MarioWiki:Featured articles/N1/Mt. Teapot

Support

 * 1) - W00t. Fantastic article. Finished by your truly. It is a complete resource for the area, especially for only being in one game. Yeah...
 * 2) -- Wow, this is really fantastic! Great job.
 * 3) - Very good the justified order on each section, giving images that could tell everything. Great.
 * 4) Wasn't this practically a stub a while ago? Good work. 17:58, 24 January 2009 (EST)

Comments
The problem with this article is that it could be easily split into multiple articles about each course, just as we have articles about each level in Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island. --
 * True... However, I thought in a proposal we would merge the "level" articles into the "world" article. If so, it would be fine. If not... We'd have to discuss it. ;) –
 * It seems that I am incorrect. There was only a proposal for SMB: the Lost Levels. The original SMB's levels are, however, already merged. A full list of levels that are merged is: SMB, The Lost Levels, SMB2, SMB3, SML, Wario Land, NSMB, SPP, and maybe a few others. The only ones that are not merged are SMW, SMW2, and YIDS. I think we need a standard. -


 * I actually support unmerging levels, letting them develop into their own articles. I think the Super Paper Mario articles got it best.  Each level has an article, and on the bottom there is a nifty template indicating the world, and then a link to the previous level and the subsequent level.  World articles could then provide an overview of all the levels.  --


 * I see what you mean, but I would have to disagree. Now, SPM is one of the better ones, true. However, I would rather see all the information on one page, as MW loads quite slowly for me. Also, switching back and forth between articles is not very efficient in my tab bar either. On the SPM levels, though, having all the "chapter" articles on one page would be quite odd. Perhaps we could decide each game individually? I'm at a loss.


 * Maybe...I don't know. That's just my opinion.  The problem is, regardless of what happens, policies can be overturned, especially regarding world/level articles, as both worlds and levels are officially named, which has been the minimum basis for our articles.  As far as this FA goes, one day all the information could be unmerged, making this article extremely tiny.  Now, if this article had a lot of content (4,000 bytes) not based on the levels, it wouldn't be a big deal, 'cause if the levels split off the world article would still be long enough.  But in its current state, I don't think it has enough content without the level articles merged into this article (essentially, all those course descriptions are mini-articles in another article). --


 * Hmmm... Yes. If split, this article would never have enough information to become a FA, as we simply do not have enough information on the area. A shame, really. I'll have to think about this a bit more. Or something. -


 * That's why we need the "Unfeature" system :D If we had the possibility to unfeature articles, there would be no problem with having this article featured now, and in case we decide to split it into level articles, removing it from the FA list. Actually there hasn't been any opposition to the idea of an Unfeature process, but nobody seems to feel like actually implementing it (it'd be hard for me, since I'm not that familiar with advanced wiki syntax). 13:03, 18 January 2009 (EST)


 * Well, I changed the coding on your page, and even made a bunch of templates to go along with them (check my recent Contributions). I even created a test nomination page to show that all the coding works.  So...do what you want with it. --


 * I like it. However, we don't have any set rules for unfeaturing yet. Proposal, anyone?
 * I take that back. User:Time Q/Unfeature looks good to me.


 * Cool, thanks a lot for looking into it. If I find some time tomorrow, I'll see what I can do with it. 14:54, 18 January 2009 (EST)