MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N/Koopa Bros.

Koopa Bros.

Koopa Bros., a featured article, was nominated to be unfeatured on August 26, 2026, 16:19 (UTC). If the nomination does not pass by October 25, 2026, 16:19 (UTC), it will be considered failed.

Koopa Bros. met unfeaturing requirements on August 26, 2026, 22:05 (UTC) and will become unfeatured on September 2, 2026, 17:05 (UTC) if unopposed.

Current time: August 27, 2026, 06:24 (UTC)

Remove featured article status

1. Wandering Poplin (talk) This article was originally featured in 2009, and how the page managed to retain its Featured status for this long is utterly incomprehensible. Certain sections, such as the Super Mario-kun section and the gallery, are visibly under-developed, and the images within said gallery aren't consistent in quality. There are almost no citations for anything claimed on the page, including foreign names, or obscure details like the "Nash. T" moniker allegedly being the name used by their disguised Toad forms. (Despite an entire discussion arising regarding the issue on its own talk page several years ago.) There are several contradictions to our Good writing policy on the page. The multimedia section only contains Attack of the Koopa Bros., and does not include their other themes from the game. The formatting also tends to vary, being nonstandard and somewhat confusing in some areas. (I do not think that the "Members" section is actually necessary.) For whatever reason, the page never refers to Bowser??? by that name, instead consistently parsing it as a "Bowser facsimile" or "a poorly constructed facsimile of Bowser", and does not include it anywhere in the "Profiles and statistics" section, unlike its semi-counterpart from Paper Mario: Sticker Star. Overall, this is far from being one of the best articles this wiki has to offer, and is straight-up out of date in various areas. The page arguably should have been featured years ago, and it's time someone did something about it.
2. Dab Bros. (talk) Not even in the second paragraph, I can already see the quality of the writing: "…the Koopa Bros. are all egotistical and obsessed with being cool…". Per Wandering Poplin.
3. Camwoodstock (talk) We're gonna be honest here, we've been eyeing this for a good long while, but could never really articulate why it should be unfeatured beyond its short length and just kind of having a weird indescribable funk to us, neither of which really do it for us as a reason. The complete lack of citations, information on their appearances in Super Mario-kun, and overall flowery tone of the page is something far more actionable for both a reason to unfeature it, and give it something to improve.
4. Yoshi Bros. 18 (talk) Per all. Yeah this article really isn't in a good shape.
5. Illuminoid (talk) Per all.
6. Power Flotzo (talk) Flowery and way too short. Per all.

Comments

For full disclosure, I was the one who created the gallery in the first place, so its unfinished state might be my own fault. However, prior to me creating it, it had no gallery whatsoever... and somehow, it was still a featured article despite that. Wandering Poplin (talk) 16:19, August 26, 2026 (UTC)

The bad writing I feel is the most immediately problematic aspect of the page, such as references to "slavery" and "rebel Bob-ombs" and other early 2010s MarioWiki jank. I did revise the page, so I recommend re-reviewing the prose.

Anyway other points:

• Super Mario-kun is a Japan-only manga available in only foreign languages. It's not as easy to document compared to other media we do have. We do have languages in Spanish and French, and the manga volumes of those languages are readily available online (I did get some French volumes from Amazon iirc and didn't need to pay much) which are hopefully more common languages in our editor base; all things considered, its content should not be the difference between a featured article or not.
• Citations: The complaints don't really specify where citations are needed barring names in other languages. As I said about Super Mario-kun, citations for names in other languages are not considered a critical lack of information that should prevent an article being featured; otherwise, plenty of other articles could be unfeatured.
• Contractions can be easily fixed
• Talk page seems to have answered the question of Nash T.
• I removed the members section. It's padding to make the article seem longer than it actually is. I also incorporated the letter part of the article so it should improve the narrative flow of the history section.
• "Bowser???" I feel is kinda covered in the respective page for it, so lack of profile on it is outside this article's scope.
• Multimedia section: It's their only theme song in the game I think, so it probably doesn't need any more songs barring maybe the Bowser??? theme.

The resulting article does now appear to be rather short for a featured article, but that can be debated if it's too short or not.

It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 01:39, August 27, 2026 (UTC)

• The writing is a little bit better, but I still think that the prose is not currently of "featured article"-quality at the moment, and the issue with the opening paragraph still remains unaddressed. Mind you, that is simply my opinion, and may not be representative of the opinions of the other users who have voted.
• I disagree with your point regarding Super Mario-kun. While I am aware that it is largely a Japanese-exclusive manga, I don't think that it really changes anything in that regard. From my understanding, Featured articles should not contain anything which is visibly underdeveloped, regardless of the reason why it is underdeveloped, especially on an relatively short page like this. If it's supposed to be one of the best pages this wiki has to offer, every section counts. (This is a mentality I would apply to other featured articles as well, such as Dr. Mario.)
• To further elaborate on my claim regarding the citations: I am talking about unusual/obscure claims on the page which are not easily verifiable, such as the "Nash. T" situation. The same could be said for the claims made regarding the Koopa Bros. backstory. Half of the details mentioned in that section is information I have never heard anywhere in any of my own playthroughs of the game. Granted, identifying what counts as "obscure or unusual" may be somewhat subjective.
  • Regarding "Nash T." specifically, I already mentioned the talk page discussion during my vote. The problem is that the main page does not address the matter at all. There's no citations, no clarification or anything substantiating the claim in the mainspace. The discussion was "resolved", but nobody ever did anything with the information. (This issue was partly fixed while I was in the middle of typing, but still. It needs a source.)
• Thank you for removing the "Members" section.
• My issue regarding Bowser???'s absence from the "Profiles and statistics" section was that it could be considered a "form" or "phase 1" of the fight. That being said, it's not as egregious an issue as the now-solved "never refer to this boss by its actual name" problem, so I suppose that it can be ignored.
• For your question about "Mutltimedia", the missing themes are "Koopa Bros. Keep Cool", a (seemingly unnamed) theme which plays while they are setting traps in the fortress and while they are stuck in their own prison, and possibly the theme of the Koopa Bros. Fortress itself. (Although I highly doubt that the last one should count.)

Wandering Poplin (talk) 05:22, August 27, 2026 (UTC)