HRWiki:Featured Article Selection

From Homestar Runner Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Featured Article Queue: oh great now I have to do this too)
(doing what no else cares enough to do)
Line 61: Line 61:
{{FA queue| 1 Aug 2011 |Virus}}
{{FA queue| 1 Aug 2011 |Virus}}
{{FA queue| 8 Aug 2011 |Bubs}}
{{FA queue| 8 Aug 2011 |Bubs}}
 +
{{FA queue| 5 Sep 2011 |Duck Guardian One}}
 +
{{FA queue| 3 Oct 2011 |FAQ}}
|}
|}
==Article discussions==
==Article discussions==
-
===[[Characters]]===
+
===[[Duck Guardian One]]===
-
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. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 13:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
+
''{{done}} {{FA|5 Sep 2011}}''
-
:Wait, this has never been featured? Wow. Maybe we should do one of these for the week of January 1st? [[User:doctorwho295|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. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 15:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
+
-
:::I agree with Heim. Also, these should probably be split into different conversations. --{{User:Super Martyo Brother/sig}} 08:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
+
-
:''Discussion now split''
+
-
===[[Cinder Block]]===
 
-
An important pseudo-character. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 00:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 
-
:It's not that important. It doesn't even get counted in the population. — [[User:It's dot com|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. [[User:Doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 12:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 
-
:::Umm, Strong Badia has already been featured, and I doubt it wouldn't have already been featured. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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) --[[Special:Contributions/93.207.75.209|93.207.75.209]] 11:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
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) --[[Special:Contributions/93.207.75.209|93.207.75.209]] 11:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
:I agree --{{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}} 01:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
:I agree --{{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}} 01:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Line 84: Line 75:
===[[FAQ]]===
===[[FAQ]]===
 +
''{{done}} {{FA|3 Oct 2011}}''
 +
An important page on the site. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 01:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
An important page on the site. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 03:23, 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. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 03:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
::I think we'll be able to do an introduction of this. I support nomination. [[User:doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 21 February 2011
::I think we'll be able to do an introduction of this. I support nomination. [[User:doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 21 February 2011
-
===[[Games]]===
+
===[[Kick-a-Ball]]===
-
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. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 13:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
+
''{{done}} {{FA|7 Nov 2011}}''
-
:Wait, this has never been featured? Wow. Maybe we should do one of these for the week of January 1st? [[User:doctorwho295|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. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 15:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
+
-
:::I agree with Heim. Also, these should probably be split into different conversations. --{{User:Super Martyo Brother/sig}} 08:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
+
-
:''Discussion now split''
+
-
===[[Intro]]===
 
-
Another important H*R page. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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? [[User:doctorwho295|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) --[[Special:Contributions/93.207.75.209|93.207.75.209]] 11:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 
-
 
-
===[[Kick-a-Ball]]===
 
All Right, Kickball!!!!! --{{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}} 21:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
All Right, Kickball!!!!! --{{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}} 21:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
-
===[[Main Pages]] (daily feature)===
+
===[[20X6 vs. 1936]]===
-
Sometime soon, can we have a week of daily articles? I was thinking maybe stuff on [[Old Flash Stuff]] or some [[Main Pages]]. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 10:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
+
''{{done}} {{FA|5 Dec 2011}}''
-
:A Main Page daily would be awesome! {{User:Power Pie/sig}} 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. {{User:StrongAwesome74/sig}} 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." --{{User:Super Martyo Brother/sig}} 05:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
+
-
::::I think we should do this daily before the end of the year. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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. --[[User:Stux|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? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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. {{User:The Knights Who Say Ni/sig}} 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: [[Main Page 1|1]], [[Main Page 7|7]], [[Main Page 13|13]], [[Main Page 15|15]], [[Main Page 17|17]], [[Main Page 23|23]], and the [[Homsar Main Page]]. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 09:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
+
-
::::::::::Fair 'nough. {{User:Power Pie/sig}} 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. {{User:Soiled Bargains/sig}} 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. [[User:doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 5 February 2011
+
-
:::Now it's been nearly a year since our last daily. So can we now do this one? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 08:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
+
-
:::::Probably the Main Page dailies that I mentioned above. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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? {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 09:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
+
-
:::::::For a Main Page daily, how about this: 1, 7, 15, 18, 20, 22 and 26? [[User:doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 22 March 2011
+
-
::::::::# One of them should be one of the special Main Pages.
+
-
::::::::# [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2010 Weeks 11-20#HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 18 (May 3-9)|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. <s>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.</s> 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.
+
-
::::::::# And speaking of MP26, it's too new to be featured.
+
-
::::::::# Just FYI, earlier in this discussion, I also wrote a list of the Main Pages we should feature.
+
-
::::::::{{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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 universe]]s: 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. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|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. --{{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}} 14:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
+
-
::I think we need to try to gather more interest for the FAS before we do a daily. [[User:Doctorwho295|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. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 02:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
+
-
:It seems very short and rather insignificant to me. --[[Special:Contributions/93.207.86.183|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. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 11:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
+
-
:::I agree. Even with major expansion, I don't think the article can be featured. [[User:doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 22 March 2011
+
-
===[[The Umpire]]===
 
-
The Umpire. He would make a Great article!!! {{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}} 14:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 
-
:There's not much information on the page. I don't think I can support this. [[User:Doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 00:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 
-
::OK. But I'm suprised [[20X6 vs. 1936]] was never featured. Let's feature ''that'' instead. --{{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}} 14:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 
-
 
-
===[[20X6 vs. 1936]]===
 
Suprised it was never featured. --{{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}} 21:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Suprised it was never featured. --{{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}} 21:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
-
 
-
===[[The Virus]]===
 
-
The Virus! The Virus! --{{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}} 14:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 
-
:This article might need a bit more expansion before getting featured. [[User:Doctorwho295|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. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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? [[User:doctorwho295|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. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 15:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 
-
:::I agree with Heim. Also, these should probably be split into different conversations. --{{User:Super Martyo Brother/sig}} 08:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 
-
:''Discussion now split''
 
== Discussions of Articles Needing Expansion ==
== Discussions of Articles Needing Expansion ==
Line 183: Line 117:
::Start with the first one, makes sense. Although it is very short. --[[Special:Contributions/93.207.87.212|93.207.87.212]] 08:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC) (That Anonny Guy)
::Start with the first one, makes sense. Although it is very short. --[[Special:Contributions/93.207.87.212|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? {{User:DENNIS/sig}} 08:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
:::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? {{User:DENNIS/sig}} 08:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
===[[The Virus]]===
 +
The Virus! The Virus! --{{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}} 14:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 +
:This article might need a bit more expansion before getting featured. [[User:Doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 00:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 +
 +
===[[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. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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? [[User:doctorwho295|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. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 15:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 +
:::I agree with Heim. Also, these should probably be split into different conversations. --{{User:Super Martyo Brother/sig}} 08:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
==Stalled Discussions==
==Stalled Discussions==
Line 241: Line 185:
:::::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. {{User:The Knights Who Say Ni/sig}} 18:24, 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. {{User:The Knights Who Say Ni/sig}} 18:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::Me Too! --{{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}} 19:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::Me Too! --{{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}} 19:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 +
 +
===[[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. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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? [[User:doctorwho295|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. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 15:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 +
:::I agree with Heim. Also, these should probably be split into different conversations. --{{User:Super Martyo Brother/sig}} 08:06, 6 February 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. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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? [[User:doctorwho295|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. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 15:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 +
:::I agree with Heim. Also, these should probably be split into different conversations. --{{User:Super Martyo Brother/sig}} 08:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 +
 +
===[[Pom Pilot]]===
 +
An interesting article, since it is one of the minor computers that Strong Bad has used. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 02:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 +
:It seems very short and rather insignificant to me. --[[Special:Contributions/93.207.86.183|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. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 11:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 +
:::I agree. Even with major expansion, I don't think the article can be featured. [[User:doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 22 March 2011
 +
 +
===[[Cinder Block]]===
 +
An important pseudo-character. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 00:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 +
:It's not that important. It doesn't even get counted in the population. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|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. [[User:Doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 12:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 +
:::Umm, Strong Badia has already been featured, and I doubt it wouldn't have already been featured. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 12:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 +
 +
===[[The Umpire]]===
 +
The Umpire. He would make a Great article!!! {{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}} 14:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 +
:There's not much information on the page. I don't think I can support this. [[User:Doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 00:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 +
::OK. But I'm suprised [[20X6 vs. 1936]] was never featured. Let's feature ''that'' instead. --{{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}} 14:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 +
 +
===[[Intro]]===
 +
 +
Another important H*R page. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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? [[User:doctorwho295|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) --[[Special:Contributions/93.207.75.209|93.207.75.209]] 11:34, 6 April 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]]. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 10:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 +
:A Main Page daily would be awesome! {{User:Power Pie/sig}} 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. {{User:StrongAwesome74/sig}} 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." --{{User:Super Martyo Brother/sig}} 05:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 +
::::I think we should do this daily before the end of the year. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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. --[[User:Stux|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? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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. {{User:The Knights Who Say Ni/sig}} 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: [[Main Page 1|1]], [[Main Page 7|7]], [[Main Page 13|13]], [[Main Page 15|15]], [[Main Page 17|17]], [[Main Page 23|23]], and the [[Homsar Main Page]]. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 09:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 +
::::::::::Fair 'nough. {{User:Power Pie/sig}} 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. {{User:Soiled Bargains/sig}} 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. [[User:doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 5 February 2011
 +
:::Now it's been nearly a year since our last daily. So can we now do this one? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 08:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 +
:::::Probably the Main Page dailies that I mentioned above. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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? {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 09:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 +
:::::::For a Main Page daily, how about this: 1, 7, 15, 18, 20, 22 and 26? [[User:doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 22 March 2011
 +
::::::::# One of them should be one of the special Main Pages.
 +
::::::::# [[HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2010 Weeks 11-20#HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 18 (May 3-9)|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. <s>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.</s> 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.
 +
::::::::# And speaking of MP26, it's too new to be featured.
 +
::::::::# Just FYI, earlier in this discussion, I also wrote a list of the Main Pages we should feature.
 +
::::::::{{User:RickTommy/sig}} 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 universe]]s: 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. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|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. --{{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}} 14:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 +
::I think we need to try to gather more interest for the FAS before we do a daily. [[User:Doctorwho295|doctorwho295]] 00:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
==General discussion==
==General discussion==

Revision as of 03:42, 8 August 2011

Shortcuts:
HRW:FAS
FAS

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

Checklist

Checklist for new Featured Article:

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
HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 36 (Sep 5–11) Duck Guardian One discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 40 (Oct 3–9) FAQ discussion

Article discussions

Duck Guardian One

Done HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 36 (Sep 5–11)

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

Done HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 40 (Oct 3–9)

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

Kick-a-Ball

Done HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 45 (Nov 7–13)

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

20X6 vs. 1936

Done HRWiki:Featured article for 2011, week 49 (Dec 5–11)

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

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. --Mario2.PNG 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)

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)

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. --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 08:06, 6 February 2011 (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. PowerFile:Homestar Kamikaze Green Favicon.pngPie 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. PowerFile:Homestar Kamikaze Green Favicon.pngPie

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. PowerFile:Homestar Kamikaze Green Favicon.pngPie 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. --Mario2.PNG 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! PowerFile:Homestar Kamikaze Green Favicon.pngPie
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. --Mario2.PNG 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! PowerFile:Homestar Kamikaze Green Favicon.pngPie 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. --Mario2.PNG 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)

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. --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 08:06, 6 February 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. --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 08:06, 6 February 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

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)

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)

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)

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! PowerFile:Homestar Kamikaze Green Favicon.pngPie 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." --Mario2.PNG 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. PowerFile:Homestar Kamikaze Green Favicon.pngPie 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)

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)
Personal tools