HRWiki:Featured Article Selection

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 03:15, 18 July 2011 (edit) The Knights Who Say Ni (Talk | contribs) m (→original: check mark) ← Older edit		Revision as of 02:04, 8 August 2011 (edit) (undo) JCM (Talk | contribs) (→Featured Article Queue: stop being lazy and update the queue) Newer edit →
Line 59:		Line 59:
	{| {{standardtable}}		{| {{standardtable}}
	! Week !! Article !! Discussion		! Week !! Article !! Discussion
-	{{FA queue| 23 May 2011 |Homestar Runner universe}}	+	{{FA queue| 1 Aug 2011 |Virus}}
-	{{FA queue| 30 May 2011 |Fluffy Puff Commercial}}	+	{{FA queue| 8 Aug 2011 |Bubs}}
-	{{FA queue| 6 Jun 2011 |Homestar Ruiner}}	+
-	{{FA queue| 13 Jun 2011 |comic and Teen Girl Squad Issue 1}}	+
-	{{FA queue| 20 Jun 2011 |Index Page}}	+
-	{{FA queue| 27 Jun 2011 |Theme Song Video}}	+
-	{{FA queue| 4 Jul 2011 |crazy cartoon}}	+
-	{{FA queue| 11 Jul 2011 |Senor Cardgage}}	+
-	{{FA queue| 18 Jul 2011 |original}}	+
	|}		|}

---

Revision as of 02:04, 8 August 2011

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.

Contents 1 Checklist 2 Discussion archives 3 Featured Article Queue 3.1 Homestar Runner universe 3.2 Fluffy Puff Commercial 3.3 Homestar Ruiner 3.4 comic and Teen Girl Squad Issue 1 3.5 Index Page 3.6 Theme Song Video 3.7 crazy cartoon 3.8 Senor Cardgage 3.9 original 4 Article discussions 4.1 Characters 4.2 Cinder Block 4.3 Duck Guardian One 4.4 FAQ 4.5 Games 4.6 Intro 4.7 Kick-a-Ball 4.8 Main Pages (daily feature) 4.9 Pom Pilot 4.10 The Umpire 4.11 20X6 vs. 1936 4.12 The Virus 4.13 Toons 5 Discussions of Articles Needing Expansion 5.1 The Cheat's Gold Tooth 5.2 Coach Z's Locker Room 5.3 The Field 5.4 Not the 100th Email 6 Stalled Discussions 6.1 Because, It's Midnite 6.2 Fonts 6.3 homestarrunner.com 6.4 Inconsistencies within the Homestar Runner universe 6.5 A Sbemail 6.6 Sightings 6.7 Strong Bad Smiling 6.8 Swears 7 General discussion 7.1 Daily Featured Blocks (On Occasion)

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 | 2010, Weeks 11-20 | 2010, Weeks 21-30 | 2010, Weeks 31-40 | 2010, Weeks 41-52

2011, Weeks 1-10 | 2011, Weeks 11-20 | 2011, Weeks 21-30 | 2011, Weeks 31-40

Featured Article Queue

Week	Article	Discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 31 (Aug 1–7)	Virus	discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 32 (Aug 8–14)	Bubs	discussion

Homestar Runner universe

HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 21 (May 23–29)

Another very important article that I'm surprised hasn't been featured yet. RickTommy (edits) 10:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Fluffy Puff Commercial

HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 22 (May 30–Jun 5)

Since we're less than two weeks away, I think we should decide on this one. How about Fluffy Puff Commercial to celebrate its tenth anniversary? doctorwho295 18 December 2010

definitely not a bad idea. however, it doesn't look like we know the release date closer than the year and what the WayBack Machine has told us. so theoretically, for all we know, just featuring it at some point in the first half of 2011 is accurate enough. Also, it would appear as though rock opera is currently the one selected to be the Featured Article for the week you suggested. That's not in stone until the week happens, but it isn't likely to change. Doctorwho295 - could you rewrite your nomination to make it sound less week-specific? The Knights Who Say Ni 23:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I'll put Fluffy Puff Commercial below. doctorwho295 19 December 2010

I suggested this above for New Year's, but because it appears that's been already chosen, I am suggesting this for another week. Any opinions? doctorwho295 19 December 2010

I will detract from featuring this article. The fun facts section is quite short (featuring only eleven), and is a far less memorable instance of the "Homestar forgets his lines" gag then First Time Here?. I might be swayed the other way if someone makes a convincing argument, though, seeing as it did come before the previously mentioned 'toon. -- Super Martyo boing! 08:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the article again, I see your point and take back my suggestion. doctorwho295 10 February 2011

Well, I say yes, it's not a bad idea, because it was also the introduction of Fluffy Puff Marshmallows. RickTommy (edits) 05:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I was also thinking about re-suggesting this. It's definitely not worse than some other toons that did get featured lately. --93.207.89.92 14:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC) (That Anonny Guy)

Earlier what i said was that it was not a bad idea to suggest featuring. now i'm saying that I support featuring this article. We should do a writeup of it soon. Is anyone opposed to doing it next? The Knights Who Say Ni 19:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Homestar Ruiner

HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 23 (Jun 6–12)

I think that sometime soon, we should start featuring the SBCG4AP episodes - I'm a bit surprised that none of them have been featured yet. RickTommy (edits) 22:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we could do the SBCG4AP episodes as a daily sometime later in the year. If not, I'm for featuring this by itself. doctorwho295 1 January 2011

Unfortunately, that's not possible, because there are five episodes. And I'm certain that it's been pointed out that the SBCG4AP episodes are important enough for a week to themselves.

And on an unrelated note, are you signing correctly? Because your signature shows only the date, never the time. It's a lot less effort to type the four tildes than it is to type your whole username and the date. RickTommy (edits) 07:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

What I was thinking of doing if we do the daily is adding maybe Strong Bad Gameways and SBCG4AP Advertisement to the games to make it seven days. As for the signature bit, I never thought it was a problem to not include the time. I don't have a GMC clock (I think that's what it's called) on my computer so I just leave it out. If it's a major problem, I could put in. doctorwho295 2 January 2011

I agree with doctorwho925, they would make great dailies when tied with the other two articles. And yes, the episodes probably are important enough for a week to themselves, but at the same time, that means we have five weeks of SBCG4AP, which I think is a bit much, even if we spread them out.

And also, RickTommy means that you can just type four tildes like this: ~~~~ and your signature, as well as the time and date of you post, will automagically be tagged on to the end of your post. -- Super Martyo boing! 08:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Given how little content TBC are making these days, I'm against turning this into a daily. As has been said, each of these episodes can easily sustain a week, and so compressing all of them into one week is poor management of limited resources, in my opinion. Heimstern Läufer 11:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point, Heimstern. I all for featuring this by itself. doctorwho295 22 March 2011

comic and Teen Girl Squad Issue 1

HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 24 (Jun 13–19)

If we're ever to feaure either of these, I think we should feature the other one simultaneously, just as we did with some of the Dangeresque articles earlier this year. RickTommy (edits) 22:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. They both are equally significant, since they're essentially the same 'toon (granted one has been sbemailiarized). I don't remember how we did the Dangeresque articles, though, so other people who remember how that went will also need to comment. — Super Martyo Brother (Talk | contribs) 08:06, 6 February 2011 (left unsigned)

They were done like this. RickTommy (edits) 11:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Index Page

HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 25 (Jun 20–26)

It's H*R's most visible page - it would make a great feature. RickTommy (edits) 06:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Does the page have enough information on it? I'm not so certain if this page has enough. doctorwho295 19 March 2011

I think it's not very interesting. (That Anonny Guy) --93.207.75.209 11:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Theme Song Video

HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 26 (Jun 27–Jul 3)

One of the earliest toons on the site. RickTommy (edits) 10:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but awesome as that song is, that toon's way too short to work well on the Main Page. PowerPie 01:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

But, as said before, "length has nothing to do with an article's featurability." Also, the beat used in the song has been re-used in several other toons, so I'd say yes, it would make a great feature. RickTommy (edits) 05:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It is quite a major song on the site. It's been referenced a few times, and I don't think length is really an issue any more. I support. doctorwho295 00:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

This one is my vote for what we should do next. No one is preparing a writeup of something else yet, are they? The Knights Who Say Ni 20:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

crazy cartoon

HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 27 (Jul 4–10)

As with these. RickTommy (edits) 22:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the SBEmail is far more significant to the universe and is better-written. The PBtC 'toon is one of the shorter in that genre, and did not introduce any new characters, unlike the SBEmail, which introduced a new universe. I'm quite surprised the email hasn't already been featured. -- Super Martyo boing! 08:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Just incase my post wasn't clear, by "As with these", I meant the simultaneous feature. RickTommy (edits) 11:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I understood that. I don't think that Crazy Cartoon deserves to share a box with crazy cartoon (links to help disambiguate the two articles). -- Super Martyo boing! 00:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Eh! Steve! I think crazy cartoon would be a good article. I don't think the Power'd by the cheat toon itself wouldn't make a good article. I agree with Super Martyo. --206.116.143.157 23:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Have a trophy! --93.207.89.92 14:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC) (That Anonny Guy)

Hmmm...1 person wants crazy cartoon to share a box with the PBTC 'toon, and 4 people (including me) want crazy cartoon to have it's own box. crazy cartoon (email) wins! -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 14:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Senor Cardgage

HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 28 (Jul 11–17)

No FA this week, redirect from four years ago. The Knights Who Say Ni 02:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

original

HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 29 (Jul 18–24)

Strong Bad Email "Original", starring the Original Bubs! Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 14:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a pretty decent article, with plenty of information, so I support. It's also a good email as well. doctorwho295 00:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I like this idea; we'll all be able to see it from here. The Knights Who Say Ni 20:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Article discussions

Characters

Nearly a year after proposing these, I'm still extremely surprised that none of them have been featured; they're among the more important articles. RickTommy (edits) 13:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait, this has never been featured? Wow. Maybe we should do one of these for the week of January 1st? doctorwho295 14 November 2010

The reason they haven't been featured is that none except maybe Games has a long enough intro to be featured. Even Games really ought to be expanded before featuring. Heimstern Läufer 15:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Heim. Also, these should probably be split into different conversations. -- Super Martyo boing! 08:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion now split

Cinder Block

An important pseudo-character. RickTommy (edits) 00:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not that important. It doesn't even get counted in the population. — It's dot com 02:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The only reason the Cinder Block is on in the first place is when Strong Badia is on. I would rather feature Strong Badia if we ever feel the need to have this mentioned. doctorwho295 12:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Umm, Strong Badia has already been featured, and I doubt it wouldn't have already been featured. RickTommy (edits) 12:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Duck Guardian One

Although it doesn't have anything to do with the HR universe, this is a game that's actually quite a lot of fun. If only you didn't have to start all over when you fail a level... (That Anonny Guy) --93.207.75.209 11:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 01:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Duck is great time! I agree! --that guy who is Jfiles 12:13, 29 June 2011 (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

Games

Nearly a year after proposing these, I'm still extremely surprised that none of them have been featured; they're among the more important articles. RickTommy (edits) 13:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait, this has never been featured? Wow. Maybe we should do one of these for the week of January 1st? doctorwho295 14 November 2010

The reason they haven't been featured is that none except maybe Games has a long enough intro to be featured. Even Games really ought to be expanded before featuring. Heimstern Läufer 15:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Heim. Also, these should probably be split into different conversations. -- Super Martyo boing! 08:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion now split

Intro

Another important H*R page. RickTommy (edits) 06:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I think this has a little more information than the above [the index page], but there might be a need for more. Any other opinions on this? doctorwho295 19 March 2011

Agreed. It's better than the Index Page but I'm not sure if it's interesting enough. (That Anonny Guy) --93.207.75.209 11:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Kick-a-Ball

All Right, Kickball!!!!! -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 21:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Main Pages (daily feature)

Sometime soon, can we have a week of daily articles? I was thinking maybe stuff on Old Flash Stuff or some Main Pages. RickTommy (edits) 10:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

A Main Page daily would be awesome! PowerPie 01:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

As long as it's in November or later, for the at least 6 month spacing of dailies, A week of dailies would be nice. Although, hard to choose just 7 Main Pages to feature. StrongAwesome 22:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the best way to go about this. If you have seven articles in mind for a daily, then you should propose those seven articles, but don't just say "We should do a daily." -- Super Martyo boing! 05:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we should do this daily before the end of the year. RickTommy (edits) 00:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no pressing need for a daily to occur before the end of the year. Moreover, adequate no topic has been suggested for a daily. A daily shouldn't be made for the sake of having a daily, it should be used to showcase stuff that doesn't always fit in one weekly FA. The new format can help encourage that, but we should always pick dailies carefully. --Stux 21:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, might I add that in the future, dailies will need to be more frequent, since we will eventually run out of articles that are important enough for a week to themselves? RickTommy (edits) 13:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If we start running out of articles, we might need to go in the other direction; that is, keep the certain featured article for longer than a week so that we don't run out so quickly. but that shouldn't happen for a very long time, so i don't think we need to worry about it. The Knights Who Say Ni 17:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Either way, I think that we should do this daily soon, as it has been a while since our last one. Anyway, my theme for the daily: Main Pages, as was said at the start of this conversation. Anyway, the main pages we should feature are: 1, 7, 13, 15, 17, 23, and the Homsar Main Page. RickTommy (edits) 06:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

We did two weeks of dailies earlier this year. After that, I would suggest we wait a while before another set, at least until the new year. Heimstern Läufer 09:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair 'nough. PowerPie 20:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Until the updates start flowing again, I say we just don't do any period. Like Ni, I'm worried about time and the amount articles we have. —Soiled Bargains ^(talk|ctrb) 23:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless we get a really good set of articles approved by at least a few people, we should hold off on the dailies. doctorwho295 5 February 2011

Now it's been nearly a year since our last daily. So can we now do this one? RickTommy (edits) 06:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What set of dailies do you suggest and why? That's really the first step here. For my part, I'm really not sold on doing a set of dailies soon, still, but maybe others will want to. Heimstern Läufer 08:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably the Main Page dailies that I mentioned above. RickTommy (edits) 09:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. I don't think we've ever featured a Main Page before, so I'd be interested in knowing if we could manage much of a writeup for one. What would one of those look like? Heimstern Läufer 09:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

For a Main Page daily, how about this: 1, 7, 15, 18, 20, 22 and 26? doctorwho295 22 March 2011

1. One of them should be one of the special Main Pages.
2. Here, I also suggested a Main Page daily, and I also said that we will probably do three more Main Page dailies sometime in the future. But this means that one Main Page will miss out, so that one will get a week to itself, and MP22 seems to be the most important one, so that will be the one. Actually, that comment was made before MP26 was released, so this means that two MPs will get a week to themselves. But MP22 is still one of those two.
3. And speaking of MP26, it's too new to be featured.
4. Just FYI, earlier in this discussion, I also wrote a list of the Main Pages we should feature.

RickTommy (edits) 12:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm for this. Now we just need to come to some kind of consensus for which ones to feature. I'd pick ones that feature running gags or are done in the alternate universes: 3 ("wear a bikini"), 10 (Old-Timey), 11 ("today's forecast is total crap"/"more than two problems"), 17 (20X6), 22 (virus), 23 (backwards), and either the Strong Bad or Homsar main page. Regarding the list above: (1) Yes. (2) That discussion is obsolete. Any points you made there don't apply here unless you restate them and they gain consensus. (3) I agree that 26 is too new only because, well, it's still on the main page list of what's new. (4) You sure did. — It's dot com 01:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The main pages don't really have enough info. They might need a...test write. -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 14:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to try to gather more interest for the FAS before we do a daily. doctorwho295 00:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Pom Pilot

An interesting article, since it is one of the minor computers that Strong Bad has used. RickTommy (edits) 02:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems very short and rather insignificant to me. --93.207.86.183 10:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC) (That Anonny Guy)

I agree primarily with the concern about the article being too short. I don't think it's a good choice to feature. Heimstern Läufer 11:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Even with major expansion, I don't think the article can be featured. doctorwho295 22 March 2011

The Umpire

The Umpire. He would make a Great article!!! Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 14:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

There's not much information on the page. I don't think I can support this. doctorwho295 00:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. But I'm suprised 20X6 vs. 1936 was never featured. Let's feature that instead. -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 14:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

20X6 vs. 1936

Suprised it was never featured. -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 21:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The Virus

The Virus! The Virus! -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 14:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This article might need a bit more expansion before getting featured. doctorwho295 00:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Toons

Nearly a year after proposing these, I'm still extremely surprised that none of them have been featured; they're among the more important articles. RickTommy (edits) 13:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait, this has never been featured? Wow. Maybe we should do one of these for the week of January 1st? doctorwho295 14 November 2010

The reason they haven't been featured is that none except maybe Games has a long enough intro to be featured. Even Games really ought to be expanded before featuring. Heimstern Läufer 15:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Heim. Also, these should probably be split into different conversations. -- Super Martyo boing! 08:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion now split

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.

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)

Coach Z's Locker Room

Another important place. RickTommy (edits) 05:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it's important not only in the toons but in SBCG4AP too. doctorwho295 3 February 2011

Yeah, but look at previous place articles we have featured. They're all a lot more fleshed out. I think, as the article stands right now, it is not worthy of a feature. It's significant enough to the universe that it could merit a feature if somebody gives it some TLC. -- Super Martyo boing! 08:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you are probably right. The article has three paragraphs and most of the article is its appearances. It would need expansion before being featured. doctorwho295 21 February 2011

I agree. With its appearances in SBCG4AP it's a pretty significant place, but the article needs some expansion before being featured. --93.207.86.183 10:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC) (That Anonny Guy)

The Field

Exactly one year after proposing The Field, I would like to propose it again. It is an important place which appears in about half the toons on the site. RickTommy (edits) 05:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's ready because of the short intro. If you could expand it, maybe then we could do so. Heimstern Läufer 01:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Not the 100th Email

Original title: Not the 100th Email, Sbemail 150?!?, or Page Load Error

As teasers to milestone e-mails, I believe that one of them should be featured. 124.181.68.22 13:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say Not the 100th Email. RickTommy (edits) 07:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Start with the first one, makes sense. Although it is very short. --93.207.87.212 08:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC) (That Anonny Guy)

Anon makes a good point. Not the 100th Email is rather short. Would we be able to expand that enough to make a quality write-up? DENNIS ^T/_C 08:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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.

Because, It's Midnite

It's a cool & major song. PowerPie 15:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Um...... most of the page is lyrics. As much as people love the song (me included), I don't think it can be featured in it's current state. doctorwho295 September 7, 2010

I would have to agree. We would need some actual content to put on the homepage. The point of the Featured Article section is to showcase an article that the wiki can be proud of, and I'm not sure we can be proud of a page of lyrics and trivia. DENNIS ^T/_C 21:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I see your point & I recant that suggestion. PowerPie

Fonts

It's the biggest page on this wiki - I think it deserves to be featured sometime soon. RickTommy (edits) 10:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems too list-like and without enough prose to make a good feature to me. Heimstern Läufer 17:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Per Heimstern. Although we wre able to feature lists in the past by putting key examples in the writeup, I highly doubt that will work for the fonts page. PowerPie 01:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it's feature-worthy, and I could probably write a good FA paragraph on it, but it is really just one big list, albeit a long, useful one. -- Super Martyo boing! 06:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

homestarrunner.com

How about starting off the new year with homestarrunner.com, an article that has been nominated many times before? RickTommy (edits) 05:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, artichoke! PowerPie

Uh, I disagree. This seems like a last resort kind of selection. We have plenty of articles. I think we can pick something else. --Record307 ^Talk/_Contribs 22:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Toons, Games, or Characters for New Years? doctorwho295 14 November 2010

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)

A Sbemail

We usually feature a Sbemail [the week of July 18-24]. How about different town, your friends, long pants, dangeresque 3, or theme song? RickTommy (edits) 08:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, sounds fine to me. doctorwho295 20:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, RickTommy's still trying to invoke the old format. ;) Any of these Sbemails would be fine to feature on any given week. --93.207.89.92 14:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC) (That Anonny Guy)

Header changed to just "a sbemail" as there's really no significance to any particular week. Heimstern Läufer 15:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The anonny is right. This kind of nomination is horribly vague and has no place here under the current format. If you want to nominate any of those emails on their own, singular merits, then that would be fine. — It's dot com 21:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sightings

The Sightings subpages are heavily edited, so how about featuring either Sightings or one of the subpages? RickTommy (edits) 22:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no real introduction on any of the pages beside the first and there isn't a lot to speak of, anyway. We can't really expand it, either. doctorwho295 3 February 2011

Aside from that, the sightings pages are some of the WORST pages on the wiki. FA is supposed to be our best stuff. — Defender1031*Talk 01:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The Sightings pages are confused about what deserves to be on them. -- Super Martyo boing! 08:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the sightings pages because they are too inclusive (a discussion for another page, I know). If there were some minimum threshold of notability for a particular sighting to be listed, then that would be a different story, but in their current form I don't think the sightings pages should ever be featured. — It's dot com 21:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Strong Bad Smiling

One of the most well-known recurring themes on the site. 124.180.171.96 01:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

A dangerous topic to touch upon... ;-) --93.207.87.212 08:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC) (That Anonny Guy)

The article is listed as needing cleanup and revision. I doubt we'd be able to feature it in its current state. DENNIS ^T/_C 08:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

As the second anonny points out, this article has a been a serious point of contention on-wiki. I'm not sure we should feature on article that a number of users think shouldn't even be an article. Heimstern Läufer 02:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Swears

I know it's not exactly an appropriate article for featuring, but it's still a rather popular one. RickTommy (edits) 12:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. You say it's not appropriate for featuring, but you're suggesting featuring it? For my part, I don't really think this article should appear on the Main Page, as interesting an article as it may be. Heimstern Läufer 14:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The article itself would be up for nomination, but because of the subject matter it shouldn't go up. doctorwho295 01:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I do think this article is interesting, but, yeah, it's probably not best to link to it from the main page. — It's dot com 01:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

We could make it a Featured Article WITHOUT using any swears or links to this page. -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 17:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No, we really couldn't. Part of the point of featuring an article is to make an easy link to the article. Per subject matter of the page, I'm against featuring this article. The Knights Who Say Ni 18:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Me Too! -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 19:12, 11 July 2011 (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)