MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N1/Dry Bones

Keep Featured Article Status

 * 1) The MASATOWG cannot be expanded, since they only appear in the hockey tournament against Dry Bowser. SMG2 doesn't need a section, it should be merged with Galaxy 1. NSMBWii should be merged with NSMB. Comic system most likely cannot be expanded. Someone could easily get the SPM tattle info and I do not believe the trivia is long/unnecessary.
 * 2) All Mario and Sonic, Galaxy and NSMB info is up to date and the trivia section is much shorter now. Comics and Mario Party provide enough info. Paper Mario is also good. You no longer have any reason to oppose.
 * 3) Good information, good images, and the only thing it needs is the SPM tattle.
 * 4) The article is pretty good now. All the problems you mentioned are fixed.

Comments
The only one problem is the tattle info for SPM, which is not a reason to unfeature it.

No gamefreak it isn't. For one, Smg2 isn't even on it, and many sections are stubs.


 * Did you bother reading my oppose? >_>

Yes, but thats not the way to go at all. Every article on the wiki has seperate sections for the 2 games. I don't see why this one needs to break it. Also, notice nearly all of the trivia has wrong grammar, and the last one makes no sense.
 * Sections can be merged if there is not enough content to fill up one section.
 * Winter Games section is labeled Mario & Sonic Series, I expanded the SMG section to include SMG2. NSMBW has been merged with NSMB. IDK much about the Nintendo comic's system. Define "more". The MP series section has been expanded with a sub-section on Dry Bones' only notable appearance (in any Nintendo game afaik). IDK SPM tattle stuff. The trivia section is near empty. I changed the tense.
 * Which there should be for the NSBMW and SMG2, considering there platforms (2.5 and 3D).
 * What? I don't follow...

Thats strange. So the millions of things that couldn't be expanded on other articles that were nominated could've been merged all along? I don't really think so.

Mg1, while your trying to fix this article is heartwarming, you add ALOT of grammar issues to sections you worked on, especially the SMG section.
 * Actually, yes they could have. I'll use the SMG and SMG2 sections from Dry Bones as an example. If we were to have two seperate sections for the two SMGs in this article, we would have two choices: Either we have two sections both describing how Dry Bones is on four legs, invincible to all attacks with an aggressive behavior or we would have one section describing all that and a one-liner in the other one describing the game-exclusive things (of which there is one AFAIK). So yes, it is wise to merge two sections as closely related as these two. And thanks! But I couldn't find the grammar issues...I went through the article and fixed everything I could find but, could you point out the issues for me?

"Sigh" Don't worry about it. I'll fix it for you, its easier than pointing them out anyways...

LGM, how come you're voting to remove FF65's vote, if her vote is part of YOURS?
 * OK, the mistakes you fixed were worded grammatically correct before, you just changed the wording. Anyways, abstaining from voting to remove an invalid vote because it advantages you is not a good thing, try to remain indifferent when voting on those types of things. And lastly, are there any more sections that need fixing?

Not really, though I did see the more smarter thing, and yes that was ironic and stupid of me. But I don't have a spellchecker on my computer so..., and anyways, LGm's vote does not make sense though. Ff65's vote was in past tense, and LGM said no wai, yet part of her OWN vote is "not in correct tense".
 * In that case @LGM: Could you remove the past-tense part of your vote? And I won't pursue the more smarter thing, it was a mistake, we all make them. Anyways, are there any sections that need expanding?
 * CC08: It is now "Dry Bones make their debut".

Mg1, if you oppose this, why don't you just put it in?
 * I don't oppose or support this. I want to make it better. I want this nomination to fail but "I want this nomination to fail" isn't a good reason to oppose, no?
 * @Booderdash & LGM: The Paper Mario templates section is a more practical use of space - if it were another way, it would look more like this and that looks worse IMO. @All supporters: What sections are stubs and need to be expanded and can be expanded?

Nintendo Comics can be extended, but this article is MUCH worse than the Chain Chomp article, so... This articlr is very amaturish.

Bleeeeeegh... Who ruined all my hard work? :'( The PM templates should go nearer to the end of the article. Not every game should have its own section; SMG and SMG2 are fine together. Nintendo Comics can't be expanded. If they made just that one appearance, then that's all we need. The grammar was fine back when I featured the article, but it appears as if I need to go in and fix it myself. None of the sections are stubs; just because they're not as long as the rest doesn't mean they can or should be expanded. I'll get to work on the grammar, then...
 * Sorry BP D: - I wanted to keep the PM templates at the bottom but apparently they don't look good that way. And what hard work did we kill? Thank you on the SMG thing. I read through the issues, they made one appearance. Grammar is fine IMO...
 * It's ok. There are just a few poor grammar edits that I need to fix; they were perfect before. The PM templates look horrible where they are; I can't see any place other than the bottom for them. Perhaps we should create another system for PM stats, because the big, long templates are simply not cutting it in these long, multi-game articles. I'll see what I can do.
 * Honestly, when putting PM stats and such at the bottom you have to look at the bigger picture. We are an information center. People come to us to find stuff about Mario. If they go to the (i.e.) Dry Bones article to find out about Dry Bones' appearance in Paper Mario, they want to be able to find out everything about Dry Bones' appearance in that game without having to scour down two different sections in the article. They don't want to have to see the description of the appearance and then scroll down to the bottom to read the tattle and then go back up because they forgot something about where it appeared and then go back down to see its stats and then back up to see how to kill it and then back down to find a picture and then back up...ya, it gets annoying basically. I think that the stuff should all be lumped together under a section helpfully (and correctly) named Paper Mario.

@Fuzzipede27 It has the SPM tattle.


 * @MG1: I agree. We should have everything in the same general area. However, these long, crowded templates all over the place are making the layout completely busy and complicated. I'll leave the PM templates where they are now, but I would really like to work out a better system at some point.

Maybe the article could use an image from Mario Baseball. Apart from that I see no major issues with it. -