MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N2/Goomba

Remove Featured Article Status

 * 1) This article has mostly perfect grammar, spelling and use of punctuation. It has a great use of links and images. As with CITE, it shows that articles with information that is in an in-universe style provided from a source from the game (all of Goomba's roles in the games) itself does not need to be sourced. However, information that is provided outside the games, such as "Trivia" and "Names in other languages" (sections) are not sourced.

Keep Featured Article Status

 * 1) The Names in other languages doesn't need any citations, and none of the Trivia pieces need any citations either.
 * 2) None of the Trivia and Names in Other Languages details need citations. If you can prove it by playing the game, it doesn't need a source. Also, these reasons alone aren't enough to unfeature an article in my opinion anyway.
 * 3) Per the above people.
 * 4) Do we need even sources for names in other languages and for the trivia?! You know it, you can prove the trivia by playing the games, and for the other languages' names, they don't even need citations. Per all, and those reasons are not enough for an unfeaturing.
 * 5) Per MarioSmasher.
 * 6) Per all of the above.
 * 7) Per all. I do not see any reason for sourcing, those sections, and it needs to have not enough information in order to be unfeatured, and this article has enough information.
 * 8) This article should stay featured, since it is very long and detailed, as well as being interesting to read
 * 9) Per all the above.
 * 10) Per everyone, especially the first two.
 * 11) Per all. Very weak reasoning to unfeature...
 * 12) Per all users above me.
 * 13) I agree with Mariobros1985. It's detailed enough to stay featured.
 * 14) Your reasons aren't reasonable. Per all.
 * 15) Why does this article needs to be unfeatured? It's so well detailed and interesting to read!
 * 16) 2 reasons? Not even good reasons? Per Vonmack and YoshiPickle!
 * 17) Per all.
 * 18) per IceShadow1199
 * 19) Gah, will you always get the Featured status off when there's an upcoming game with Goombas?
 * 20) keep it
 * 21) per every user above
 * 22) Per Mariobros1985.
 * 23) Per IceShadow1199.

Comments

 * Comment actually, just a tiny mistake can lead to unfeaturing, because if one mistake is anywhere near the guidelines for FAs, then that would affect it.987li 04:25, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

Now I understand that we can keep the "Trivia" section unsourced. However, we need sources for the other languages sections. This is because you have to make the name correct, not just by translating it somewhere. If the section's info was collected by visiting the website of the selected language's version of the game, then you must source it. I'm not saying you're having a lack of sources though. 987li 04:24, 24 April 2012 (EDT)
 * That's not true why would you need to cite the source for a name in a different language after all we don't cite the source for the American name in fact we don't do that for any article

Responding to the first comment, yes, I think a tiny mistake can lead to unfeaturing. However, most of the time, it's negligible because it can be corrected swiftly. Also, we have a tag in this wiki for those statements without citations, but a few of those tags won't unfeature an article. Also, the policy we have is that if you can find the source by playing the game, you don't have to cite it. I know that foreign names are often different than a bare translation ("Chemin à la Sucrerie" is "Maple Treeway", but the literal translation is "Road to the Sugar Place"). For the most part, these foreign names are found by playing the game in another language, which means that we don't need a source. I agree with Raven Effect. It would be pointless to cite the Names in Other Languages section. It's also pointless to state the Trivia needs citations. I'll fix MORE typos. Yup. Goombas may have to defeat Wario (who I am now obsessing over) in a micro game called "Super Wario Bros." Wario has to. I'll fix those typos, too!

Am I the only one who thinks this has gone on a little too long..? The proposal is going on its 4th month, there's a 20:1 Oppose ratio, this one's pretty much over.--Vommack (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
 * I think nobody has to post here for about a month, though that might be an outdated rule.
 * Well, if that's the case, it will take forever for this nomination to fail.


 * Well, Nobody has done this for a while. I'm hoping just to get it over with and keep this page nominated. I really don't think anybody cares anymore.