MarioWiki:Featured articles/N1/Mario

Mario was nominated for FA at 13:58, 16 January 2010, and failed at 22:00, 30 April 2010.

Support

 * 1) - Plenty of content, well-written, sufficient images, very few red links.

Oppose

 * 1) Interactions with other characters and Appearances outside of electronic media can surely have more information. Also, comics, Mario Paint, Dr. Mario, Super Mario Land series, Mario & Wario, Mario's Early Years series, Mario's Picross,  are missing, and Mario Party series, Mario Sports series and Super Smash Bros. series are in need of expanding.
 * 2) This article is terrible. It's poorly written, poorly organised, missing vital information, and doesn't cover anything well at all. It is by far one of the worst character articles on this site.
 * The "Other Spin-Offs" section has to be integrated into the History section. There are still so many appearances missing, e.g. those in the Club Nintendo magazine. Seriously, I don't see a way to feature this any time soon. Mario just appeared in too many sources which we all have to cover if we want to feature the article.
 * 1) Per Time Q. I thought over this, and Mario made appearances in dozens of games. I see a whole lot of games missing from this article.
 * 2) - Now what does this make me think of...? I don't know, but I do know is that the article has a construction template, the article's sections are way too short and I'm sure it could be rewritten to be way better.
 * 3) Mario is awesome. Unfortunately, like some other equally awesome characters, this article is missing out on some appearances. However, the spin-offs are now integrated into the history, and the history section looks much better. Like previously said, if all the appearances are listed on this article, this article is great.
 * 4) This might never be a featured article and even this becomes featured, when SMG2 comes out, this would have to be unfeatured. And Where the heck is SUPER MARIO LAND!!!! Another example of a bad article.
 * 5) Surely we can have more info in the Paper Mario Section. There also are a few games missing such as Mario Bombs Away.
 * 6) It's a good article, but everyone who visits the Super Mario Wiki, is going to watch that page. Everyone knows the whole article! I prefer something like Boo.

Marioguy1

 * 1) -- The article does not have a construction template. ; Which sections? ; Being "sure that it could be written way better" isn't really a reason.
 * 2) Per.
 * 3) Per GM.
 * 4) There are no construction templates in the article. Your reasons are also too vague. Per Garlic Man.

ForeverDaisy09

 * 1) -- Not specefied as to where it is poorly written. Not specified as to what vital information is missing. Despite saying that things are not covered well, claims that the article has too much information.
 * 2) ForeverDaisy09 is way too vague. Can he just specify is his complaints so we can detect it and catch it? And a good deal of his complaints at the comments section are kinda uh... bad reasons. And why he thinks SCREENSHOTS are missing? And what about power-ups being written differently than others? At least the other people try to give a specific reason without stating it on the comments section.

Comments
The NSMBW section needs to be expanded before I support. And it wouldn't hurt to add a few more images at the top of the page.

@Reversinator: Please make your oppose more specific. "Lots" and "Tons" are meaningless words if we don't know which sections you're talking about. --

@FD09: Could you also clarify what exactly you would like to see improved? --

@BLF: What makes you think Super Mario Galaxy isn't a series? There's a game one, and a game two. Looks like a series to me. --
 * Usually, we only have a "Super Mario series" where we put SMB, SMW, SMS, NSMB, SMG, NSMB2 etc.
 * OK, I'll resort them then. Although, I included the Yoshi series as a subsection already, since Yoshi's Island is Super Mario World 2, if that's all right. --

Because I don't want to edit your original comment, I'll re-paste every point you made, and cross them out as I go along, as well as comments for each one.


 * The intro has an "uncited" statement. (It's been "cited" now.)
 * The history section groups different types of games when it should cover each game separately, in the order of release. (According to Time Q Here, and the Manual of Style Here, it's correct at this point.)
 * I couldn't even find his description for appearing in comics or cartoons. (But yet you criticized the "Apperances outside of Electronic Media section as being "the wrost random section")
 * The spin-offs are completely separated from the main history section regardless of the fact I had a gigantic proposal removed about why we should separate the comics and cartoons from the videogames but someone here seems to think it's okay to separate spin-offs which obviously have more to do with video-game sof the main series than comics or cartoons ever could. (Is there a specific rule about this?)
 * The Brawl sections is ridiculous. Characters do not need a whole 'nother character box. And the moves should have their own page. Finally, the coverage of what he does in brawl should be left to the subspace emissary page while it should simply sum up his role in the game. (There was a proposal a long time ago that merged all of the moves with the respective character article, so that's fine.)
 * Why do the sports games just combine every sports game together? Aside from Mario Party which doesn't usually have a story, I've been able to write full descriptions on Daisy's appearances in spin-offs, Mario's should be even easier to write about. (I don't really understand what you mean on this one)
 * His personal descriptions are terrible and spaced out across the page. this is something I can deal with myself, as any moron can write about a character's appearance, it just seems I'm the only one who knows how to do it correctly. (Flaming is bad. :
 * His powers and abilities is written out in different tabs. WHY? No other character's is like this. (Why not?)
 * His powerups section has its own mini gallery? BECAUSE? No. His art gallery is here for a reason. (To give a visual representation for each power-up while the reader reads the verbal discriptions would be my guess.)
 * His interactions with other characters seems to cover every single person he has a relationship with. While other characters might still need a section for Mario on their own page, having every character here is ridiculous and unnecessary. (Where do we draw the line?)
 * He has a cameos section which seems very random and badly done. (I may organize that section a little better, but how is it random?)
 * He has an occupations section when while Mario has done certain things doesn't mean we can just say it is one of his "jobs". No. (Occupation doesn't necessarily mean "job", but the section is pointless nonetheless so it's been removed.)
 * Half of his Aliases are from the cartoons and aside from that why is this here? If by chance a character calls him a certain name it should be something covered on the games story section on the games article or if possible his interactions section. Why does this page have so many sections no other page would use? (What's wrong with the names being from the cartoons? Canonicity has been long-abandoned.)
 * Why in his official statistics/profiles section are the smash sections both randomly at the bottom? (I'll probably get to reordering that so it's chronological by series)
 * What a truly pathetic image gallery. Does anyone know how easy it would be to get screenshots of the Mario series main character for every game he's been in? Just as so for his artworks? Wow. (Ok, did you not see the link in the section to Mario/Gallery? There was a proposal about this long back.)
 * Why aren't his video-game quotes linking back to the quotes section rather than being on his page? Isn't even Peach's fixed like that? Ugh.
 * Appearances outside of electronic media, wow really? Quite possibly the wrost random section I've seen on this page. (Ya rly [insert owl]. But yes, Mario has appeared in comic books, merchandise, toys, etc.)
 * You call that a trivia section? (I wouldn't call it the Quotes section)

--

What is this? That's not proof.
 * Thiel, Art (2003). Out of Left Field: How the Mariners Made Baseball Fly in Seattle. Sasquatch Books. pp. 44–45
 * You're missing the point. It's technically fitting to the style, but it is not well done. It can be better.
 * Because it doesn't go with the manual of style. Get it?
 * What do you mean, specific rule?
 * Yes it's fine in terms of whether or not it's allowed to be like that, but it's still terrible looking. I'll just have to create a proposal to undo that then.
 * What I mean is, rather than have a section for each game Mario has been in, it just groups together each sports game from a specific series into one paragraph rather than how the Daisy history section is written.
 * Flaming is bad? I flamed an undefined group of people. Are you kidding me?
 * Why not? That's not a defense. If that's the best you can do then don't try to nominate an article. Why not? Because it makes his section unfitting to the style of EVERY other page.
 * Your guess doesn't back-up why it is here in terms of its relevance to the style of the page. I'll be removing it.
 * We draw the line somewhere along the lines of characters like Rosalina. I'll do this myself as well I guess.
 * Lets see how you organize it first then.
 * Alright then.
 * "Canonicity"(not a word) isn't the point. Don't bring that into this. "Canonicity" has nothing to do with how relevant the cartoons are to the video-games. As you respect that there isn't a canon don't try to group different types of media into one.
 * Okay then.
 * Somehow I knew someone who replied to that would act like I didn't know. The questions is, DID YOU? The screenshots section still has VERY FEW images and the artworks are missing many as well.
 * Yes, and this section should cover that elsewhere, not on his page itself.
 * Neither would I, because it's terribly done.

FD09


 * Actually, canonicity is a word. --
 * True.


 * Your fifth from last point makes no sense. If there's no canon, we should treat every appearance exactly the same. If you separate them by media, you make an assumption; if you put them all together, you make no assumption at all. Don't try to avoid those standards again.

FD09
 * The intro has an "uncited" statement. The statement added now has no proof that it's even real PROOF.
 * The history section groups different types of games when it should cover each game separately, in the order of release. Mario as the main character should be able to have full descriptions for each game, including spin-offs, I can't say this enough.
 * His personal descriptions are terrible and spaced out across the page. This is something I can deal with myself, as any person can write about a character's appearance, it just seems I'm the only one who knows how to do it correctly.
 * His powers and abilities is written out in different tabs. WHY? No other character's is like this.
 * His interactions with other characters seems to cover every single person he has a relationship with. While other characters might still need a section for Mario on their own page, having every character here is unnecessary.
 * If by chance a character calls him a certain name it should be something covered on the games story section on the games article or if possible his interactions section. Why does this page have so many sections no other page would use?
 * Why in his official statistics/profiles section are the smash sections both randomly at the bottom?
 * Does anyone know how easy it would be to get screenshots of the Mario series main character for every game he's been in? Just as so for his artworks? Wow.
 * Why aren't his video-game quotes linking back to the quotes section rather than being on his page? Isn't even Peach's fixed like that?


 * It's a book reference.
 * They're supposed to be sectionalized by series.
 * It would be very helpful if you could do that.
 * Because he has so many more compared to other characters, and it's easier to read.
 * Which ones do you think are unneccessary? IMHO, it seems like each of them are significant enough.
 * Because we don't have specific guidelines that every article must follow, and thus some articles have sections :that others do not. Just because something has more than everything else does does not make it bad.
 * It's been reordered to be by chronological appearance now.
 * There's already a separate page for a gallery, is that not enough?
 * I still don't understand what you mean.




 * So what? You could add the information of any random book. For proof we need something like a scan of the page or a quote from the book. Just recently I had to remove made up quotes for the koopalings because someone said they were from the manual when, while the manual had quotes for the koopalings, they were completely different quotes. We need real proof.
 * Yes, but they can still cover each game under the specific section. Otherwise it's missing the potential to be fulfilled. Why are you making up excuses to not improve the article?


 * I'm sure it can be changed regardless.


 * It does make it bad if it's not good. Self explanatory.


 * Okay, you just missed the whole point. It's not the smaller gallery that I'm complaining about, not in that sense. The gallery page's gallery is even still extremely small. Once again the whole point is that it can be improved, and once again, with ease. FD09


 * Here. Google book preview. Page 45, look at it. I hope you are now satisfied. (And no, the author is not a liar, if that's what you're going to say)
 * Don't assume that I'm making excuses to not improve the article. (I just don't see what you are trying to accomplish; in fact, perhaps you should do it yourself, if you're accusing me of making excuses :/ )
 * Ok. That's not really a valid oppose, though.
 * What's bad about tabbed Abilities?
 * The character page is being nominated, not the gallery page, so somewhat irrelevant. "It can be improved" is not a valid oppose.

BLOFFY: I see no construction template anywhere and the Super Mario Galaxy "Series" and the New Super Mario Bros. "Series" are reverted to just Super Mario Galaxy and New Super Mario Bros. Too bad this article DOES need more images. Or else your vote can qualify for deletion. Heh.
 * I've added images to the history section and some of the others (power-ups section, physical traits section, etc. about 15 images). @BLOF: Are there any sections you find that still lack images? --

Uhm, hello? My comments are what clarify what's wrong with the page, you can't remove my vote. The fact you think this page is good enough is just, ... silly. If you care about this article enough to want it to be featured, you should try to fix it as much as possible first. Come on now. STILL NOT RESOLVED: FD09
 * Mario as the main character should be able to have full descriptions for each game, including spin-offs, I can't say this enough. I wrote out Daisy's game appearances in full detail regardless of the fact they're spin-offs. Someone should be able to do even better with Mario's.
 * His personal descriptions are terrible and spaced out across the page. This is something I can deal with myself, as any person can write about a character's appearance, it just seems I'm the only one who knows how to do it correctly.
 * His powers and abilities is written out differently than other characters when it can be the same.
 * His interactions with other characters seems to cover every single person he has a relationship with. While other characters might still need a section for Mario on their own page, having every character here is unnecessary.
 * His gallery section is missing tons of screenshots, still. I mean the main gallery page of course. Also, this IS related to the article as a whole regardless of the fact it is technically on a separate page.


 * Why should the powers and abilities be written the same? The way it is now works perfectly fine. There are many things it could be, such as purple font.
 * No, it doesn't cover every single person. It only covers the most important ones.
 * No, it actually isn't related because it's not the same article. That's like opposing for an article because its Quotes page is bad, or opposing for a Game article because its Glitches pages is bad, etc, etc, etc.

--

FD09, I think you're overreacting. This article seems near FA worthy, it just needs a complete rewrite on this section.

@Time Q: One of the main reasons I nominated this was to gather enough attention to precisely identify the bad things about the article; which, ATM, has many; my goal is to do my best to fix them, and hopefully get others to join in to contribute and repair this article. It's a shame some people just bash it with out making an effort to improve it though. --
 * Yes, I understand that. I'd love to contribute to it but I don't have the time ATM. Perhaps in a few weeks.
 * That would be greatly helpful. :) Garlic Man ( Talk ) 02:53, 5 February 2010 (EST)

Who deleted the power-up gallery? I liked that. Now I have to find the power-up images in a different article? Lame. And that gallery is close to exploding. I don't find that mini-gallery bad.

P.S. I think ForeverDaisy09 is overreacting. He acts like the article is the worst article on this wiki. This is an opinion. Don't flame me for this. The article is no way terrible, but it can be improved on.

As FD09 says:
 * Mario as the main character should be able to have full descriptions for each game, including spin-offs, I can't say this enough. I wrote out Daisy's game appearances in full detail regardless of the fact they're spin-offs. Someone should be able to do even better with Mario's. (What are you talking about? I see nothing bad, or did I just overlook something?)
 * His personal descriptions are terrible and spaced out across the page. This is something I can deal with myself, as any person can write about a character's appearance, it just seems I'm the only one who knows how to do it correctly. (If you think you're the only who knows how to do it correctly, then tell us how to do it correctly so we know how to do the style you find correct. But I DO think that his personality should come after his physical description. Which means the personal traits ARE pretty badly spaced. You get this one.)
 * His powers and abilities is written out differently than other characters when it can be the same. (You mean it SHOULD be the same. No. Although some abilities are necessary, I think the other characters should have that style written. But tell me if I'm wrong.)
 * His interactions with other characters seems to cover every single person he has a relationship with. While other characters might still need a section for Mario on their own page, having every character here is unnecessary. (It's not EVERY SINGLE character.)
 * His gallery section is missing tons of screenshots, still. I mean the main gallery page of course. Also, this IS related to the article as a whole regardless of the fact it is technically on a separate page. (Screenshots. What the bananas are you talking about? You are talking about those pictures taken when someone is playing the game? Tell me WHAT screenshots are "missing". Unless you mean ARTWORK.)

Which is the rest of ForeverDaisy09's complaints I believe.

IMO, I think the history should be organized chronologically (you know, starting from Yoshi's Island) because the games are everywhere just like my drawer (it's super messy). Super Mario Galaxy, one of the most recent game isn't in the bottom. But let me hear your opinions, because I fear revert.


 * Why you fear revert? You should just handle that matter. The administrative staff won't issue you with a reminder or any of that frozen yogurt (unless you're persistent like Baby Mario, the character). You should try new things, not let everyone do it for you. Try it. Maybe your changes won't get reverted.


 * Sorry, you can't start with Yoshi's Island and organize it chronologically story-wise, that would contradict our guidelines.


 * Hm. I think the Yoshi Island series section looks out of place. It's in the middle of nowhere. Also, I think the Super Mario 3-D series is not really a series. The games in the "series" are just 3-D main Mario platformers. The history section, IMO, can use a little more organizing.


 * Let me correct myself: the events of Yoshi's Island CAN be mentioned in the beginning of the history section, but only in a Background sub-section (because it was a younger form of Mario who appeared in those games). And you're right in that there is no "Super Mario 3-D series". Usually we put all the relevant games into a "Super Mario series" section (including SMB, SMW, SM64, SMS, NSMB, SMG etc.)


 * Does it follow the guidelines then if I split the Super Mario 3D (it's called just Super Mario now) series? I mean, I remove the subsection and move the games into their appropriate spot?


 * And why is Mario Bros. a series? Shouldn't that be merged with the Super Mario Bros. series in a subsection called "Mario series"?


 * Yes, they should be merged into a "Super Mario series" subsection.

I removed the Super Mario Bros. Super Show, but I don't know where it should be located. Also, I added a rewrite template in the Bowser's Insides Story Section because the section sounds silly. However, I don't have the game, so could someone rewrite in a less..... silly way?
 * The first episode of the Super Show aired on September 4, 1989, so it should go right between the "Super Mario series" section and Mario is Missing!. As for Super Mario Land, there should be a "Super Mario Land series" sub-section.

Now... what games are missing? I added Super Mario Land to the article. I know we need the Super Mari World TV series. But what games are still missing?

Something Must be done about people editing the Mario Page
Despite efforts to respond to the opposes by adding images, some users are removing the images, contradicting with the opposes. This also goes with other efforts made to satisfy the opposes that are only being reverted by other users. I'm not talking only about Panchito, but there must be consensus before you start deleting content from an article. Just a reminder to all. --
 * I've tried undoing Panchito's edit to remove lots of images, but the system won't let me.
 * That's because there've been intermediate edits since; anyway, it's ok now. New images have already been readded to the sections. --

If he keeps doing so perhaps the page may need to be protected. --
 * Protecting the page so only autoconfirmed may edit it would be a great asset so raging fanboys/girls don't vandalize the page to oblivion. Although the edits can be undone. GigaMetalLuigi

Just a reminder, guys, but use