MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N1/Super Smash Bros. Melee

Remove featured article status

 * 1) (blocked) This article is featured for many years since Dec. 30, 2007. I'm thinking that it will be unfeatured. What do you think about that?
 * 2) Per TheDarkStar. I support this not because of the time reason, but because there is only one piece of audio in the "media" section.
 * 3) Per TheDarkStar and WigglyWiggler.
 * 4) There's a notice template on this page:, meaning the page actually isn't qualified to be an FA.

Keep featured article status

 * 1) The amount of time an article is featured is not a good excuse to unfeature it at all. Opposing the unfeature.
 * 2) The amount of time an article has been featured alone isn't a reason to unfeature it. Do you have any other specific reasons you believe it should be unfeatured?
 * 3) BJAODN/Unfeature/Yoshi's Island DS. Enough said.
 * 4) - Haha, what?
 * 5) Per all, not a good reason at all to unfeature.
 * 6) By this logic, we would have to decide how long an article would stay featured, and even then, it wouldn’t seem fair. Per all.
 * 7) Per all, especially Waluigi Time. No reason to unfeature
 * 8) The amount of time article has been featured is definitely not a valid reason for unfeaturing it.
 * 9) Nah, no reason to unfeature it.
 * 10) Per Waluigi Time. He's got it in a nutshell.
 * 11) Keep it featured for longer, then.
 * 12) ....what....
 * 13) What do I think? I think not, that's what.
 * 14) Looking at the comments, apparently the more media tag doesn't disqualify an FA by itself, and there's literally nothing else wrong with the article.  Per the BJAODN proposal that Waluigi Time linked to, the basis that this unfeaturement is based on has nothing to do with the actual article's quality.
 * 15) As the comments below have indicated, my reasoning was invalid. My apologies for that. This FA nomination is more BJAODN-worthy than anything, so it's a shame that there's already something exactly like that.
 * 16) Per the comments below and TheDarkStar.

Amazing Super Toad Bros.

 * 1) Not much to say, other than per my and everyone else's opposition.
 * 2) Per Owencrazyboy9. The date that an article was featured on has nothing to do with the article's quality as a whole.
 * 3) The time an article has been featured is not a valid reason to unfeature.
 * 4) The last time an article was nominated for unfeaturement on this basis, it got thrown into BJAODN.  Time span has nothing to do with the actual quality of the article.
 * 5) per all.

WigglyWiggler

 * 1) per comments by Baby Luigi and Owencrazyboy9.

Comments
Is this a joke unfeature? -- 06:31, July 1, 2019 (EDT)

@Owencrazyboy9 - I'm not sure if you can remove the proposer's vote, but might as well let this run it's course anyway. No one's going to agree with this. And I want to see where it goes :P 18:13, July 1, 2019 (EDT)
 * Do we have any special procedures for when the proposer is blocked? Or do we just let it run as usual? -- 18:18, July 1, 2019 (EDT)

Oh, by the way, I read over the page, and there's actually a notice template there;. Or is it valid? 21:17, July 10, 2019 (EDT)
 * If it's not contested that being on a page is against FA policy, changing my vote.  23:03, July 18, 2019 (EDT)
 * I always felt like that template was pretty iffy because it was post-humously mass-added to a lot of game articles because we didn't really focus on adding media at the time. I typically let it slide for that reason. 15:57, July 19, 2019 (EDT)
 * Changing my vote, as well. -- 07:42, July 22, 2019 (EDT)
 * Yeah, if it was an after-the-fact template, then that shouldn't be counted against it. -- 07:57, July 22, 2019 (EDT)

Alright, I wanted to voice my own opinion on the matter. I did some research on Featured Articles and found that Super Smash Bros. and Super Smash Bros. Brawl both have on them, as well as Mario Power Tennis, and maybe others that I didn't look at. Does this mean we should unfeature them too? Not necessarily. However, it would probably would benefit these articles and the Wiki as a whole if these requests were addressed properly. BMfan08 (talk) 19:10, July 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * Almost all game articles have this template. It was post-humously mass-added to articles after a relatively recent proposal compared to their featuring. 19:46, July 23, 2019 (EDT)

I was looking through the FA archives, and I found several FA nominations by. They were cancelled after he was blocked, meaning it's possible for this FA nomination to be cancelled. Probably. 05:24, July 28, 2019 (EDT)
 * Well, they were cancelled because it was an excessive amount of bad-faith, low quality nominations, while this one by itself is frankly harmless. Don't think we should end this article early though, since it's a fairly old featured article and it may have issues I didn't catch. 22:44, August 4, 2019 (EDT)

@TheDarkStar, WigglyWiggler and Obssessive Mario Fan: The more media template should not be taken into consideration when it comes to featuring articles. As Baby Luigi has already described, it was added post-humously to articles after a recent proposal passed. As such, it's not taken into consideration. – Owencrazyboy9 (talk) 13:28, August 5, 2019 (EDT)
 * Yeah, I was thinking about that myself. It doesn't need to be taken into account for the reasons mentioned. Otherwise, we'd lose a lot of featured articles. That point is really meant for, , , and the image templates. 13:09, August 6, 2019 (EDT)
 * Though for new featured articles after the introduction of the template, I think they need to address it before it can be featured. I feel like that's fair. 13:37, August 6, 2019 (EDT)
 * I definitely agree that should only count for articles that aren’t already featured, since it was added to almost every game article after its creation, including several featured articles. -- 14:54, August 6, 2019 (EDT)
 * Makes sense, since it was added literal years after the article was featured. Changed my vote. 15:28, August 6, 2019 (EDT)