MarioWiki:Featured articles/N1/Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story

Support

 * 1) This article is very detailed,has much images,sections this must be a FA!
 * 2) Luigi456
 * 3) Mario304
 * 4) User:Super Bowser Jr.
 * 5) User:Yoshionfire
 * 6) LucariosAura (used to be specialk)
 * 1) User:Yoshionfire
 * 2) LucariosAura (used to be specialk)
 * 1) LucariosAura (used to be specialk)
 * 1) LucariosAura (used to be specialk)
 * 1) LucariosAura (used to be specialk)
 * 1) LucariosAura (used to be specialk)
 * 1) LucariosAura (used to be specialk)
 * 1) LucariosAura (used to be specialk)
 * 1) LucariosAura (used to be specialk)
 * 1) LucariosAura (used to be specialk)
 * 1) LucariosAura (used to be specialk)
 * 1) LucariosAura (used to be specialk)
 * 1) LucariosAura (used to be specialk)

Oppose

 * 1) - I don't think the picture of Wiggler is in its battle pose. Plus, some of the large boss sprites are bad quality.
 * 2) - Until that construction template is gone, then I'll consider. Some sprites aren't consistent, such as the wiggler sprite. Also, the giant bosses don't have pristine quality like the other sprites have. But if that's the only sprites available, okay then. Simply playing a youtube video and ripping a sprite out of that isn't going to help, though.
 * 3) - Everything seems messed under the summary; a rewrite tag, the supposed "bestiary" is incomplete and less informative, and needs a good cleanup overall.
 * 4) Needs a lot of work on the story section. PEr all.
 * 5) There is a Construction Template in the Enemiessection. The enemies need to get done before the article can be featured.
 * 6) Have any supporters seen the Under Construction Template in the Bestiary? Obviously Not
 * 7) Hello, construction template.
 * 8) - Mr.  objects this nomination.
 * 9) - The construction thing in the bosses section is bugging me. If we don't have all the information, how can we call it our best? Complete that section and then you can remove my vote.
 * 10) Ok article is great except for the stupid wiggler image. Notify me when its made.

Removal of Opposes
Gamefreak75
 * 1) I definitely don't think that the story line needs any more work, and this user even told me that he now thinks it's all good (that was awhile ago, and I kept on forgetting to do this until now).
 * 2) per BMB.
 * 3) I recently went through and fixed as much as I could. | Look here

Coincollector
 * 1) Please take a look at the article again.
 * 2) - Now we have the proof that no construction template haunts the page anymore. Everything is perfect for the FA!

Zelderu Maryoto
 * 1) I looks like it is done.
 * 2) - Now we have the proof that no construction template haunts the page anymore. Everything is perfect for the FA!

Commander Code-8
 * 1) It's gone
 * 2) - Now we have the proof that no construction template haunts the page anymore. Everything is perfect for the FA!

Revesinator
 * 1) per above
 * 2) - Now we have the proof that no construction template haunts the page anymore. Everything is perfect for the FA!

Tucayo
 * 1) per above
 * 2) - Now we have the proof that no construction template haunts the page anymore. Everything is perfect for the FA!

Marioguy1
 * 1) per above
 * 2) - Now we have the proof that no construction template haunts the page anymore. Everything is perfect for the FA!

NARCE
 * 1)  - Oblviously the reason is invalid as it does not even say "Per all" or at the very least "per my comments below".
 * 2) All the references that can be found are in the article.
 * 3) Hes been doing this to nearly every single Fa nomination. If we go by his standards, nearly every single Fa on th wiki would be unfeatured.

Comments
Needs a longer summary for a nice introduction
 * If you think so, you should actually oppose.

The article is riddled with bad writing, grammar issues, and typos that cannot be corrected in a simple sweep. They are so ingrained in the writing that it must be looked over several times and re-written again and again before it's anywhere near readable. The Enemies sections is largely composed of nothing but tables, which should be split off into a Bestiary article akin to the Paper Mario article. This article is close to being filled-out, but it's only an essay seemingly written the night before due-date. It needs polishing. Redstar 00:11, 29 November 2009 (EST)
 * Redstar, before you go changing everything, you got to think about what I said on the Superstar saga comments. We just can go fit every detail to the last atom added or else it would be very unorganized, very long (bore users half-way through it), and it would be plain out chaos!!! And if you want to talk about the grammar, and how it has to be prefect, then right it yourself!!!
 * Per my response to you on the MarioWiki:Featured Articles/N/Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga page, high standards for a supposedly high-standard honor is not a bad thing. I am not asking for "every detail to the last atom" to be added. I am simply asking for all relevant information to be added and organized in the proper way. Boring users is not our concern. If they don't want to read the "boring" sections, they can either not read them or just not come to the page. Redstar 00:26, 29 November 2009 (EST)


 * It's well written, but it needs two images to fill the gap between the image of Fawful Express and the cake at the end of the game.--

I've added tags to all the sections that I feel needs work. It's far worse than I initially expected. As before, bad writing, grammar issues, and typos are riddled throughout the text of this article. I also ran into text that seemingly was added out of no where, which implies vandalism, but I really don't know. I recommend these areas be taken care of before I change my vote. Redstar 07:24, 29 November 2009 (EST)
 * Other Bestiary??!!-WTF?!-- 08:58, 29 November 2009 (EST)
 * It's the standard that technically must be done anyways. Just make a motion to split it, then work on it later while this article can be featured without it. Redstar 09:01, 29 November 2009 (EST)
 * It not a standard. There's no "All FAs have to have a bestiary" or anything like that for the FA requirements. Check the Featured Articles page and look under the FA Standards section.
 * Per FF65, why does it have to be the Mario & Luigi Series so suddenly. We have bestiary for Paper Mario, because that is because the game has a bestiary since you can tattle on enemies. There is not bestiary related stuff in the Mario & Luigi series! Also, why this series, why are you not changing or rewriting stuff on other articles that are in worse shape than this one. This one and there series of Mario & Luigi have great articles, with a flaw or a few, but that is beyond my point. We don't need to rewrite entire pages and sections just to change the page into what you want it to look like. The bestiary stuff, we don't need it for this series!!!!! Please, many users worked hours, days, even weeks on this just for it to reach a high level like this. Don't change it just because you have major issues with grammar or small information is missing from the already long story section!!!!!!!!!!!
 * Why not make this into a proposal? Other users can choose on if there should or shouldn't be a bestiary.
 * I think that should be good
 * Proposal time then!
 * It is a standard. I didn't imply it was a standard for Featured Articles, but for game articles in general. I am bringing it up now because you guys want to Feature this article, and I feel it's not good enough for that. It therefore gets seniority over the other articles, because no one is suggesting that those are good. Baby Mario Bloops: "many" users may have worked for weeks, as you say, but the article does not have a "high level". Anyone with a basic high school-level English reading skill can see that. And I'm an English major, so obviously I can see all the issues with writing. MATEOELBACAN doesn't even appear to have English as a first-language, and he's the one writing most of this. Seriously, the article needs work. Redstar 22:37, 29 November 2009 (EST)


 * Yes,my first language is Spanish, but what's wrong with it?!, I'm good with English!, and I only want to help!
 * I understand you want to help, we all do, but an intimate understanding of the language is necessary for polished presentation of it on an English wiki. Fawful made some "corrections", but really she corrected things that were already correct and made them worse. I like the work you've both done already, but as far as writing is concerned you need to treat careful ground. (Though Fawful's recent editing of the Paper Mario page has been really nice) Redstar 21:46, 30 November 2009 (EST)
 * Well, if grammar issues isn't important, it isn't well written. F.A.'s are well-written articles unless you consider horrible grammar "well-written". Plus, horrible grammar makes our wiki look dumb. Just because "many users" worked on it for weeks (yes, we can give credit for their courtesy and commitment) doesn't mean it shall be high-quality..yet. We have to continue working on it before we can make this a featured article.

Alright, after a look over and a few edits, the only things I feel need to be changed before changing my vote is moving the artwork gallery to the correct location, and expanding the Battle System section a bit. While most of the battle mechanics aren't much different from the previous two games, we still shouldn't have to go to the Superstar Saga article to learn how the third game in the series plays. I recommend just copying-pasting all the information over for consistency, then making changes when need-be. Redstar 15:29, 4 December 2009 (EST)

I think that if the enemy table was removed and the Trivia and Differences sections were weeded through, this article would be perfect for a featured article. As is, I could go either way. Sournote103 6 December 2009

I think the same but also I think that don't remove the table,only re-add to it the images of before.

Yeah, the table needs some pictures, some color. Look at the Superstar Saga article's tables! They look great with the pictures!

Exactly x3
 * "Weeded" through the Differences and Trivia section, removing quite a bit of trivial information. Looks much cleaner. Redstar 20:43, 19 December 2009 (EST)

Other than the table, I think the only place in need of fixing is the screenshots subsection in the gallery. I mean, there's some Japanese screenshots, and some English screenshots. We need all the screenshots in one language: of course English. Also, the character sprites should be deleted from that subsection and possibly go in another subsection for "Game Sprites".
 * There isn't much text and it is always explained what is seen in the image. Unless an equivalent screenshot in English is available, I don't think that really matters. Of course, the (original) Japanese (or whatever language) version is as official as the English one. --Grandy02 15:11, 28 December 2009 (EST)


 * Frostyfireyoshi, in every Mario & Luigi series game, you could never save after you defeat the final boss (PiT: Shrowser was the true final boss, technically). If it happens in the series, it goes to this page.


 * Per BMB
 * Okay, BLOF, I got Jailgoon, Chuboomba, and Fawfulcopter back into the "bestiary" area. I will see if any other enemies are missing...

What color is Kretin X when it's normal? And should I add Straw X and Small Wisdurm X in there? But someone else must place the stats in there because I never played the game, nor looked at any guide.

Huh? Kretin already got added. But I still need to consider adding in Straw X and Wisdurm X and I need approval! And is having a screenshots section really necessary after the game came out?
 * Well, BLOF, if you have Straw X and Wisdurm X (small), then you can add them, I have the stats (I think there right). And, since the other Mario & Luigi games don't have a screenshot gallery, just get rid of it.
 * Ok, I'll upload them, but after I'm done with that, can you (or anyone for that matter) please place the stats in? And I hope someone will at least rip just one teeny sprite of Wiggler? It could help, even in a good quality screen shot (as I can crop the sprite directly out of the image.

That last guy's support vote is a fan vote. Can someone remove it?
 * Well, you can put it under the now support/oppose section. When there are three votes, then we can delete it. It is better because the user may not understand that it needs to be valid, so give him/her time to change if they will.
 * No, you can't. You cannot vote to remove support votes. It is indeed the case that a sysop can remove any vote if they deem it inadequate, but why do you want that anyway? It doesn't hurt anybody, it doesn't count at all, since there are already (way) more than 5 support votes.
 * Sorry, I guess I forgot that you can't remove supports, I was always confused on it, sorry. And, I know it doesn't hurt, and I know that I might seem crazy, but I don't really want fan votes to start appearing because we didn't do something, but that is my opinion.
 * No problem. Actually, we're having a discussion on this very topic, check this if you want.

Will Someone please find a picture of WIggler! I cant find one anywhere!!!!!!!!!!
 * Um, I think your missing the fact that we cannot find one, and it doesn't help with the obvious stated (not to be mean), that's pretty much what is wrong with the article, Wiggler pic and stats for Dark Mechawful.5...


 * According to the Dark Mechawful.5 article, it states that the only differences are increased defenses and a timer. I assume it has the same stats as Dark Mechawful, but it's only an assumption.
 * Wow, I can't believe, that's right (except POW is increased too...). I thought that HP was also increased, but I guess I was wrong...I'll go change it...

SOMEONE MUST FIND A PICTURE OR A SPRITE OF WIGGLER!!!!!!!
 * :(, that's not helping out with the situation. Maybe you can look for the picture?


 * I found one, It's over there [[Image:WigglerBiS.jpg|thumb|right|A picture of Wiggler in Mario and Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story]]


 * We need an actual sprite.
 * Yes, and my and LGM's vote is still valid, because there IS a construction template and the picture of Wiggler is not good enough. We need Wiggler in its battle stance, without a background.
 * Well then why can't you take the second picture and remove the background???


 * I did take a good look at it, and it's not as clear as some pictures I cropped from before. It should also be PNG format, or something that can easily distinguish shading and colors from each other.

I hate to bring this to our attention while we still are searching for a perfect wiggler pic, but we need to address this. Even if we find it, it still won't be complete. We have the giant bosses section that doesn't have a single picture in it. Should we just leave it be and ignore it, or should we fill pics in that section too so that it can be 100% complete?
 * Also, for the votes to get rid of opposion votes, for the ones that have 3-4 votes, may we cross them out since they been there for who knows how long. That is all...


 * BMB: The giant bosses are left like that because of reasons. I asked before about how will shall get those pictures and a solution was to leave it like this, because we're probably not going to find the sprite without having to resort to a screenshot. Plus, we need an administrator's approval to remove a vote (even though they barely do that anyway).
 * Can we get rid of the deletion tag in the enemy section since Wiggler has now been finally found? Or do we need to get pics for the Giant Bosses?
 * First, it's the construction template. Second, I believe that's not the battle sprite; it has to be a battle sprite to be consistent.
 * Here's a simple way to get Wiggler pics. You go onto youtube, type in Mario and Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story wiggler battle and you would get like a ton of videos. All that you do is to get to the point where Wiggler is in a battle position and then print the screen. Then you paste it on paint and then get the wiggler out of the screen, and put it on another paint page. Then you upload it on the MarioWiki and ta da.

KS3: The construction template is still there or else I'm seeing things.
 * LGM: I know that.

I will try to upload images of the Giant Bosses.

Here are the 3 Images of all the Giant Bosses. There are on the right.








 * Lol, I'm sorry, but you forgot Super Peach's Castle boss.
 * I couldn't find one.


 * It smells that no one can rip sprites. That would have been very useful. These images don't qualify enough to be just right. Sorry for being so picky, but sprites got to be consistent. I should clearly see the shading differences in sprites.


 * Smells?

Well, since we got 3 of the 4 giant bosses, someone needs to find the Super Peach Castle boss thingamabob. I can't find one.


 * btw, we should also rip the sprites.

Guys, this isn't working. We should either forget about the giant bosses or just get rid of the sprites altogether. It would at least make the article complete.
 * I don't think either of them won't work. If we forget about the giant bosses the table would be incomplete, and getting rid of the sprites altogether is going too far...
 * Yeah, but you guys haven't even found one giant boss image to use in months.
 * We can't get rid of the sprites because the prequels all have it and are featured (I think both are). Also, we users in general are too picky for what is to be Featured. We can't have a completely template with bad images, and we can't have a incompleted template with good images. Those images are sort of good, but BLOF has a point of it having to be png rather than jpg because it is better quality. I have sprites of the enemies, but if you saw the jpg images of wiggler I uploaded, I don't think you want my help again.
 * OMG! Just one image! One single little image is what is left for this article. Everything else is in great shape. I can't tell you how close we are to reaching this FA goal. Yay!!!!!!!!
 * So close, yet so far. :( We don't accept JPEGGY sprites. Just look in the large bosses section. And are you sure that's Wiggler's battle sprite?

Lets not be too picky with the images. They have reasonable quality, and they don't need to be perfect for the article to become featured if there are no better images available.

Actually Bloc Partier or another sysop said just because there is no better images doesn't mean it is left alone. You can upload one
 * I mean, they're not that bad, and there's really no way to find a better one to upload.
 * Yeah, I guess you're right. But I do agree with the Wiggler. The overworld sprite looks incredibly out of place here. Bowser has its inbattle sprite.


 * That construction template should still be there. Most of the added sprites are bad quality. You can't say there are no better images. I lambasted Mario Party 8 and 6 for having bad quality item pictures.


 * Well, if you think the giant bosses sprites are really bad quality, maybe I can continue playing the game on computer and rip thoses giant bosses sprites in high quality, like I did with bowser's castle? Then after we would have all the sprites in HQ...


 * Please! That Bowser's Castle one is on par with the other sprites.


 * Ok, i'll rip them and also i'll try to get a wiggler battle sprite if no one find one.


 * Has very few references. Looking at the requirements for being a featured article on this Wiki: "…be sourced with all available sources and Mario-related appearances." Clearly, the limited use of references tells us that this article cannot be featured quality by the standards put in place and should be failed if this is not fixed. Also, the amount of removal of opposing arguments is insane, and it should absolutely not be done by someone with a dissenting opinion. That is a huge conflict of interest, and the fact that you believe that the problems mentioned in their opposition were fixed does not mean that they agree. It's almost tantamount to vote tampering. - NARCE 03:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait wait wait wait WAIT! I have been waiting for this article to be complete, and now it is!!! We have all the images, and the only images that can be better uploaded would be the Dark Star Core and maybe Yikk and Fawful Express. Yet, that construction template still HAVOCS the article. This article has been through probably more than any other FA NOM of the entire Wiki!!!!!!!! So one or two images are not bad yet aren't perfect. I find this article excellent, and more than worthy of an FA than any other article. Everything is in order, we have gone through all the spelling and grammar errors, we have the sprites now, we have great length and excellent details, we have EVERYTHING needed to be a FA and above. Now tell me differently that this still needs to pospone (and don't tell me about the sprite thing, because that is the best we can obtain!!!!!!). Also NARCE, I agree with the dissenting opinion part, but don't go be like "expand the sources or have this FA Nom fail." So we don't have a lot of sources, yet they are very good and reliable sources. That is all I have to say (for now).
 * It may be a well-written article, but it's still a requirement for any featured article to have references. I'm certain that the few references as well as the game contents themselves do not reference the entire article. - NARCE 05:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * @KS3: You know for your "Removal" section? I suggest you re-read my vote.

This article does have a reference section.
 * I did not ask that there be a single reference, or a few references, I pointed out that the entirety of the content that was not covered by the game needed to be referenced. The trivia section, for example, forces readers to do their own research. - NARCE 14:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded a better version of yikk tower. That's the best I can do as the sprite in the game looks like that.
 * Thanks for that Jimbo390. @ NARCE - As I said before, the reference is good enough. Also, the trivia section does not force readers to do research, nothing forces are reader to do research. If it causes you to do research, then fine, but I don't think any other user has that situation.
 * Well, let's see... so your argument for ignoring something - something that, if not fulfilled, featured status is impossible - is that one complainant is not enough to warrant fulfilling featured article quality standards.
 * "This is the first game to have a Boss-Refight or Skill Challenge of the series. " - It is? Is this an observance by the writer of this sentence? Or a fan of the games pointing out that he has never seen it in a previous Mario RPG before? How can I be sure this is true? If I am not sure, then I have to research to find out. How else can I verify the truth of it? By playing the game, I can verify the existence of such a feature, not the lack of it in previous titles.
 * "This is the first time in the Mario RPG series that a sequel has been released on the same system as its predecessor. " - Information that is easy to find, but it still does not change the fact that the reader must personally go to Google and search for this information.
 * "The title of the game is a pun on the term "inside story," meaning the "true" tale of an event from the perspective of an insider who participated in the action, as opposed to an outsider who only hears about the event later on. In this case, the game is a literal inside story, as Mario and Luigi have to adventure through the insides of Bowser. " - While obviously true, it is still an observation made by the writer, not sources or the game. Same with "The game's European Spanish, European French and Italian name is a pun on the famous novel A Journey to the Center of the Earth."
 * "This the third time Bowser is a playable character (where Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door and Super Paper Mario came before this game), but the 2nd time he does good deeds and bad ones (where Super Paper Mario came first). " - This is a collection of observations. It's the third game? In order to verify this, as the reader, I must either research online, or play every Mario game to verify that Bowser is not playable in more than three. I must also research whether these games feature Bowser acting in a unique capacity to his normal roles.


 * Explain to me how, from reading the article, I can know that any of these statements are true?


 * Seriously, people seem to put a little starman over the actual quality of the article. - NARCE 15:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I feel very frustrated now. Can we just feature this already? If you really want to know if they are true, research it and put it in the article yourself. I have no idea where I can get an online source for that. The sources are right in the game. I'm sorry, but I can't help this article much farther.
 * So is this your response to every single user who would perhaps question the information? "Find it yourselves"? If you cannot fulfill a necessary criteria, then featuring this article is an absolute 100% no-go. Stop treating the FA status as if to say an article is only an accomplishment if it has a star on it. - NARCE 16:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't find it myself. If someone can find a source to put there, that would be great, but I can't. I'm not very good at searching through the internet for sources.
 * Well, that is too bad, because it's still important to the article, whether you can accomplish it or not. It can't be featured until. - NARCE 16:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm asking for help in finding these sources. Besides, it is a FA standard to have all available sources in the article. I've looked through all kinds of websites about the game, and I have not found any sources available for that stuff.
 * Unfortunately, I can be of no help. Look at IGN, GameSpot, GameDaily, GamesRadar, etc. for information relevant to BiS. - NARCE 17:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * @NARCE: You know what?!? If you feel like it sucks, then just say it. If you are able to find errors in what you feel is wrong, then you should have no problem finding the information that is true!!!!!!! This article is better than pretty much all others. Can't you see that?!?!?!?! Don't just come here and start putting down the work of this, just because of not enough references. This article does not suck just because it doesn't have enough of this, or that a sprite is not the best. Also, dont' go saying that FA's are pretty much saying that a article is good if it has a star or it can't be good till has a star or it's only an article with a star at the top right. This article deserves it!!!!!!! It has been through a lot, it has the requirements (no matter what you say), and it shows that even with or without the star, that it still is one of the BEST Articles we have on the Mario Wiki. YOU haven't been through this at the beginning; you have been here since like April and from then on, it barely has been edited. Okay, I know it seems that I'm mad, but I'm not. I am just tired of having people put down this article when everything is fine with it.

And again, the FA standards state that the article must have all available sources. And there is just no available source to put in that trivia section anywhere. Therefore, this article is fine once we put all the images we need in it.
 * Wait, don't we have the images we need? Because all the images in the page are the sprites in the game, and they are really good.
 * Apparently, some people won't support because two of the giant boss images are low quality. Of course, that doesn't mean we should have that construction template, so I'll remove that.
 * I'm amazed that two people are voting to remove my vote yet they have clearly not read it. If you have read it, read the last part of it again.
 * I have read it. The images are the best that they can be. Those images are sprites, and DS sprites are not always that excellent. What we have is from the game. So, your reason is invalid.

Can anyone verify if the alternate ending where beating the game under level 17 is true? Since I would like to add that in the trivia section, if it is. I'm positive however the over level 42 ending is true though.