MarioWiki:Featured articles/N1/List of Collectibles from Mario Party DS

List of Collectibles from Mario Party DS became a featured list at 08:17, 1 December 2008.

Support

 * 1) - The list is fully complete, a very detailed introduction. Also, includes every possible image along with every description with no spelling errors. It's a perfect article.
 * 2) - This article is literally 100% complete. And, I don't believe there is a rule against lists being FAs.
 * 3) -Per all. Like stated above, this page is compelete and even contains visuals! Plus the proposal pass so we can allow List to be feature too.
 * 4) - Per all.
 * 5) - Well-written, nothing left out, etc.

Oppose

 * Rules say that an article must have at least 4,000 characters, not including quotes (amongst others). All those descriptions are basically quotes, directly copied from the game, making the article hardly original to the Super Mario Wiki and thus hardly featurable.
 * Per my comment below, and Time Q.
 * All this article is is one big list. It is not something I think would be an example of a great article, compared to something like the Mario article. 07:42, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Comments
I don't think this can be featured. If you don't count all the card descriptions (and you're not supposed to do AFAIK), the article doesn't have 4,000 characters. 07:53, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I have one comment and one question. The comment is that the article is well over 4,000 characters, excluding the tables. The question is, what does AFAIK mean?
 * I think it means As Far As I Know. And thanks :D -
 * Ah, that makes sense. Thanks. Also, Time Q, if you check here, you can see that the article is 30,000 characters without the table coding.
 * I think you misunderstood Time Q, I'm sure he meant that the text, excluding the tables AND the descriptions taken from the game, doesn't have 4000 characters. Because most of the info is directly copied from the game, and almost nothing but the introduction is self-written. If this can be featured, then the same would go for the Trophy Descriptions of the Smash Bros. series. --Grandy02 09:21, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Thanks Grandy, this is exactly what I meant. The descriptions are quotes, and those don't count for characters. Almost nothing about this article is original to the Super Mario Wiki, so having this featured would look really odd. (BTW, yes, "AFAIK" does mean "as far as I know" - sorry, I thought this was a common acronym :D) 09:26, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Oh, okay. Thanks for clearing that up. The page with only the table and the introduction, would still calculate to a little over 5,000 characters, not including images. I do understand what you're saying about it being mostly quotes, but the fact that it's actually 100% complete is really noteworthy, IMO. (It probably is a common acronym; I'm just an acron00b. :P)
 * What do you mean by, "5,000 characters not including images"? The only actual self-written text that appears on this page is the introduction plus three more short sentences. Quotes as well as "official profiles and statistics" sections are clearly to be excluded when counting characters, as stated in the FA nomination rules. I don't see a difference here. (LOL, I just noticed that I also put "BTW" when explaining the meaning of "AFAIK". And now I put "LOL". OMG.) 15:42, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
 * St00by meant that without the coding of [[Image:blahblahblah.png]] it's still a reasonable amount of characters. Seriously, it's one of the few 100% complete articles IMO. So what do you guys think?
 * According to current rules, it is clearly not a valid FA from my point of view. More opinions? 06:21, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
 * The rules say "…have at least 4,000 characters (letters, spaces, etc.) not including templates, categories, quotes, images, or 'official profiles and statistics' sections. Text in an image thumbnail may be included.". Except for the introduction and four other sentences ("All ... are listed here"), the article only consists of tables, images and text from the game. I think Time Q is right. --Grandy02 07:45, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I honestly don't think this article is worthy of being featured. The only "meaty" part of the article is the opening paragraph, and falls far less than 4000 characters. There are other lists, like Trophy Descriptions (SSBM), but alas it is just a list. It is compelte, with accurate descriptions from the game, but it couldn't really be featured, AFAIT. (also, the beginning paragraph has several mistakes; but those can probably be easily fixed).
 * So what should we do now? This can't be a FA with the current rules in my opinion. --Grandy02 14:36, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I agree, but there's still enough time left to hear more opinions. (Stumpers, Cobold, ...)? 17:06, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
 * (InfectedShroom...) :P Anyway, Wikipedia has like "Featured Lists" or something like that. Just an Idea, but we could do that. Personally, I think we should put the deadline on hold and have a proposal about it. As for my opinion, I think we shouldn't have it featured.
 * Featured Lists may be a good idea actually. 18:36, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Yea, Featured Lists would be awesome. So what should I do now? Put this up for deletion?
 * It would be OK, but we only have about five lists on the wiki. Even though I helped make this article, I don't think it could be featured in anyway.
 * Super-Yoshi, if you want it to be deleted, just say so ;) 10:43, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Well I dunno, it's literally 100% like St00by said. Could we start a Featured Lists thing?
 * You could make a proposal about it.
 * Aye. I'd be all for it.
 * Aiite, I started a proposal on it, it's right over here.
 * The proposal pass so this can be featured! Umm Right?
 * We haven't really decided yet how to implement the Featured Lists system, have we? 16:29, 4 November 2008 (EST)
 * No not really. Well ok, since the proposal passed, how should we now arrange the new Featured List?

Hey, guys... sorry I'm late to the party! I feel honored that you wanted my opinion back there, and I'm sorry I wasn't there to give it. According to the wording of the proposal itself, we're to make a separate category, featured lists, right? Another idea was posed that we might want to intersperse featured lists in with the other featured articles. Either way, we need a new set of guidelines for featured lists. If I may modify our current rules for featured articles, I would suggest the following.


 * 1) …be well-written and detailed.
 * 2) …be unbiased, non-point of view.
 * 3) …be sourced with all applicable entries.
 * 4) …follow the Manual of Style, and all other policies on the Super Mario Wiki.
 * 5) …not be tagged with any sort of improvement tags (i.e., , etc).
 * 6) …have a proper lead that gives a good summary of the topic and can be used for the front page featured box.
 * 7) …have a reasonable amount of redlinks.
 * 8) …have significant information for all entries. If the list is a collection of in-game information, complete descriptions, statistics, etc. should be available where applicable.
 * 9) …not have been previously featured on the Main Page. Otherwise, it can only be restored to featured status.
 * 10) …include one or more images for each entry on the list where applicable. For example, a list of in-game collectible items should include one picture of each.
 * 11) …have at least fifty entries.

This article satisfies all of the above, so provided we can all agree on those rules, we should be able to feature this list. Personally, though, I believe these rules should have been spelled out in the proposal and voted on. Now, we're just going to be speculating on what people want! P.S. Is there a better place I should put these so they get more attention? 13:09, 17 November 2008 (EST)
 * That sounds perfect. :) 13:39, 17 November 2008 (EST)
 * Yea! And how does "List of Collectibles from Mario Party DS" sound? "Descriptions" just sound werid IMO (Adding on to what Stumpers said).
 * That would be awesome. 21:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Whoever said that "Stumpers" made that comment should know, my last move up there was to remove my oppose - I actually support this article now. 23:44, 26 November 2008 (EST)
 * Oh that was me lol. You posted that Neutral response, and used "I'll". So I thought that you'd be the one opposing it, and put the unsignd template on there.
 * As long as it was you and not someone trying to bring down the article. :) 11:34, 29 November 2008 (EST)
 * lolk :)