MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N1/Krunch

Remove featured article status

 * 1) The nomination of Krunch's article happened on August 30, 2020, and passed without opposition. Looking back, though, I feel there is just one problem the article has: the length. One user does try to justify this, stating that it isn't about the size of the article, and I get that. It's by far the best-written essay I've seen for a somewhat forgotten character, and it's not favoritism either. I think any subject, whether it be a loved character, a hated character, or a character people forget about, has the potential to be featured. However, the featured article rules state that length is crucial. I'll quote this: "In this case, although these articles are complete and are written to the best of the editor's abilities, they are too short to be categorized among the best articles in MarioWiki and therefore, are not rich enough in content to be considered featured articles." While everything is well-written (though I think the section regarding DKCR is a bit flowery and overdrawn), the piece isn't "rich" enough to be remarkable. Therefore, I am nominating this article to be unfeatured.
 * 2) Per Wikiboy10. This page, while being really good-written and formally perfect, is... just not too remarkable to be featured (compared to others like Vivian, King Olly or Dixie Kong (for being fair)). Additionally, I'd like to mention the Kiddy Kong page that falls exactly under the category (better than average articles, but doesn't qualify to be featured).
 * 3) I have never supported nomination for this article (this was nominated in a time period where I was inactive so I couldn't give any input) and I also agree that it's not remarkable.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per the first three; this article is stunningly not standout enough for something that ever got that many feature votes. The only marked-level good aspect of it is the image quantity.
 * 6) Per all; this article is neither especially substantial nor particularly remarkable.
 * 7) It really doesn't stick out enough to be considered a featured article in my opinion, its length, structure, etc is just fairly average.
 * 8) Per all.

Keep featured article status

 * 1) This article highlights the love and care our user base has for the deepest depths of our lore and content. For it is a great highlight of where we exceed over all our competitors; we exhaust all our resources and energy to cover any and every subject better than any other entity on the expansive world wide web. Any other site will not show this full commitment and adoration for our subjects, and we must be proud of that and showcase it to the world. Anyone can write a Mario article, but how many Krunch articles can we scrounge and stumble upon? The writing is efficient, thorough and does not miss any crumb or nugget of knowledge. The images are plenty, and the backstory and creation of Krunch is highly detailed and well informed. This article highlights why MarioWiki Dot Com is a powerhouse of a being and why we must take it with the upmost of respect and serious admiration. We mean business. It's not 2006 anymore. We will cover every pixel of Krunch's body. This is the standard we should hold other articles too. It's easy to write the Luigi article. Can we as a community come together to write Krunch level articles? Can we push the boundaries? You tell me.
 * 2) I find this article "represent the best the Super Mario Wiki has to offer" because it is such a remarkably comprehensive entry of this frankly unremarkable character, digging so deep as to not just describe his role in his one video game appearance comprehensively, but also his creation and insanely obscure media no other site would acknowledge the existence. Beside, how can I argue with the sales pitch above?
 * 3) Per Paper Jorge; yeah, it's long, but it's not flowery. It meets basically all the standards and exceeds them, except for being kind of long-winded in a few points. At worst, you'd just need to rephrase some things for the sake of brevity, which certainly feels like it's not too difficult.
 * 4) Per all; going over the article now, though some may claim it's short, it's also not very padded with "flowery" writing; the writing is perfectly balanced. Not to mention the argument for removing the featured article status appears to be "it is unremarkable" and "it doesn't stand out". Yet we have Miracle Book, a small "unremarkable" feature in Mario Party 6, under the featured article system, and characters that only appear in one game (e.g. Koopa Bros.) are also featured. Perhaps we may need to rethink how we handled featured article status for small articles, but for now, this article is long enough to be a featured article.
 * 5) – I don't think the length matters. Regarding the rule you quoted, I don't interpret five separate appearances as 'limited'. This is a fully referenced and complete article which does a pretty good job at representing quality MarioWiki coverage. Per all.
 * 6) I oppose the unfeaturing of this article so strongly to the extent would be a terrible event for the wiki if it were to happen. Vareity in our featured articles is so important I will go as far to argue that we should be featuring more articles like this not less. This article in my eyes long enough to be featured, by "reasonable length" I mean it being more than just a couple of paragraphs or 2 sections, this page has 7 each covering different aspects. It is important that we have vairety in our featured articles. If we do not allow articles like this to have feature status that in serioussly will narrow what is eligible for feature status. Our featured collection would just end with major recuring chatacters and game articles which is not a healthy variety. (it already kinda is but this unfeature would make it worse and encourage should limted varity). Per everyone else particularly Jorge.
 * 7) Our featured articles are supposed to represent exceptionalism. What is exceptional, in regards to a wiki? In my eyes, excellence in regards to wiki editing is the capacity to go into full, absolute detail in a subject matter so every bit of factually correct information can be sqeezed, no matter how pedantic. No matter how small, how niche, how seemingly unimportant, it seems, to give every subject such a level a detail and writing that it is treated as important as the Bible. Krunch represents this philosophy to a tee. A random, small character of little importance, that is still so thorough and complete in its information that anything that can be known about it is known by reading the article. Most other wikis refuse to go into such intensive detail into even more important subject matters. Wikipedia's own policies forbid going into professional detail into its subjects, limiting their scope to the bare necessary information. We don't draw such easy to fill lines. We make it our mission to go into such extraordinary detail about anything an everything, as long at it pertains to the Mario franchise. Krunch is one of the best representations of why and how this wiki goes beyond the usual standard. Our featured articles are meant to represent our wiki at its best. Krunch is our wiki at its best. Size will never change this. Also, something more pragmatic. There is no actual, defined standard for what is an "acceptable length". It is highly up to interpretation, and, frankly, is arbitrary. The Baby Donkey Kong unfeaturing is barely a precendent. Beyond it being from nine years ago, its voters failed to tangibly define what is an "acceptable length" and why it applied there. Therefore, the precedent does not need to be followed; it was never integrated into the actual literature of featuring policy. I frankly believe that the "acceptable length" phase should be abolished. Beyond its highly arbitrary nature, I am concerned of its implications. By requiring featured articles to be above a non-specific length, it encourages users who want their articles to be featured to write longer, wrongly correlating length with quality. It homogenizes featured articles; articles that meet the standards of length tend to be similar, that being game pages, big character pages, and lists, both reduces that variety of the wiki that is featured and encouraging editors to only fixate on certain types of articles. And finally, by not allowing all articles to be held up to the same exceptional standards, we imply that not all articles are worth imposing the same standards on - resulting in medium length subjects like Krunch to often be abandoned. For the sake of allowing more articles like Krunch to fosters, I propose that the length requirement be abolished at some point in the future - whilst a two-sentence page obviously should not be featured, this should be determined on a case-by-case basis rather than written into the letter of the law.

Removal of support/oppose votes
Paper Jorge
 * This vote offers no points about the length, which this unnomination is trying to address. PanchamBro brings up this point. Wikiboy10 (talk) 14:55, October 10, 2022 (EDT)

Glowsquid
 * This vote offers no points about the length, which this unnomination is trying to address. It has other reasons, but mine goes to that which this user does not bring up. PanchamBro brings up this point. Wikiboy10 (talk) 14:55, October 10, 2022 (EDT)

Comments
I'll admit that the article doesn't look remarkable at first glance and a bit short, but I think the topic does hold merit with what it talks about. But I'll do a through analysis later.

@Paper Jorge: Not sure if you needed to be overdramatic to justify keeping the Krunch article under FA. 14:44, October 8, 2022 (EDT)


 * very offensive to call passion that

@Paper Jorge, @Glowsquid: How does any of your points how that much merit? Neither covers the length, and the only reason for keeping it featured is "good writing". I will admit that the article has a few flaws in terms of writing, and as I said earlier, I think it is the best essay for Krunch. However, the (admittedly unspecific) length rule calls into question here. Wikiboy10 (talk) 22:50, October 8, 2022 (EDT)

@Many of the opposers: I should mention that length was an issue for Baby Donkey Kong's page. The page was considered good, but the size was enough to unfeature it. Wikiboy10 (talk) 15:03, October 10, 2022 (EDT)


 * We're lacking an actual criteria or structure regarding article size. Set that up first before we go a case by case basis for this sort of thing. Also see: Miracle Book as Pancham said.