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

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

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 2010, week 1 (Jan 4-10)

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

Sure, I guess we can do The Wheelchair. MHarrington 06:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Since this week is the 6th anniversary of Stinkoman and 20X6, how about something from that universe this week? japanese cartoon, Stinkoman and 1-Up have already been featured. How about the email trading cards in which they are featured for this week instead? It'll be a while since we've done an email, and Trading Cards are an interesting running gag on the site, to boot. wbwolf (t | ed) 16:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
It's actually the 7th anniversary, not the 6th. And Pan Pan, Under Construction and Twenty THANXty Six were featured (at least that last one will be this Thanksgiving), too, though. It's just too bad that they have still not yet completed Stinkoman 20X6 or we could do that, too. Anyway, how about doing Cheatball? That article is long enough, I would think. MHarrington 00:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess Cheatball could work instead. I wasn't sure at first if it'd be long enough. Another possibility could be 20X6 vs. 1936. Either one would be fine. wbwolf (t | ed) 17:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it should be one where Stinkoman loses, I defiantly, I mean, Definitely vote Cheatball The McArby! 02:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

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

I'm normally rather against changing the FA last-minute like this, and I'm normally against featuring list-type articles. Nonetheless, in this case, I'm convinced by DC's reasoning. I believe we can just include the first few entries on the page as a writeup and then use the (more...) link as usual. Let me try to make a writeup. Heimstern Läufer 05:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
After toying with it for a bit, I think User:Heimstern Läufer/TimelineWriteup this will work. It's different from just about anything else we've ever done, but for this occasion, I think it's worth deviating from our norms some. Heimstern Läufer 05:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I like the idea and it would fit the theme. Here's how it would look on the current main page: --Stux 05:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I like the gist of it, although I think the list could be pared down a little or reformatted for the main page, and I'd like to take a stab at making a version that has an image. I'm too sleepy to do it right now, so I'll do it in the morning. — It's dot com 05:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, here's my version. These are what I think are improvements: It's prose, like our regular writeups, which makes the left and right columns be closer in size. It has an image that directly ties into our throwback styles. It highlights exactly why we've adopted the styles in the first place. — It's dot com 00:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Granted, this would've been better last week, since the anniversary was the 1st. However, I don't object changing at the last minute, and I think I prefer the prose styles better. In this instance, I feel that a 10 year commemoration trumps Stinkoman's birthday (we'll slip him a prawn later....) wbwolf (t | ed) 03:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not generally a big fan of writeups differing substantially from the actual content. (Even the summaries of toons we do have always seemed like a deviation to me.) In this case, though, it might be necessary, and really the difference in terms of content is fairly minimal. So, I suppose this can be done. I do wish there were a way to make the writeup and article more uniform while still looking attractive, but I don't know that there is a way. Heimstern Läufer 06:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I think prose is necessary because it allows the image and bolded part to be incorporated more easily, which I view as integral to the effect. I've moved my working copy to the Featured Article template so that it can be polished if necessary. — It's dot com 07:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I also like the idea of using the cheat ball it is a well put-together article that deserves more attention plus the cheat ball is unexplainably adorable!--safariventureman 14:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I guess you missed the rest of this discussion? We decided to change plans and do Timeline of HR, not Cheatball. Heimstern Läufer 14:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I agree that it should be Trogdor related, I'd suggest Wormdingler, if we had more to go on, but Wormdingler has showed up only twice, and was only named last trogday, so Ima have to agree on The S is for sucks dragon. although we could take in a bit of a different direction... like maybe Stinkoman related. The McArby! 17:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Yo man, I'm down. I mean, I totally support S Is For Sucks. wbwolf (t | ed) 16:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
sounds like a good idea! the s is for sucks is a great twist to make this trogday the best yet!--safariventureman 19:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 3 (Jan 18-24)

Looking Old. Not only is it that email's anniversary, but featuring it this week is a reference to a line from that email. Plus, we haven't yet done any emails from 2005 or 2007, yet we've done at least two emails from every other year. Jc iindyysgvxc 10:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking that while we should do emails from 2007, I think we should wait until they do the winter Olympics in February. I got an idea in mind for a set of dailies that follow a common theme. In the meantime, how about doing one of a live person for an article. I'm thinking Jackie Chapman. MHarrington 16:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Would you care to elaborate on your masterdly plan for Olympic emails? As it stands, we don't know why you're not keen on looking old for this week, and of course we all know it's important to explain why you're not going with someone else's suggestion. Heimstern Läufer 00:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, in terms of looking old, I was just thinking that we need to do something from 2005 before anything else, and it's been a while since we've done an article on a live person. Besides, what is the reference to the email's line, anyway? As for the Olympics plan, I was thinking of a full week of the references to DNA evidence running gag. I was thinking of doing the six emails (165-170) that reference it and close out the week with the Big Toon. MHarrington 01:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I dunno, I think the big toon would easily be worth an entire week, not just a day, and I think the same could be said of some of those emails (in particular, strong badathlon would be a good feature during the Olympics, though it would fit the Summer Olympics a lot better than the Winter). I don't really think they should be dailies. Heimstern Läufer 06:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
RE: "what is the reference to the email's line, anyway?" Surely you can guess? Okay ... it's "time to relate to some 18 to 24 year olds". And the week we are doing it is the 18th to the 24th. Get it?
Oh, that joke. Well, I still think we should do an email from 2005 before 2007, for some reason. I think we should do Jackie Chapman this week. That article has a decent amount of text anyway, and it's been a long time since we've done any articles on real-live humans. I believe the last one was on Ryan Sterritt in July 2008. MHarrington 02:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned that Jackie's article might be a tad short. It's got enough content for a writeup, but not much beyond that.
I also think we could use some outside opinions here. It's not clear to me why we seem to be so intent on not doing looking old, though I'm not fixed on it. Heimstern Läufer 03:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
As I mentioned in the section above, I think Jackie should be featured as soon as possible (as opposed to this week), if she's to be featured at all. — It's dot com 03:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, since it's not known when the site will be back to normal, I think we'll just use this section as a kind of placeholder until further notice. MHarrington 18:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
why don't we stick with looking old for now and we can discuss this this master plan of MHarrington for the next weeks article --safariventureman 20:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the baby break is more or less over now, so I think we can do Jackie Chapman this week. It was said we should do her around the time the baby break ended, and now it almost is. MHarrington 19:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually what was said before was that it should be done during the Baby Break, if at all. See above. I also continue to think Jackie's bio is too short to feature. Heimstern Läufer 12:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I didn't know it was supposed to be "during", I thought it was just ASAP. And you also said that while short, the article has enough content for a writeup, though not much else. I thought that the writeup was reasonable enough. MHarrington 17:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree that we missed our change to feature Jackie Chapman. In retrospect, it should've been done back in December when it was a relevant topic since I do agree with Heim that it's a tad short. I actually wouldn't mind seeing looking old featured since it would both celebrate its 3nniversary and fit the them of H*R being 10 years old. We can always feature a 2005 email at a later date. --Stux 20:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd say looking old is our best bet at this late date, largely because most of the other suggestions have problems as elaborated above. Heimstern Läufer 15:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 4 (Jan 25-31)

For this week, how about the Strong Bad Email geddup noise? I kinda picked something from 2005, and a bit out of left field, too. MHarrington 17:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

While I have no problem with geddup, but we're featuring another sbemail this week. So we're not doing two in a row, how about a different article. Compé seems like a good candidate. wbwolf (t | ed) 02:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
How about Mendelev and Dongelev? Their Feast Days are in January, and this is the only chance they have. SBE-mail Checker Dan 02:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Um, okay... MHarrington 04:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The Mendelev and Dongolev article is a bit on the short side, just like Jackie Chapman's. I also would discourage against featuring two emails in a row. While the Compé article would be the best option, I think it's a little too soon to feature it at the moment. The Compé is still too young, maybe when it's older. After scanning the nominations page, I came up with a pseudo-random suggestion: what about Strong Bad's Technology (though I'm aware it's mostly a list)? Any other reasonable suggestions? --Stux 23:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know, that, too, is a bit short. MHarrington 17:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
If by "that" you mean the introduction, then yes, you're right the introduction is a bit on the short side. But the rest of the article has content, albeit in list form. I'm not sure what's been done in the past about such articles. Perhaps it might not be a bad idea to start thinking of a set of guidelines to aid in article selection and procedure. That aside, since it's the site's 10-nniverssary, I'd like to suggest that we feature In Search of the Yello Dello instead (since it's 10 years old and all, and it's not bold in the nominations page). That's my final answer Regis. --Stux 18:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
An excellent idea. Way overdue to get featured, since it was one of the first major toons on the site. wbwolf (t | ed) 18:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 5 (Feb 1-7)

I'm very surprised that Characters, Toons, and Games haven't been done yet. Maybe we could do one of them? Jc iindyysgvxc 11:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Not one of those currently has a prose intro that is long enough to be a proper featured article, so far as I can see. Also, we're getting out too far once again. The latest week we discuss should be, at most, ten weeks in advance of the current week, and this is eleven weeks out. Heimstern Läufer 11:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes! Once and for all, let's keep this below ten articles before we add any new ones, please? MHarrington 05:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
How about one that has been suggested but passed up: the Taranchula Black Metal Detector? MHarrington 17:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
According to the 2010 Calendar, this month is Renaldo's retirement party. So, how about something from Dangeresque? Something that was suggested before was Dangeresque Roomisode 1: Behind The Dangerdesque. How about it? wbwolf (t | ed) 06:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I've already got a Dangeresque-themed idea in mind, but it's not for a few more weeks at least. I want to do some dailies involving characters, but it needs to wait for at least two months, to allow for six months since October. MHarrington 00:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like there's not much of a consensus here yet. The Characters/Toons/Games pages seem tough to have interesting write-ups for (they're really just menus and lists). The Black Metal Detector doesn't seem too interesting in and of itself; it's used used in buried and SBCG4AP, but it doesn't do anything a normal detector doesn't besides its method of beeping. Dangeresque seems to be in the works for the future. Where does that leave this week? I'm not sure if this is poor form, but I'd like to nominate an article that has been largely my work: Flipped Images. It's a fairly subtle effect, often used to parody low-quality animation like CCDos and PBTC, and something that rarely has attention drawn to it. It'd at least be worth a look, I think. Plus, if it were featured, the list of appearances might grow some, I'm sure there are some omissions. --TimMierz 19:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick thought,How about Superbowl Dealie to celebrate Superbowl Sunday on February 7th.Or,In response to Wbwolf,we could do something Dangeresque flavored, like Dangeresque: Puppet Squad or Dangeresque 3: The Criminal Projective.Or a character like Renaldo or a thing like the Nunchuck Gun.Rondleman! Stuff I did.Talk. 16:50 25 January, 2010.
I think we should do Flipped Images. Just something to get the article up and running already. MHarrington 21:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
But why? That article hasn't even been around for three months.
Just because something is new doesn't mean it's not of high quality. StrongAwesome 01:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
And besides, it was short notice. MHarrington 00:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 6 (Feb 8-14)

For this week, how about Sickly Sam's Big Outing? MHarrington 02:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a good choice of Valentine-themed FA. Heimstern Läufer 03:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we already used TGS #12 before, so Sickly Sam's Big Outing is the only Vamlumtimes Day toon left. Therefore by the Process of Elimination, we should use Sickly Sam's Big Outing. C-Son-L Sweaters 18:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I second that.Rondleman! Stuff I did.Talk. 16:58 25 January, 2010

[edit] HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 7 (Feb 15-21)

How doing another set of dailies this week? I'm thinking of characters from Dangeresque, since people wanted a set of dailies themed to that series. How about: Dangeresque, Dangeresque Too, Renaldo, Cutesy Buttons, Perducci, Killingyouguy and either Craig or Baron Darin Diamonocle. MHarrington 16:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have three more ideas for a set of dailies: Main Pages (since we haven't done any Main Pages yet), e-mails from the second half of the Tandy era (last time we did a week of e-mails, we precisely covered the first half of the Tandy era [and that was a whiiiiile ago]), and Powered by The Cheat toons (since there are exactly 7 of them available). Jc iindyysgvxc 23:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
If we have some recent articles on emails done up, I think we should put off the Tandy-era emails until later in the year, but not necessarily give up on that one. Besides, I chose Dangeresque characters because we haven't really done much of anything related to Dangeresque at all, short of the series as a whole. MHarrington 02:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea of Dangeresque dailies, but I still think this is too early. We just had a set in October. I think the very maximum of dailies we should ever have is two sets a year, and that there should always be at least six months between them. Heimstern Läufer 03:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Then why don't we try for the first week of March. In the meantime, how about doing an article on the suffix -èd? MHarrington 06:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I helped expand that intro lately, but I think it needs to be rejiggered a bit. Otherwise, a decent selection. wbwolf (t | ed) 16:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I say we do SOMETHING Dangeresque related, since Febuary is the month of Renaldo's Retirement Party. SBE-mail Checker Dan 03:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Good point. Well, we'll see what the people in charge say. Of course, it's not like it hasn't happened that there has been an under-six-month hiatus between dailies before. In 2007, there was only a three-month buffer zone between daily articles, in 2007: Week 29 (in July) and Week 41 (in October). We'll have to just wait and see. MHarrington 06:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if this is a good idea, but I'm just gonna throw it out there.Teen Girl Squad Issue 5.Here's my reason,February 15 is Presidents Day, and Abraham Lincoln and George Washington appear in this issue. What do you think? Rondleman! Stuff I did.Talk. 17:03 25 January,2010
No comment. MHarrington 06:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I think we should go with the Dangeresque-themed dailies for this week, mainly since this is the month, as everyone says, for Renaldo's retirement. And to be perfectly honest, it's not really required that the amount of time for dailies is a minimum of six months, is it? MHarrington 02:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, too bad Presidents doesn't have enough text; that'd be fitting for this time of year. Anyway, in the absence of a better suggestion, I'm all for TGS 5.
I remain firmly opposed to the Dangeresque dailies for this week. Heimstern Läufer 02:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Yay!!!!they chose my idea! Rondleman! Stuff I did.Talk. 21:50 16 February, 2010 (UTC)

[edit] HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 8 (Feb 22-28)

1987? (I wonder how that page has so many hits, more than some e-mails...) Jc iindyysgvxc 11:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm kinda on the fence on that one... MHarrington 16:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
That one might work. I don't think we've featured any of the year articles, and this one is probably the best of the bunch, since we have some clues why they refer to that year so often. wbwolf (t | ed) 16:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 9 (Mar 1-7)

Now that it's the third month and officially six months after October, I think we should try again to do a set of dailies for this week. Once again, I'd like to do a set on "Dangeresque" characters, since we've never really done anything here, short of the the series as a whole. Here's what I think we should do: Dangeresque (Monday), Dangeresque Too (Tuesday), Renaldo (Wednesday), Cutesy Buttons (Thursday), Perducci (Friday), Killingyouguy (Saturday) and either Craig or Baron Darin Diamonocle (Sunday). MHarrington 20:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Great idea! --SamuelGuy10 21:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Six months after October is April, not March. Heimstern Läufer 23:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think the time is right now to do this. MHarrington 03:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. I still think it's too early after the most recent set of dailies. It's a real pain from the sysops' perspective of making sure all our main page images are protected, and even without that factor, I'm convinced the minimum gap between sets of dailies should be six months (making twice a year the maximum we're ever going to get). Heimstern Läufer 04:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
But if we were to do this in April, then wait about six months to do this, wouldn't the next one have to wait to be available until November? Usually, we do one right around October or so. Well, anyway, how about doing something like... another character relationship! I'm thinking of Marzipan and Coach Z's Relationship. That one has a surprisingly sufficient amount of text to justify it, in my book. MHarrington 07:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I have no memory of us "usually" doing a set of dailies in October. If that's indeed the case, I've no doubt it's just coincidence, nothing intentional. As for Marzi and Coach Z, though, I rather like that idea. Heimstern Läufer 02:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I think that doing dailies is a great idea!!! But I think we should replace the small characters that have small articles and replace them with longer Dangeresque related things like Dangeresque Roomisode 1: Behind the Dangerdesque or something like that Rondleman! Stuff I did.Talk. 17:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, the small articles are really the reason I went that way in the first place. So what should we do? MHarrington 07:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, small articles are best for dailies (which, incidentally, I've suggested doing a ways down the page). As for this week, I like the idea of Marzi and Coach Z's relationship still. Heimstern Läufer 07:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
How about a more obvious one, such as one involving Homestar or Strong Bad? (Well, not so much Homestar, since all of the three relationships that we have already featured involve him.) Strong Bad and Coach Z seems to be the best one, due to its intro, but since Strong Bad and the Cheat has a lot of sections, it's a good choice as well.
You haven't provided any reasons why these are better than the existing suggestion ("more obvious" isn't exactly convincing, and in fact I'm not even sure what it means in this context). I think Marzi and Coach Z is a really interesting choice, it being something of a love-hate relationship (with all the love on Coach Z's side and all the hate on Marzipan's!) I personally think it's at least as worthy as either of the two you've suggested. Heimstern Läufer 07:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] HRWiki:Featured article for 2010, week 10 (Mar 8-14)

Pi? RickTommy 08:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The prose intro is far too short at this point. Heimstern Läufer 13:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
If we're going to use this for an article, here's a start for a write-up:

Pi is a numerical constant for the ratio between a circle's circumference and its diameter, written as π, and numerically as 3.14. This number was often used in the Homestar Runner universe, such as a price ($3.14), a time (3:14), "tt" replaced by π, and even a mini-game in Strong Badia the Free as "Pizza π". (more...)

That'sBupkis! 13:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The article is still too short, since there is not much beyond the write up. Also, a reminder: it's not necessary to do write-ups for articles at this point, we should just stick with discussion of the merits of articles. As an alternate, would it be too soon to feature another email, such as long pants? wbwolf (t | ed) 16:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to throw The Beatles into this discussion. cash money tc 19:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
It's too short. MHarrington 03:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
More accurately, the intro is too short. Given the nature of the topic, I'm not sure if it would benefit from a longer intro; that would work better in Wikipedia. wbwolf (t | ed) 05:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Coming back to this week, since it doesn't look like we have a viable alternative yet, may I suggest one that was passed over before, geddup noise? wbwolf (t | ed) 01:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
An email sounds good, but then I thought of the one on this week.. but then i thought to take it one step further and say Limozeen: "but they're in space!". I think that it's a decent article to feature. StrongAwesome 03:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be better to feature the SBEmail this came from, rather than the TV Show. We're still thin on featuring ones from 2005 (and this fits the bill). Thus, I'm open to either best thing or geddup noise. wbwolf (t | ed) 04:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Both good choices. I'm leaning best thing just because of its historical importance in introducing animated Limozeen. Heimstern Läufer 07:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools