other hand, the "inconsistencies" article is reasonably more subjective, there is no clear guide that defines what goes in the article (except perhaps webster's dictionary), and what's worse, even if there were an objective meter we'd have to check every action in every toon against all other actions in all other toons and material if we even want to consider this list to be complete! Like Heim said, "Featured articles should be examples of the fine work of the wiki" and it's hard to place "inconsistencies" in that category. While the article covers an interesting topic, the subjective and loosely defined nature of this work makes it somewhat speculative and even presumes that The Brothers Chaps are omniscient beings. --Stux 15:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the lengthy response. But I would just like to point out that no-one except myself has addressed the well-written intro, which I think should be the major factor here. RickTommy (edits) 23:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll address it. It's not a factor when weighed against all the other objections raised. It's got a great intro, and I personally happen to really like that page, but when compared to the other great lists on the wiki such as Bubs's Shady Business Practices, Crimes Committed by Strong Bad, and Coach Z's Problems, it just doesn't doesn't live up. Aside from those other pages being itemized, organized, and categorized, the most important thing, even if the inconsistencies page were all those things, is the inherent inability to maintain reasonable objectivity when it comes to what counts. I'd go even further as to say that it's a bad example because TBC don't really try to maintain much consistency when it comes to most of the things that get put on that page. Locations of landmarks, ages and life status of characters, even some of their knowledge. Other things on that list are questionable, such as "Strong Sad tells Strong Bad he never heard of Limozeen, but they watched Limozeen: "but they're in space!" together in best thing." are just kind of like "okay, so if i watched some weird show i didn't care about once with my brother who hates me, i also wouldn't necessarily remember the name of the show or the characters." Yes, the intro is very well-worded and contains one quote from Matt and another from Strong Sad, but the list itself, which is the main information set being documented by the article, is not up to par. Remember, "featured articles" are not "featured intros", and having a good intro to a list is just not enough. — Defender1031*Talk 17:14, 8 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)

The Cheat's Gold Tooth

How about featuring TC's tricked-out grill. -132.183.13.68 18:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. It's not that significant but it's long enough. Rondleman! Stuff I did.Talk. 01:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think this is one of those articles that should be expanded a little before featuring. (Alternatively, if a writeup is made that expands on the topic, it can also be placed in the queue that way). --Stux 21:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I've drafted an adequate write-up. (HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Drafts#The Cheat's Gold Tooth) RickTommy (edits) 06:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The writeup is long enough, but i don't think the topic is really all that interesting to feature. — Defender1031*Talk 18:21, 16 May 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)