Talk:Super MakerMatic 21

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search

Delete this page[edit]

Settledproposal.svg This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit any of the sections in the proposal. If you wish to discuss the article, do so in a new header below the proposal.

keep 10-1
Must I even say why? There's nothing to be found on this page. The Trivia and Names in Other Languages sections take up more room than the actual article.

Proposer: Vommack (talk)
Deadline: July 15, 2014, 23:59 GMT


  1. Vommack (talk) Per proposal.


  1. Dashbot (talk) The subject is significant to the DIY's storyline. It's not a generic subject, it is not a stub. There is no reason to delete such a page. If you have any writing problems with the article, just add a {{rewrite}}. Otherwise, bring that specific issue here on the talk page. Everything will get sorted out, eventually.
  2. SuperYoshiBros (talk) Per Dashbot.
  3. Stonehill (talk) Per Dashbot all the way.
  4. Lumastar (talk) Why should we delete this page? Dashbot is right. The Super MakerMatic 21 is important to DIY's storyline and deserves its own article.
  5. Yoshi876 (talk) Per all.
  6. Tsunami (talk) Per Dashbot, and like he says, if you're wrong with it, let's add a {{rewrite}}!
  7. Walkazo (talk) - If it's named and has plot-relevance, it gets a page. If there's problems, fix them; if there's missing info, add it: that's how wikis grow.
  8. GBAToad (talk) Per all.
  9. Koopakoolklub (talk) Per all.
  10. Randombob-omb4761 (talk) Per all.


This one I'm not exactly keen on deleting. It's the main thing of DIY, and we could put LOADS more info on here. if we were the Zelda Wiki, we wouldn't delete the Master Sword because it was a bad article. Maybe I'll clean this up and then we'll see I'd it's still worthy of deleting. - Ninelevendo's Sig Image 17:09, 1 July 2014 (EDT)

If you're willing too, sure. I was kind of on the fence going into it, but once I actually clicked on this article, my mind was set.--Vommack (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2014 (EDT)
Although fair enough, it is a pretty horrible article. - Ninelevendo's Sig Image 17:18, 1 July 2014 (EDT)

It's a pretty poorly written article, but it's validity as a topic is debatable enough that I'm not in favor of an outright deletion. I say tag it for rewrite and see where that goes. If the rewrite doesn't work out, I'll agree to a deletion. -- Shyghost.PNGChrisShyghost.PNG 22:21, 1 July 2014 (EDT)

Considering how important it is to the overall storyline of DIY, I don't see why the quality of writing should be a possible factor in its deletion. Tag it with rewrite-expand, and wait until someone who can write to the full standard to come along. Yoshi876 (talk)
We're not in the habit of keeping low quality articles around, importance be damned, ignoring that the importance has been a subject of debate in the past. If it can be improved, then it needs to be improved. If improvement proves to be impossible, a merge will be suggested. That's just standard practice around here. -- Shyghost.PNGChrisShyghost.PNG 17:15, 2 July 2014 (EDT)
I'm fairly certain if the article is significant enough, no matter the quality of it, it is kept. And in your comment the "importance be damned", makes it sound like we're in the practice of removing every single article that has had an improvement tag on it for a while no matter its significance which I know is the not case. Yoshi876 (talk)
Firstly, we don't keep around poor articles, regardless of the importance, we improve them until they either aren't poor articles or we've proven that improvement can't be done (in that situation, other options are looked at). This has always been a standard curating aspect of this wiki. It just so happens that we have a decent team of editors, which has saved several articles from the dreaded poor status. That said, we have had seemingly important articles merged or outright deleted in the past due to just not being fixable. Next, no, I was not implying that an improvement tag is a death sentence for an article. It can be, should improvement fail, but the number of times that has happened is in the minority. Lastly, importance be damned. A subject being important or vital is no excuse for it being poorly written, don't ever think otherwise. Steps will always be taken to improve article quality across the board and if one method fails, we have others. -- Shyghost.PNGChrisShyghost.PNG 06:59, 4 July 2014 (EDT)

This article does seem pretty useless. It does play a role, but it is the gameplay of WarioWare: D.I.Y., so it's at best, a repeat of information from the WarioWare: D.I.Y. article, provided that the article information is adequate. Mario Green.pngBazooka Mario BadaBoom! 21:46, 2 July 2014 (EDT)

If that's the case, if we're gonna delete this, we may as well delete Wario's Laptop too since it's basically the menu interface for the first WarioWare. BabyLuigiFire.png Ray Trace(T|C) 21:49, 2 July 2014 (EDT)
Well, it's a pretty useless article, too, in my opinion. Mario Green.pngBazooka Mario BadaBoom! 22:18, 2 July 2014 (EDT)
I don't think we're trying to aggressively force out any interface related article, but that's a fairly poor article as well. I know I'm repeating myself here, but mark it for rewrite. If it fails the rewrite, I'll agree to further steps. -- Shyghost.PNGChrisShyghost.PNG 04:03, 3 July 2014 (EDT)
And I must sound like I'm a broken record with all the WarioWare things I've been saying shouldn't have an article, but...Does it really deserve an article just for being a menu interface? If that's the case, the tiny strip of beach Mario stands on for the SMS file select would be a perfectly valid article.--Vommack (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2014 (EDT)
That's a different matter. He merely stands on a random, unnamed beach that doesn't have importance to the game. This isn't simply a game interface, it's practically what the game is about, what makes the game the game it is. It does do more than be an interface, whereas the beach isn't even named. - Ninelevendo's Sig Image 16:48, 3 July 2014 (EDT)
I admit it doesn't really apply to this case, but it certainly applies to Wario's Laptop.--Vommack (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2014 (EDT)
Not to beat a dead horse, but the true interface of the game is Diamond City. The Game Blender, where the microgames are actually played, doesn't have an article because the object itself isn't significant enough (even in-game it's only addressed a few times to tell the player "play microgames here"). But, the MakerMatic isn't just an interface like the Game Blender, it's the whole point of the game (a relevant part of the "plot", is addressed countless times in-game and appears in various promotions for it) so I don't see why it should be deleted (rewritten? definitely). I'd dispute Wario's Laptop on the basis of the Game Blender but this isn't the page for it.
Also, this is a stretch, but the SM21 actually has dialogue in the game (sorta) so I guess it's technically a character (and thus is slightly more relevant idk)? We don't have D.I.Y. Shop Girl so that point's probably moot lol. GBAToad (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2014 (EDT)

@Yoshi876: You have to add a reason for oppose, no matter how "obvious" it is that you're supposed to be perring the oppose section. BabyLuigiFire.png Ray Trace(T|C) 21:50, 2 July 2014 (EDT)

Sorry, I thought I had :P Yoshi876 (talk)