Gallery talk:Super Mario

Delete Gallery:Super Mario
This form does not need a gallery. This gallery hardly illustrates Super Mario as a form; rather, it showcases all basically instances in platformers where Mario is in normal proportion. "Super Mario" is supposed to be normal-sized Mario. After all, that's the title of the series! "Normal" (a.k.a. small) Mario gets its own page because Mario appears smashed and is NOT usually drawn like that. You might as well just merge Mario, Luigi, Peach, Toad, and Rosalina's galleries together because they are all depicted as "Super", except a few cases.

The Super Form, to have its own gallery, needs to have many more images like the one shown here. Or, like this one. And that one. Basically, ones that show a comparison or at least illustrate "Super Mario" as a form.

But the gallery doesn't do this.

Proposer: Deadline: October 1, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) This isn't a gallery of the Super Form. It's a gallery of Mario-and-friends-as-normally-depicted.
 * 2) In fact, some images of the first part of the gallery aren't in Super form. And this should be called Super form (gallery), BTW. This can easily be deleted, just make sure the images appearing only in the gallery won't get unused.
 * 3) Bunch of Mario pics with random pictures of other people. And what's with there being only one Mario Golf image?
 * 4) Per all. Gallery:Super Mario isn't so super.
 * 5) This exists? Per all.

Comments
@Ninelevendo: Why not just include EVERY single Mario artwork that isn't Small Mario or another form? 02:46, 18 September 2014 (EDT)

This strikes me as an editorial concern more than something in need of community input. Too many images? Several of them aren't examples of the target subject? Remove some. -- Ghost Jam 21:51, 18 September 2014 (EDT)
 * Remove the images, yes, but you'd be removing the overwhelming majority of these images to the point where the gallery won't be necessary any more. Hence why I nominated this for deletion. 00:09, 19 September 2014 (EDT)
 * I assume we have a set minimum number of images a gallery page requires to exist as a gallery page, I would say images would be removed down to that minimum at editorial discretion. Since the gallery inclusion movement was about having an active visual archive of supplemental material for as many topics as was feasible, I'd argue that deletion would result in us repeating history when someone brings up creating another gallery page for the same thing and people blanket agree like they always do when it comes to resource reorganizing. Given that, I submit that out right deleting something we can fix is like jumping into a burning building to escape a flood; a problem is solved by engaging in another problem.


 * Words, words, Ghost Jam needs to get to the damn point, words, my point is do editors think it's fixable or worth being fixed before we move forward with a delete? That's what I'm asking. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Ghost Jam[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 06:10, 19 September 2014 (EDT)