MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N2/Culex

Remove featured article status

 * 1) I'll give another take on this considering that it failed once before. First of all, when the article was featured, it was heavily padded to give it the illusion of length. Cut this out, and now, you have a length that's extremely debatable. Considering that Featured Articles should be the highest standard and pages we feature on the front page, the length of this article only teeters on the edge of being acceptable. My logic is that, if we get into a debate concerning how long featured articles should be, then this article does not meet the requirements: when we nominate articles, we should be entirely confident about its qualities, and this length is not something to be confident about. I say that the article is well-detailed and lengthy, as well containing all information required for this character, but it is not worthy of Featured Article status. The argument "Other articles are shorter too and they are featured" does not work, as we can vote to unfeature those any time due to their perceived flaws from other writers.
 * 2) Even now, I think that the article has too much padding, with half of the history section covering things that are tangentially related to Culex. The differences between the English and Japanese versions are awkwardly shoved in the intro (also, not counting that section, the intro is three lines long), and the "allusions" section could be worked into the main section without much difficulty. Per the oppositions brought up by others, including those in the comments.
 * 3) Featured Articles are intended to be the best articles on the wiki. This just looks like a normal article to me.
 * 4) I don't feel that this article is short, but it isn't long as well. With it being in the middle, I would like to see it removed.
 * 5) Per Baby Luigi and Time Turner.

Removal of support/oppose votes
Tucayo
 * 1) The article has flaws beyond its length.

Baby Luigi
 * 1) - The affirmation "it is not worthy of Featured Article status" is entirely subjective and not sustained by any actual rules., FA's can be short articles as well.

Supermariofan67
 * 1) - The affirmation "This just looks like a normal article to me." is entirely subjective and not sustained by any actual rules.

Yoshi the SSM
 * -, FA's can be short articles as well.

Comments
Tucayo, I have several problems with your argument.

First of all, yes, this article technically does meet all standards, if you're going to define these standards extremely loosely. My argument, so does Gus, Macho Grubba, Honeyhive Galaxy, Rolling Coaster Galaxy, and many, many, many articles that meet those standards. Those articles are all currently unfeatured for their own reasons. Gus and Macho Grubba were mostly unfeatured because of their short length. Super Mario 3D Land would also technically qualify as a featured article, as it had been before I unfeatured it, but it's not because it doesn't match up to its peers, namely Super Mario 3D World and Donkey Kong Country. Article quality has generally increased over time thanks to editors finding new ways to convey information and ways to write information into articles without padding, and because of that, so has Featured Article standards increase.

You cite "reasonable" length as the key to your argument, but there is no set, standard definition of what exactly constitutes as a "reasonable" length. That standard was set up mostly to prevent complete, smaller articles such as GLA to be featured, as they don't provide enough content to constitute being lumped among MarioWiki's best. Dealing with what the average Featured Article is like, they're usually brimming with much content for the reader. I'll pick some random examples: Paper Mario, Super Duel Mode, Donkey Kong (franchise), etc. There are only a few exceptions, yes, like Koopa Bros., Vivian, Kolorado, etc. but considering they're lumped with all of these other articles, I say their status as the best of MarioWiki is also debatable. The "Reasonable" guideline is a flexible rule, and hence why I'm challenging it right now so this article doesn't apply, as I definitely don't think it's at a "reasonable" length.

And considering that an unfeature nomination was attempted in the past that questioned the length of the article, there was disagreement to its length, as it sits at the tail-end of the size of Featured Articles, and there's a huge dispararity between it and, say Geno, who I think should still stay featured. We don't need actual debates from the past to challenge the size of the article, though. Just compare this article to most other Featured Articles and you'll definitely see why I have problems with it.

I also think the article as it stands still has some padding to it, as Time Turner has stated. After my revision, it'll probably be even shorter. 18:29, 22 May 2017 (EDT)
 * I see your point, and indeed the problem is that, right now, there is no set definition of the length FA's should have. I am all for setting a clearly-defined threshold; but, seeing how at the moment there is none, and how this boils down to us debating what is "reasonable" without having a solid definition, I think the best course of action, and what will prove to be more consistent, is to create a Proposal to define exactly how long FA's should be. The nomination is just starting so there's plenty of time. -- 18:48, 22 May 2017 (EDT)
 * I'll write a proposal tightening the required length of the featured article, making it a more strictly defined parameter. The problem is, I can't really find the right words detailing my exact thoughts on this matter and how to convert it to a more stringent, understandable rule on MarioWiki so that editors can understand what I mean. I know what I want to see is in my head, but it's difficult for me to write it out. Perhaps I can start collaboration on this on the Wiki collaborations thread or even in the comments sections here. What I'm saying is that I'm conflicted on a paradox. I want to write more stringent rules, but the wording on my head is very, very, very vague as a result. I don't want ridiculous parameters such as "this article should be 6,000 bytes big" either. 18:54, 22 May 2017 (EDT)
 * Yeah I understand what you're saying, maybe more people can chip in over on the forum and we can come up with a solid, understandable rule. -- 19:00, 22 May 2017 (EDT)
 * Just chipping in here, I remember a few years back having a proposal on lessening article size for being featured. And then a few months later I defined such size as being 9000 bytes, before it was removed a few months later. To be honest, I would prefer something more akin to 10,000 bytes, but it's a starting point.

@Time Turner: You mention there are other flaws yet fail to mention a single one. All the flaws you mentioned in your vote have been addressed, so please, do specify. @TheFlameChomp: Again, there is no set standard for length so I am afraid your reason is not valid. -- 12:56, 23 May 2017 (EDT)
 * Ok, I removed by vote under the removal of opposes, though I'm keeping my main vote. -- 13:20, 23 May 2017 (EDT)
 * The giant paragraph talking about Culex and FF in the intro still has no place being there, and the proper intro is still rather short. 13:32, 23 May 2017 (EDT)
 * This is still an issue. 17:38, 1 June 2017 (EDT)

Alex95, you completely misinterpreted the rules. That rules is talking about per votes dealing with removal of opposition, where those votes would be automatically removed if the original reason is removed. Per votes FOR removing opposition is allowed. Tucayo's vote shouldn't be there at all, since we voted to remove his vote; he can't reinstate the vote for the exact reasons it was removed, that would be abusing the system. 16:54, 1 June 2017 (EDT)

Also, with Tucayo's proposition to remove my vote, I wrote a rebuttal to it that hasn't yet been countered. 16:58, 1 June 2017 (EDT)
 * Featured_articles doesn't say that anywhere, though yes, they would be removed as the vote would be missing then. "Any vote that has per'd without providing any additional reason will also be removed" is placed within the information on removing support and/or oppose votes. Seems to be more along the lines of "you need to provide a removal reason of your own." 16:58, 1 June 2017 (EDT)
 * How funny! I was about to counter Tucayo's proposed vote removal myself, saying "And "it's not worthy of FA status" is entirely subjective because...?" 17:02, 1 June 2017 (EDT)