HRWiki:Featured Article Selection/Discussion Archive 2012 Weeks 1-10

This is an archive. Please do not add discussion here. Click here to go back to the main FAS historical page.

---

Week	Article	Discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 1 (Jan 2–8)	20X6 vs. 1936	discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 2 (Jan 9–15)	Redirects - dragon	discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 3 (Jan 16–22)	Redirects - Stinkoman	discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 4 (Jan 23–29)	different town	discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 5 (Jan 30–Feb 5)	Week of the Superbowl (Jan 30-Feb 5) - Superbowl Dealie	discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 6 (Feb 6–12)	Cheat Commandos (toon)	discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 7 (Feb 13–19)	Week of Valentine's Day (Feb 13-19) - Marzipan's Answering Machine Version 6.0	discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 8 (Feb 20–26)	Main Pages (daily feature) - Main Pages	discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 9 (Feb 27–Mar 4)	FeedBurner Page	discussion
HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 10 (Mar 5–11)	Redirects - History according to Strong Bad	discussion

Redirects

This is a placeholder topic for 5-year redirects. Due to overall decreased activity FAs are now being reused more often. The common practice has become to redirect to the FA exactly 5 years prior to the current FA. When an article is re-used mark it in the following manner:

{{FA queue|<date>|Redirects|alternatediscussion=yes|decision=<article name>}}

Example:

{{FA queue|15 Aug 2011 |Redirects|alternatediscussion=yes|decision=1-Up}}

Please keep this discussion in the FA page at all times but do copy it to archive pages as well.

20X6 vs. 1936

HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 1 (Jan 2–8)

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

I think this is a good suggestion! --Stux 14:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to third this as I liked the exchange between The Homestar Runner and Stinkoman. — Ngamer01 18:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess it could make a great feature for Jan 2-8. RickTommy (edits) 21:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Why then, Rick? — Ngamer01 18:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Because that's 20X6 week. RickTommy (edits) 21:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

What's 20X6 week? That's not a thing. — Defender1031*Talk 01:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

He's referring to the anniversary of the release of japanese cartoon, the email that was the beginning of 20X6. this was pointed out by Stinkoman at the end of Happy Trogday. i'm also surprised this article hasn't been featured. but at the rate we're going, i think that anniversaries such as this hold less importance towards when a cartoon may be featured, and i wouldn't restrict it to that week. The Knights Who Say Ni 02:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I want to nominate this for the week of Trogday in 2012, and I have. —Soiled Bargains ^(talk|ctrb) 18:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

O_o If this will be the article for Trogweek, what will be the article for Stinkoweek? -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 16:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You should probably read a bit more closely. I'm not sure if Soiled Bargains was being serious or not when he made that suggestion. I have, however, questioned his suggestion below. RickTommy (edits) 23:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I started a draft in hopes this can be the 1st FA of 2012. Feel free to review it and tweak it as needed. — Ngamer01 17:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

different town

HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 4 (Jan 23–29)

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)

I have drafted very creative write-ups for your friends and different town. (User:RickTommy/sbemailwriteups) RickTommy (edits) 12:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I no longer see the FA WIP of your friends and different town needs some adjusting to be less of a list. — Ngamer01 02:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Of the two, i'd like to see different town featured. I can probably expand it. The Knights Who Say Ni 06:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I moved this discussion since different town got featured. Any input for your friends will need to be put in a new discussion. — Ngamer01 14:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Week of the Superbowl (Jan 30-Feb 5)

HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 5 (Jan 30–Feb 5)

Superbowl Dealie. RickTommy (edits) 10:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's short, but it is fitting for the date. I support. (That Other Anonny Guy) 101.160.57.137 22:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I have an idea that RickTommy is going to hate. I think that since last year's super bowl article (sloshybowl, which was also suggested by RickTommy) actually only got half a week, we should give it the whole week this year. I kind of think Superbowl Dealie is too short to get enough content for a Featured Article. The Knights Who Say Ni 01:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Why did it only get half a week last year? — Defender1031*Talk 03:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the article's discussion had a week attached to it caused it to be lost in the new format, and I noticed the discussion on about Wednesday of the week it had been proposed for. So I hurriedly wrote a FA for it and substituted it in in hopes that the wiki would understand my reasoning. The article that had been featured for the first half of the week was moved to the following week. The Knights Who Say Ni 03:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the idea: I have a better idea: we give SloshyBowl the time it didn't get, then we do Superbowl Dealie. As for Superbowl Dealie being too short, a write-up has been drafted here. RickTommy (edits) 12:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding sloshybowl not getting it's due time, I looked through the history of that FA and realized it has only missed two days. It still got a majority of that week. In fact we've had past FAs that didn't get all seven days due to some last minute and overtime wrangling over consensus. Do we want to go back and give all those FAs their missing day or two? I decline a sloshybowl repeat and support Superbowl Dealie for this week. — Ngamer01 00:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(1. computer slowed down; meant to get this in a couple hours ago 2. edit conflict'd) RickTommy - May I remind you that we are running out of articles to feature really quickly. Speaking of, you never answered my latest post on the talk page. And I'd like to enforce the "kind of" in my previous post on this thread. Also, are you now suggesting that we give Superbowl Dealie less than a week?
(edit conflict'd again) (response to edit conflict) Ngamer01 - what do you mean by "only" missed two days? I admit i didn't remember that it had gotten even that much time, but it seems like disputes are just about always settled within the first 12 hours or so. The Knights Who Say Ni 00:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Cheat Commandos (toon)

HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 6 (Feb 6–12)

The introduction of Cheat Commandos. RickTommy (edits) 06:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to second this. This would make a good feature whenever. — Ngamer01 18:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thirded. (That Other Anonny Guy) 101.160.57.137 22:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I took a stab at a draft. Can anyone help whip this into shape? — Ngamer01 17:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Week of Valentine's Day (Feb 13-19)

HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 7 (Feb 13–19)

Marzipan's Answering Machine Version 6.0. RickTommy (edits) 10:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Support. It's an overlooked toon, and it is quite fitting for the date. (That Other Anonny Guy) 101.160.57.137 22:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

When I saw the suggestion for an answering machine, i thought of #3. Either would be good for Valentine's Day, but I support the suggestion for #6. The Knights Who Say Ni 01:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll add my support for this. — Ngamer01 03:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Main Pages (daily feature)

HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 8 (Feb 20–26)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's reaching the year-and-a-half mark now. I seriously think this daily should be done soon. RickTommy (edits) 09:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Just because you seriously think the daily should be done soon doesn't mean we have to. As mentioned before, there is limited FA interest and the lack of updates kind of makes a daily a lower priority. I believe that for something like this to be considered: 1) consensus has to be reached as to *which ones* to feature and 2) once there is consensus write-ups should be made ahead of time so show that these pages indeed to have sufficient content for featuring. --Stux 13:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I say go for the ones that It's dot com suggested, though probably with 22 replaced with 1, since I still think that 22 should get a week to itself. Never mind, 22 it is, but I still would like to know which two main pages should get a week to themselves. RickTommy (edits) 01:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Rick just made some daily writeups despite not having majority consensus. I don't think we should do dailies unless there's a clear majority for dailies considering the limited amount of qualified articles are left that have not yet to get FAs and the fact H*R is on a very extended hiatus. I suggest we don't do dailies so that instead we could give these main pages their own weeks in the future. — Ngamer01 18:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Week of Main Pages? No; it can't be done safely considering the amount articles we have left to feature. Month of Main Pages? Yes, that would work. —Soiled Bargains ^(talk|ctrb) 19:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I also agree. Bringing up these dailies like this is too hasty. I like the idea of spreading out the Main pages over a wider period of time. It is definitely NOT too late to revert back and pick a traditional FA (redirect or otherwise). --Stux 19:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

How about 6 months of main pages? Cover all of them! that way, we don't have to think so much about what to feature for the next half a year! it's brilliant! — Defender1031*Talk 21:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ngamer01: We haven't done a daily all year, and of the couple of weeks we have left, I thought this would be the best one to do it. And while it has decreased our traffic and our edit count, I'm not sure how the hiatus is relevant to this. As for the lack of consensus, It's dot com suggested the main pages that could be in this daily, and I went for exactly the ones he suggested. As for giving the main pages their own weeks: you're joking, right? I will say this a third time: sometime in the future, we could do three more main page dailies (I'm guessing that Soiled Bargains meant that we could do those three more consecutively?), leaving only two to get a week to themselves. RickTommy (edits) 04:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no rule that says we have to have at least 1 daily per calendar year so there is no urgency in that matter. The issue is that sufficient consensus about all the details hasn't been reached. Dot com made some good suggestions that supported featuring main pages but an agreement has not been reached about a time or a set. The discussion wasn't even pushed to the queue (which should only happen once consensus has been reached). First we must reach an agreement before featuring, then we feature. --Stux 17:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's get some agreement, then. RickTommy (edits) 21:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

A main page daily FA, what a great idea! Let's do it! -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 01:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Glad you agree! Can we do this daily soon, then? I've waited a long time. RickTommy (edits) 00:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The week after next week maybe? Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 21:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'm fine with the dailies for the last week of February next month since February is looking like a month of new FAs. Count me in. — Ngamer01 03:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

FeedBurner Page

HRWiki:Featured article for 2012, week 9 (Feb 27–Mar 4)

Although I personally dislike the FeedBurner page, I guess it could make a good feature, since it is important because can be accessed from the Navbar. RickTommy (edits) 09:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

There have been some exclusive content on there. I'm going to second this. This would make a good early October feature next year for the third anniversary of that Feedburner Page going live. — Ngamer01 02:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason we're bringing anniversaries into this? (I did once suggest an anniversarial feature, but it was more of a funny reference to a quote from that toon.) RickTommy (edits) 04:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Support. It would make a great feature whenever. (That Other Anonny Guy) 101.160.57.137 22:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I reconsider saving this for October later this year. We can feature this anytime (provided there isn't any opposers. — Ngamer01 03:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

idk anything about this page, so i don't have an opinion on if it should be featured. At first glance, it looks like just a list of releases across the website. I don't think that's something i'd want to feature. does it go deeper than that? The Knights Who Say Ni 04:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Well the announcement for the original reason for the hiatus was only announced on Feedburner. There also have been some unique images released on Feedburner that can't be found on the website. When it's time to make a writeup, there will be enough material to explain what that page is, when it started, how you can use it, and a few notes of exclusive content that was only released on that page. I'll make a draft soon (unless somebody else beats me to the punch). — Ngamer01 16:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I've got the first draft up. There still some work that needs put into it if anyone wants to work on it. — Ngamer01 23:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm just doing a last check here to see if anything else needs to be done with the draft before it gets pushed live at some point tomorrow. I think I got everything needed here, but it's always possible that I'm overlooking something that's missing from this. — Ngamer01 01:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)