HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Stalled Discussions Archive 1

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.



Contents

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] A Splode

One of the more infamous phrases on the site. RickTommy (edits) 06:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this has enough content to feature. --Stux 14:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Correction: I know this doesn't have enough content to feature. --hegtcX1.png Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 01:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Bubs and Coach Z's Relationship

An important relationship. RickTommy (edits) 03:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, But maybe there's not enough content on the page for a short FA. --hegtcX1.png Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 01:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose until the article can be expanded. (That Other Anonny Guy) 101.160.57.137 22:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

[edit] The Cheat's Gold Tooth

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

Maybe. It's not that significant but it's long enough. Rondleman! Stuff I did.Talk. 01:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I think this is one of those articles that should be expanded a little before featuring. (Alternatively, if a writeup is made that expands on the topic, it can also be placed in the queue that way). --Stux 21:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I've drafted an adequate write-up. (HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Drafts#The Cheat's Gold Tooth) RickTommy (edits) 06:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
The writeup is long enough, but i don't think the topic is really all that interesting to feature. — Defender1031*Talk 18:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)
But Crimes Committed by Strong Bad, Marzipan and Coach Z's Relationship, and Bubs's Shady Business Practices have incomplete templates on them, and they got featured. Either way, this article not only has a long enough intro, but starts with not one, but two quotes. So I support it too. RickTommy (edits) 13:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Those pages are somewhat more clear-cut than this one is though. — Defender1031*Talk 16:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Here's why I think this article should not be featured: although all four articles have an "Incomplete Notice" that doesn't paint the full picture. The three articles listed above (Crimes Committed by Strong Bad, Marzipan and Coach Z's Relationship, and Bubs's Shady Business Practices) can be considered to be fairly objective lists. We actually can get authoritative sources (such as the laws of various states and the federal district for "crimes" and "shady business", and toon transcripts for the "relationship" article where Marzipan and Coach Z appear and interact) that make it clear what goes in each article leaving only a small amout of room for disagreements. If we wanted to, the HRWiki community could ensure that all toons have been covered and remove the tags. We haven't because this is a laborious process. While we believe we've probably caught most, if not all, instances of the topic in question in each article, we can't know with 100% certainty that we've covered everything. So to be safe that "incomplete" tag is there until we can know for sure (see the geddup noise talk page).
On the other hand, the "inconsistencies" article is reasonably more subjective, there is no clear guide that defines what goes in the article (except perhaps webster's dictionary), and what's worse, even if there were an objective meter we'd have to check every action in every toon against all other actions in all other toons and material if we even want to consider this list to be complete! Like Heim said, "Featured articles should be examples of the fine work of the wiki" and it's hard to place "inconsistencies" in that category. While the article covers an interesting topic, the subjective and loosely defined nature of this work makes it somewhat speculative and even presumes that The Brothers Chaps are omniscient beings. --Stux 15:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the lengthy response. But I would just like to point out that no-one except myself has addressed the well-written intro, which I think should be the major factor here. RickTommy (edits) 23:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I'll address it. It's not a factor when weighed against all the other objections raised. It's got a great intro, and I personally happen to really like that page, but when compared to the other great lists on the wiki such as Bubs's Shady Business Practices, Crimes Committed by Strong Bad, and Coach Z's Problems, it just doesn't doesn't live up. Aside from those other pages being itemized, organized, and categorized, the most important thing, even if the inconsistencies page were all those things, is the inherent inability to maintain reasonable objectivity when it comes to what counts. I'd go even further as to say that it's a bad example because TBC don't really try to maintain much consistency when it comes to most of the things that get put on that page. Locations of landmarks, ages and life status of characters, even some of their knowledge. Other things on that list are questionable, such as "Strong Sad tells Strong Bad he never heard of Limozeen, but they watched Limozeen: "but they're in space!" together in best thing." are just kind of like "okay, so if i watched some weird show i didn't care about once with my brother who hates me, i also wouldn't necessarily remember the name of the show or the characters." Yes, the intro is very well-worded and contains one quote from Matt and another from Strong Sad, but the list itself, which is the main information set being documented by the article, is not up to par. Remember, "featured articles" are not "featured intros", and having a good intro to a list is just not enough. — Defender1031*Talk 17:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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. --hegtcX1.png 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! --hegtcX1.png Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 19:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Snowglobe

Snowglobe. RickTommy (edits) 00:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

As with Halloween, given that we're in a hiatus I don't think we have a need for two weeks of D-ween themed articles. --Stux 14:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah let's save this one for next Decemberween. — Ngamer01 02:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I will repeat what I said before: we managed to do two weeks last year (even if that was the time H*R temporarily came out of the hiatus...). RickTommy (edits) 04:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Let me put it like this. You do realize once all the qualified FAs are used up, that the wiki will definiately have to go into FA reruns permanently (unless TBC makes way more H*R content). The question is, do you want the definite reruns to happen sooner (use all available FAs at once so that we go into reruns immediately after) or later (be stingy with the remaining FAs to put off definite reruns as long as possible)? — Ngamer01 16:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Of course I want them to happen later. Actually, how about the third option (I've suggested something similar): once all the important articles are done, change to daily articles, and do every article except the ones that definitely cannot be featured (such as disambiguations and censored articles), then we do re-runs or just tie a big bow on the project altogether. RickTommy (edits) 21:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC) 00:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wormdingler

Wormdingler. RickTommy (edits) 01:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You know, how about we spice things up and nominate 20X6 vs. 1936 for this week instead? We could save Wormdingler for Troggie's 10th birthday instead. Soiled Bargains (talk|ctrb) 18:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
And why is that, exactly? RickTommy (edits) 04:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] April Fools' 2006

I think that for April Fools Day 2012, We should feature...something nonsense. Something that doesn't make sense...Something that's impossible to understand, like this. hegtcX1.png Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 21:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

So basically, you want to throw a bunch of unrelated homestar-related words together and call it a featured article? That is neither a "feature" nor an "article". (And yes, i get that it's april fools, but that's only one day, not an entire week, and i don't find this particularly funny, and like has been said before, it's not a good prank if everyone knows about it beforehand.) — Defender1031*Talk 00:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
DeFender already pretty much said it, but I'll say it in my own words: we only ever feature mainspace articles. That's not a mainspace article, nor is it in any other namespace (okay, it's in your subpage, but it's still not part of its own article). Anyway, for an April Fools' feature, I'll go for April Fools' 2006. RickTommy (edits) 12:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Hiatuses

Given how long it's been since the last toon, I guess it sounds appropriate to emphasise that fact by featuring this article. RickTommy (edits) 12:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that featured articles are supposed to be the best the wiki has to offer and given that that page is up for discussion, I don't think this is a good idea. — Defender1031*Talk 13:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
One, I've expanded it, and two, it's been up for discussion since October last year. RickTommy (edits) 01:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The expansion made the article more of a mess. In my opinion, it's still not good enough for any consideration of a feature based on article standards. And the article shouldn't be featured for the purpose of educating people on a current event, though I don't know if we would want to feature it on the basis that hiatuses are now "infamous" among H*R fans. — Ngamer01 17:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I made a detailed draft of "Hiatus" for FA. You can see it here --hegtcX1.png Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 01:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, your draft only addresses the minor hiatuses. It should address every phase of the hiatus, since this hiatus is much more important than the minor ones. Speaking of which, should that Wiki discussion mentioned on the page be linked? And should we rewrite HRWiki:Keep your pants on? RickTommy (edits) 00:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I re-wrote the draft. I think we should nominate this FA for next week. --hegtcX1.png Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 15:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Once again, I don't think that the lack of something is worth documenting, much less featuring. — Defender1031*Talk 16:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, by "The mysterious question is now answered. No, [t]he website is not dead.", what do you mean? What are you referring to that says this? And what about my questions above? RickTommy (edits) 20:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't answer the above question. We should not re-write HRW:KYPO. The "Mysterious question" is "Is the website dead, or is TBC just taking a long break?", and some people think that a "dead website" is a website that...Ummm...It's hard to explain. For example, If homestarrunner.com was "dead" then there would be no more toons, and no more updates to the website ever again. hegtcX1.png Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 15:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, a dead website is one where the domain is left to expire... Clearly TBC care enough to continue to renew their domain. — Defender1031*Talk 23:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh. 'm srry. --hegtcX1.png Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 23:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Schenectady Crispies

One of the very first articles to be suggested for featuring ([1]). RickTommy (edits) 06:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

But this cereal is too generic. It's not notable enough and there's the breakfast cereals suggestion further down this page that is more important. I'm going to say no to this. — Ngamer01 18:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I made a very detailed draft here. --hegtcX1.png Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 01:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] 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)
I have drafted a write-up here. RickTommy (edits) 05:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] 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)
Okay --hegtcX1.png Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 01:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Flash

Without it, most of H*R wouldn't be possible. RickTommy (edits) 08:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes! PowerFile:Homestar Kamikaze Green Favicon.pngPie 23:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
True, but it'd be like featuring "paper" on a wiki about a book series. Sure the books are all made out of it, but is it REALLY all that important? Now, if paper played a major role in the universe of the book series, or, returning from the analogy, if flash featured prominently in-universe, that might be a different story. — Defender1031*Talk 16:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, paper in this case would be more analogous to bits and bytes. </nitpick> PowerFile:Homestar Kamikaze Green Favicon.pngPie 13:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Good point. Replace "paper" in my argument to "The english language" then. — Defender1031*Talk 14:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, either way, it might prove best to reconsider. {PowerFile:Homestar Kamikaze Green Favicon.pngPie 13:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I drafted a draft for a Flash FA here. --hegtcX1.png Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 01:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Visor Robot

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

"Important" in what way? — Defender1031*Talk 10:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I made a draft --hegtcX1.png Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 01:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's important in that the Wiki gave it that name and the Brothers Chaps decided to use the name themselves, as an acknowledgement. And nice write-up, G-guy. RickTommy (edits) 10:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Meh. — Defender1031*Talk 11:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Personal tools