HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2009 Weeks 21-30
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.
[edit] HRWiki:Featured article for 2009, week 21 (May 18-24)
If we did the Tire already, we should do another resident of Strong Badia. I'm thinking the Stop Sign this time. MHarrington 04:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- I dunno, part of me thinks we did Tire a little too recently to feature another Strong Badian inanimate object, and the Stop Sign article seems a bit stubbish. I was thinking we could do something like Basement of the Brothers Strong, since we haven't done an actual room in a pretty long time. —Guard Duck talk 05:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- The only reason I suggested the Stop Sign is because of the pattern of the release on articles related to all of Strong Bad's computers throughout 2006 (I believe the Tandy was featured for week 2 of that year and the Compy for week 20), and I thought we could do something similar to this. MHarrington 16:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Uhh, MHarrington, there was really no consensus to make this the FA. In cases like this, there really should be calls for more discussion. I'm not going to undo anything, since I didn't exactly get on the ball and state my opinion, but in the future, really try to wait for consensus before making writeups. Heimstern Läufer
03:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Uhh, MHarrington, there was really no consensus to make this the FA. In cases like this, there really should be calls for more discussion. I'm not going to undo anything, since I didn't exactly get on the ball and state my opinion, but in the future, really try to wait for consensus before making writeups. Heimstern Läufer
- The only reason I suggested the Stop Sign is because of the pattern of the release on articles related to all of Strong Bad's computers throughout 2006 (I believe the Tandy was featured for week 2 of that year and the Compy for week 20), and I thought we could do something similar to this. MHarrington 16:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] HRWiki:Featured article for 2009, week 22 (May 25-31)
For this week, we should do one on Strong Bad Smiling. MHarrington 01:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- If the intro wasn't so short, I'd say Lack of Visible Body Parts is overdue.
BBG 01:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, we could touch up on the different examples in the article itself. I know it's not our usual approach, but that does not mean we can't do things different once in a while, can it? MHarrington 06:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- If we just copied the general intro and the intros to each individual section, here's how long it would be. BBG 23:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I like the idea of Lack of Visible Body Parts. Strong Bad Smiling seems like too much of a controversial page to be featured on the big screen. —Guard Duck talk 02:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think the intro for Lack of Visible Body Parts should be long enough now. I guess we can go that route. MHarrington 19:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm shocked we haven't featured Senorial Day yet. This would be the perfect week to feature it. We can hold off on Body Parts for another week. wbwolf (t | ed) 16:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- I never thought about that one. Sure, now that you mention it, let's do Senorial Day instead and save "Lack of Visible Arms" for another day. MHarrington 04:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- We can't do Lack of Visible Arms because it was already featured. BBG 21:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, did I say "Lack of Visible Arm"? I meant to say "Lack of Visible Body Parts"; we'll save that one for another day, that's what I meant. MHarrington 15:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think we should feature Lack of Visible Body Parts because it is quite similar to Lack of Visible Arms, which has already been featured. Homestar-Winner (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's still a more unique "gag" than Strong Bad
emoting like any average person wouldsmiling.BBG 19:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with you on that, Bad Bad Guy. I don't even agree with the existence of that article. Homestar-Winner (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- But let's do Senorial Day this week now, okay? The "visible body parts" one is further down. MHarrington 02:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Senorial Day seems like a good plan to me. We doe not want to miss featuring an article like that. Heimstern Läufer 03:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Senorial Day seems like a good plan to me. We doe not want to miss featuring an article like that. Heimstern Läufer
- But let's do Senorial Day this week now, okay? The "visible body parts" one is further down. MHarrington 02:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with you on that, Bad Bad Guy. I don't even agree with the existence of that article. Homestar-Winner (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's still a more unique "gag" than Strong Bad
- I don't think we should feature Lack of Visible Body Parts because it is quite similar to Lack of Visible Arms, which has already been featured. Homestar-Winner (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, did I say "Lack of Visible Arm"? I meant to say "Lack of Visible Body Parts"; we'll save that one for another day, that's what I meant. MHarrington 15:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- We can't do Lack of Visible Arms because it was already featured.
- I never thought about that one. Sure, now that you mention it, let's do Senorial Day instead and save "Lack of Visible Arms" for another day. MHarrington 04:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm shocked we haven't featured Senorial Day yet. This would be the perfect week to feature it. We can hold off on Body Parts for another week. wbwolf (t | ed) 16:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think the intro for Lack of Visible Body Parts should be long enough now. I guess we can go that route. MHarrington 19:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- I like the idea of Lack of Visible Body Parts. Strong Bad Smiling seems like too much of a controversial page to be featured on the big screen. —Guard Duck talk 02:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- If we just copied the general intro and the intros to each individual section, here's how long it would be.
- Well, we could touch up on the different examples in the article itself. I know it's not our usual approach, but that does not mean we can't do things different once in a while, can it? MHarrington 06:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] HRWiki:Featured article for 2009, week 23 (Jun 1-7)
For this week, we should do an article on Crack Stuntman. Granted, I know that we would have done a Cheat Commandos-themed article a few weeks ago, but Crack isn't necessarily limited to that series. MHarrington 05:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree. I believe that an article on something like Coach Z's track is long overdue, but we would have to expand the information a bit... Or we could do an article on Puppet Stuff. OpenSourceGreg 05:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- That was done already. Besides, Crack should get his due. Besides, he has a bit more information to go on. MHarrington 17:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I like the idea of doing a place, although the Race Track article seems a tad blunt. What if we did The Athletic Field instead? It's a very important sporting venue, and it's featured in many, many toons. —Guard Duck talk 02:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's probably what was meant... OpenSourceGreg 12:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- So what are we doing for this week already? MHarrington 15:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Let's do the Athletic Field. It is what I mean't, only, track, field, track and field events, confusion, you get the picture. OpenSourceGreg 08:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, we'll do the Athletic Field. MHarrington 18:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Let's do the Athletic Field. It is what I mean't, only, track, field, track and field events, confusion, you get the picture. OpenSourceGreg 08:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- So what are we doing for this week already? MHarrington 15:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's probably what was meant... OpenSourceGreg 12:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I like the idea of doing a place, although the Race Track article seems a tad blunt. What if we did The Athletic Field instead? It's a very important sporting venue, and it's featured in many, many toons. —Guard Duck talk 02:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- That was done already. Besides, Crack should get his due. Besides, he has a bit more information to go on. MHarrington 17:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] HRWiki:Featured article for 2009, week 24 (Jun 8-14)
For this week, we should try again to do Crack Stuntman. MHarrington 06:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I recently came upon our list of crimes committed by Strong Bad, and I must say it's amazing. — It's dot com 22:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- But it's just that: a list. And even if we could do something like that (not that we can't), it would be quite a long article, considering the list. MHarrington 22:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- And since when do long articles make bad FAs? I like the idea and i think it's a really well-done article. — Defender1031✡Talk 22:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- The sheer length of the list is one of the reasons I think it's amazing. I went to the page not expecting much and instead I found that it went on and on (with multiple categories!). — It's dot com 22:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, we could do that one for a later week, if you want. But right now, I feel that Crack Stuntman deserves his due. MHarrington 02:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- MHarrington, I don't think you should be dismissing this idea out of hand in favour of your own. As for crimes committed by SB: There is one little issue with it, which is that the prose intro is a bit on the short side. If we want it featured (whether this week or another week), maybe we could expand the intro? Heimstern Läufer 03:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- I wasn't dismissing anyone's idea, I just didn't think that that article on crimes committed seemed decently-sized enough. MHarrington 14:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe Strong Bad's Website? It seems to be of good size and quality to me.
TandygerineDreams
08:04, May 16, 2009 (UTC)
- Not a bad article to consider, it's intro is a bit lean but I think a good sized paragraph could be composed suitable for the front page. But there are already two good feature candidates for this week, so I think we should keep that one in mind for later. I think both Crack Stuntman and Crimes Committed should be featured at some point, and I don't have much of an opinion on which happens when. I agree with Heimstern that the later could use some expanded prose, but that's easy enough to do.
Green Helmet 15:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Fine by me. --TandygerineDreams 23:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- So what are we doing for this week? MHarrington 05:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think the crimes committed by Strong Bad would be good because it still looks like it could use attention!--Safariventureman 20:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Anyone planning on going ahead and expanding that prose intro? Heimstern Läufer 14:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, as I'm looking more closely at this article, I think it still needs some polishing before we do it. Why don't we switch this with week 29 and do Crack Stuntman this week, and be sure we polish Crimes up for 29? Heimstern Läufer 01:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I guess we could. Crimes Committed by Strong Bad still needs cleaning up and a better intro. Crack Stuntman this week! free 11:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, as I'm looking more closely at this article, I think it still needs some polishing before we do it. Why don't we switch this with week 29 and do Crack Stuntman this week, and be sure we polish Crimes up for 29? Heimstern Läufer
- Anyone planning on going ahead and expanding that prose intro? Heimstern Läufer
- Fine by me. --TandygerineDreams 23:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Not a bad article to consider, it's intro is a bit lean but I think a good sized paragraph could be composed suitable for the front page. But there are already two good feature candidates for this week, so I think we should keep that one in mind for later. I think both Crack Stuntman and Crimes Committed should be featured at some point, and I don't have much of an opinion on which happens when. I agree with Heimstern that the later could use some expanded prose, but that's easy enough to do.
- Maybe Strong Bad's Website? It seems to be of good size and quality to me.
- I wasn't dismissing anyone's idea, I just didn't think that that article on crimes committed seemed decently-sized enough. MHarrington 14:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- MHarrington, I don't think you should be dismissing this idea out of hand in favour of your own. As for crimes committed by SB: There is one little issue with it, which is that the prose intro is a bit on the short side. If we want it featured (whether this week or another week), maybe we could expand the intro? Heimstern Läufer
- Well, we could do that one for a later week, if you want. But right now, I feel that Crack Stuntman deserves his due. MHarrington 02:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- The sheer length of the list is one of the reasons I think it's amazing. I went to the page not expecting much and instead I found that it went on and on (with multiple categories!). — It's dot com 22:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- And since when do long articles make bad FAs? I like the idea and i think it's a really well-done article. — Defender1031✡Talk 22:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- But it's just that: a list. And even if we could do something like that (not that we can't), it would be quite a long article, considering the list. MHarrington 22:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] HRWiki:Featured article for 2009, week 25 (Jun 15-21)
This week, we should do something for which I feel is long overdue for inclusion as a featured article: Blatant Lies. MHarrington 15:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Decent sized intro, quite a bit of content besides, major theme of the site. Good prize! ding! wbwolf (t | ed) 16:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] HRWiki:Featured article for 2009, week 26 (Jun 22-28)
Since I've agreed we should do Senorial Day for week 22, we should try again to feature this week what was originally intended for that week: Lack of Visible Body Parts. MHarrington 15:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm all for that! OpenSourceGreg
- {discussion about the way the article itself should read moved to Talk:Lack of Visible Body Parts.} Heimstern Läufer 03:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- So, how were we planning to feature this? Was there some sort of plan to have a writeup, even though the introduction is very short? Remember that we really shouldn't be including much of the text about lack of visible arms, since we already have featured an article about that. Heimstern Läufer 14:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- I tried writing a writeup. BBG 20:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- OK, looks pretty workable, and manages to avoid duplicating armless articles. Looks like a go. Heimstern Läufer 00:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- OK, looks pretty workable, and manages to avoid duplicating armless articles. Looks like a go. Heimstern Läufer
- I tried writing a writeup.
- So, how were we planning to feature this? Was there some sort of plan to have a writeup, even though the introduction is very short? Remember that we really shouldn't be including much of the text about lack of visible arms, since we already have featured an article about that. Heimstern Läufer
- {discussion about the way the article itself should read moved to Talk:Lack of Visible Body Parts.} Heimstern Läufer
[edit] HRWiki:Featured article for 2009, week 27 (Jun 29-Jul 5)
I think it's time for another Old-Timey character. I'm thinking of either Fat Dudley, Old-Timey Bubs or Old-Timey Marzipan. MHarrington 22:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- This is the middle of the year, and because the page doesn't specify a release date, I think this week would be great for acknowledging the 10th anniversary of Marshmallow's Last Stand. As we don't know the date of release, the middle of the year gives us the best all round coverage of this significant subject. OpenSourceGreg 02:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, however, Marshmallow's Last Stand was already given an article a long time ago. MHarrington 14:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, about 4 years ago... isn't that when the old wiki was around? I think that 4 yrs is long enough between repeats, and this is a VERY significant toon (like, the first full toon or something?). If not this, then we should do something RELATING to this. OpenSourceGreg 09:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Nah, FAs started under the new wiki. As for repeating an FA, we've never done so in the past, and I'm disinclined to do so now, at least until we get to the point we really have very few new featurable articles. Heimstern Läufer 09:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Shouldn't we expand the intro to fireworks and feature that for Independence Day? BBG 15:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't live in the USA, and that thought never crossed my mind. Yeah, lets do it, or Happy Fireworks. Either one. OpenSourceGreg 14:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Happy Fireworks has already been featured. As for fireworks, find a way to expand the intro and we could definitely do that. Heimstern Läufer 23:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Is it long enough now or should it be expanded a little more? BBG 16:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I think so now. MHarrington 20:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- I concur. Good prize. Ding. Heimstern Läufer 14:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- I concur. Good prize. Ding. Heimstern Läufer
- Okay, I think so now. MHarrington 20:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Is it long enough now or should it be expanded a little more?
- Happy Fireworks has already been featured. As for fireworks, find a way to expand the intro and we could definitely do that. Heimstern Läufer
- I don't live in the USA, and that thought never crossed my mind. Yeah, lets do it, or Happy Fireworks. Either one. OpenSourceGreg 14:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Shouldn't we expand the intro to fireworks and feature that for Independence Day?
- Nah, FAs started under the new wiki. As for repeating an FA, we've never done so in the past, and I'm disinclined to do so now, at least until we get to the point we really have very few new featurable articles. Heimstern Läufer
- Well, about 4 years ago... isn't that when the old wiki was around? I think that 4 yrs is long enough between repeats, and this is a VERY significant toon (like, the first full toon or something?). If not this, then we should do something RELATING to this. OpenSourceGreg 09:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, however, Marshmallow's Last Stand was already given an article a long time ago. MHarrington 14:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Well I think it should be Lappy 486 due to it's recent departure. User:MICGAGUH
- Fourth of July Main Page! Ah, but it's too late...
[edit] HRWiki:Featured article for 2009, week 28 (Jul 6-12)
I'd like to see one of my favourite toons that we still haven't featured get the spotlight this week: A Folky Tale. Heimstern Läufer 
09:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- That'd be interesting, except we're running out of Big Toons to discuss. Maybe we should go easy in the future, huh? MHarrington 19:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think that's pretty much inevitable. We don't get big toons very often, so starting to exhaust them is pretty much guaranteed. Heck, we're doing better than we were a few months ago now, what with Kick-A-Ball having been released. Heimstern Läufer 00:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, maybe after they release a few more, whenever that happens? MHarrington 15:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ever since 2006, it feels like they either release 0 or 2 Big Toons every year. BBG 15:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Which they have done ever since they started the website. Homestar-Winner (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- The years 2000 and 2005 had 3 Big Toons. BBG 21:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, now that SBemails are gone (maybe) and they've already made 2 toons this year, I'd say more big toons are on the way. Theycallmefree 22:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem featuring Folky Tale. -132.183.140.175 16:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Nor do I. Theycallmefree 17:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Then I guess I don't either. But let's go easy on them in the future, okay? MHarrington 20:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Nor do I. Theycallmefree 17:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem featuring Folky Tale. -132.183.140.175 16:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, now that SBemails are gone (maybe) and they've already made 2 toons this year, I'd say more big toons are on the way. Theycallmefree 22:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- The years 2000 and 2005 had 3 Big Toons.
- Which they have done ever since they started the website. Homestar-Winner (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ever since 2006, it feels like they either release 0 or 2 Big Toons every year.
- Well, maybe after they release a few more, whenever that happens? MHarrington 15:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think that's pretty much inevitable. We don't get big toons very often, so starting to exhaust them is pretty much guaranteed. Heck, we're doing better than we were a few months ago now, what with Kick-A-Ball having been released. Heimstern Läufer
Besides A Folky Tale, 9 Big Toons haven't got featured yet: Kick-a-Ball, Career Day, DNA Evidence, Strongest Man in the World, Shopping for Danger, Parsnips A-Plenty, Where's The Cheat?, The Reddest Radish, and In Search of the Yello Dello. Theycallmefree 20:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Make that ten with 2 Part Episode: Part 1, and if they don't merge part 2. And no, I am not going to keep updating this.Theycallmefree 11:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, we can do A Folky Tale, I guess. MHarrington 20:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well I think we should do Lappy 486 due to it's recent departure. Userr:MICGAGUH
- Sorry, but the Lappy has long since been mentioned; for week 33 of 2006, no less. MHarrington 04:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well I think we should do Lappy 486 due to it's recent departure. Userr:MICGAGUH
- Okay, we can do A Folky Tale, I guess. MHarrington 20:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] HRWiki:Featured article for 2009, week 29 (Jul 13-19)
For this week, we need to do 50 emails. MHarrington 20:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- At the time this week comes around, it will have been about 3 months since we've featured an email (email thunder). It's a good idea, but many other articles that were good that got turned down by ones that were better (even ones that were suggested by you MHarrington) should be thought about for this week (SB's website, Crack Stuntman, etc.) Theycallmefree 20:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Then how about Crack Stuntman? Of course, "50 emails" was once suggested but rejected, too. MHarrington 23:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- You're right, I forgot. Either one be's fine. Theycallmefree 00:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- So let's just do Crack Stuntman now and we'll do "50 emails" next week and Strong Bad's Website the week after. MHarrington 15:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like we're swapping this and Week 24 now, so Crimes Committed by Strong Bad is this week's featured article, and Stuntman will be featured 5 weeks ahead of "plan". free 11:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- So let's just do Crack Stuntman now and we'll do "50 emails" next week and Strong Bad's Website the week after. MHarrington 15:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- You're right, I forgot. Either one be's fine. Theycallmefree 00:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Then how about Crack Stuntman? Of course, "50 emails" was once suggested but rejected, too. MHarrington 23:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] HRWiki:Featured article for 2009, week 30 (Jul 20-26)
I think we should try again to do 50 emails this week. MHarrington 15:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, no one's said anything for a while, so I'll go ahead and second it. Theycallmefree 20:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- More like, YOU feature 50 emails, NERD! Heimstern Läufer 14:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- More like, YOU feature 50 emails, NERD! Heimstern Läufer
