MarioWiki:Featured articles/N1/Mama Mario

Mama Mario became a featured article at 01:26, 15 January 2009.

Support

 * It's ultra-detailed, well-written, complete (as far as I can tell), and one of the few articles that follow the new article organization standard... a prototype for all the articles yet to be updated to the new standard.
 * 1) - I am honored that someone would features this article!  Son of Suns and Walkazo should be honored as well.  Great job you two!  The three of us have gone through that article so many times... so if Time Q also likes it, I'm pretty sure it's going to do okay as an FA.
 * 2) Per the two smart people above me.
 * 3) - Haha, when I first saw this nomination I thought it was a joke. But you three did a fine job! Congrats!

Comments
Yup, kudos to Stumpers, SoS and Walkazo for their work on this article. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be much interest in this nomination... 17:26, 6 January 2009 (EST)
 * OOps, I thought I commented a while ago... Well, you have my support!
 * All we need are five votes are we're golden, so I think we'll make it. 01:40, 7 January 2009 (EST)
 * Is the infrormation in the Mario kart double dash section neccisary?
 * Probably not. I'll get rid of it. If anyone has a problem with that, tell me.
 * I should have responded sooner, but yes, for the sake of completion we need to mention that factoid somewhere. Now, whether the way we're portraying the information may not be the best, however.  Can anyone think of a better way?  00:19, 11 January 2009 (EST)

I would just like to note that according to our current article organization policy, which is about to be changed, this article is improper, it should be (as I had earlier... not sure what happened), the television show and comics before the video games, because the tv show and comics came first. However, I believe we should turn away just this once and instead focus our efforts on changing the article to meet the NEW standard once said standard comes into play... see the proposal page for more information on the new organization standard. Basically, we won't have to change anything except the order in which we present the sources, so just a simple rearranging will be required. Is everyone okay with us making this one exception, with the promise that it WILL be rectified before the article is featured on the front page? 00:25, 11 January 2009 (EST)

1) How about this? "In Mario Kart: Double Dash!!, Mama Mario was referenced by Baby Luigi. If Baby Luigi were to fall into chasm, be blown up, or knocked aside by large obstacles or opposers using a Star, he would cry out 'Mama' loudly in panic." It's not much better, but it's something. Perhaps something could be mentioned about how Baby Luigi cries for his mother, while Baby Mario does not; I dunno. 2) I completely agree. 00:30, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Trivia section perhaps? --

I agree with Stumpers's suggestion to make an exception here. As for SoS's idea, I think a trivia section seems appropriate for such a minor reference, but if we do that, we would need to draw a line between major references mentioned in the main article, and minor references only put in the trivia section, and this is not good IMO. Strictly speaking, it is just a reference like any other. 05:44, 11 January 2009 (EST)


 * Well, a lot of trivia sections already mention minor, "one sentence," appearances and references. As a wiki, we can organize the information as we see fit.  The information has to be there, but the form it takes is dependent on the article's needs.  Regardless, I'm still not sure about Baby Luigi's quote...but I guess it doesn't concern me too much.  I would like to point out that a "Background" section can be created if so desired to provide background content on the character.  Things like Mama used to make scrambled eggs for the boys could be merged into that section.   --
 * Two things I think we need to be worried about: (1) Our organization now and SoS's modification of it that will become policy in the coming days both have us listing out appearances. Therefore, to remove one and put it elsewhere in the article makes any "appearances" section incomplete.  Now, if we separate appearances and references, we could move minor references away from the major appearances.  However, as it currently stands, we need to include all appearances and references in the appearances/history/etc. section. (2) Trivia sections: see my first point; we cannot move a data point away from appearances to begin with, but putting it in a trivia section is not something I would support for many other reasons, the biggest of which is that trivia sections tend to attract clutter and information that SHOULD be elsewhere in the article, such as jersey numbers, information about actors/actresses playing the character, and the like.  17:01, 11 January 2009 (EST)


 * Well some of those are not really appearances, but references made about the character. Mama Mario doesn't appear when Baby Luigi cries out "Mama!" and Mama Mario doesn't appear when Mario says Mama used to make eggs. There seems to be a double standard - other characters that are referenced but do not actually appear are put in a List of Implied Characters, while an implied reference to Mama is made as important as an Appearance.  Again, I don't care too much.  It just seems strange to have a huge section for a little tiny piece of information.  Perhaps what this article needs is more sections aside from history/appearances.  It could fill out an article and minor references may find a better home there. --
 * So you liked my idea to separate the references, then? I would be fine with that, but it makes it ever more important that we have the article's introduction (either that or the future background section) specifies that Mama was first only a referenced character and THEN she appeared.  19:58, 11 January 2009 (EST)


 * Actually, the major references could probably stay. I'm not sure.  I would have to read through the article again.  I do think some references can go in a background section, along with portions of the intro.  The "Background" section could describe some of the contradictions in her character noted in the intro, as well as mention minor references, as I believe most references refer to when Mario and Luigi are babies.  But perhaps a general references section may be helpful for info that doesn't fall in the "Background" category.  Again, I'm still not sure. --

[then move into appearances]

Per your proposal, SoS, I have reorganized the article! What do you think? About references, it is possible we could divide them into references that reveal past events (ie Mama having a basil bush) and references that reveal relationships (Baby Luigi calling out for his momma). Also, we may be missing an appearance, as there is another installment in the Family Album series in the Nintendo Comics System. We'll have to look into that - I still have yet to read about it or see it myself, and so Mama might or might not be in it. 22:17, 13 January 2009 (EST)


 * Looks good. I added Super Mario Issunboshi to a "Super Mario anime series" section, because all three OVAs are part of a sub-franchise (with the same ending credits), and "Super Mario" was the only common series name in the titles.  The only thing that may need to be reorganized is the Super Show sub-sections (episodes should be arranged according to release date).  Also, I think we should add a "Background" sub-section to the beginning of the History section, which would mention some minor references from when Mario and Luigi were little ones, as well as stating that her depictions have been really inconsistent (that is, pull down some content from the intro describing the differences).  Then, at the end of the article, there should be a "Family" section, just like the "Papa Mario" article.  That section could describe the other family connections established by various sources, as well as detailing the relationship she has with these family members that are actually referenced, like the Baby Luigi content.  As for the other possible Mama appearance, I have no idea if she appears or not in that comic.  I didn't even know it existed. =P --
 * Yeah, I'm a big fan of Mario's old days; can you believe the overall series turns thirty in a couple years? Back on topic, I believe much of the background information is already discussed in the introduction of the article, but I think we do need an at-a-glance, in-universe styled section, like you're suggesting.  I'm all for the family section, especially because most of the members of the Mario family were introduced in the Super Show, which she was an active part of, so it's not like we're speculating or anything.  I would however like to clarify that we shouldn't remove any appearance or reference from the history section to fuel the family section just yet.  The implications to the reader with our history sections are that, by reading them, they will learn about each of the character's appearances/references with no exception.  23:02, 13 January 2009 (EST)


 * That's fine. As long as the content is there in some form, be it in the History section or some other section, it's not a big deal to me.  The same content can even be repeated in different sections in different ways if need be, as long as it makes sense to the article. --