MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N1/Goomba

Remove Featured Article Status

 * 1) The first problem is the tense template. Having these templates on FAs won't work. Second, the background section. Is it really necessary? Couldn't that section be merged to Super Mario Bros.? Third, a few of the sections are missing images, like Super Mario Galaxy 2 and the SSB series. Since the images are available, they should be added. Fourth, the Goomba Leadership and Allegiances section. No other article I can find has a section like this, so why do we have it? Fifth the inconcistency in the Mario Party section. How come only Mario Party 4 and Mario Party DS get a section while other MP games that had Goombas in them (like Mario Party 7) don't even get mentioned? Sixth, the name origins section. No other article has it, and it's speculative, so why do we have it?
 * 2) Some of the Mario Party sections are very short and poorly written.
 * 3) There was a little to much images for some of the games and not enough or even no images for some of the games on the article.
 * 1) Some of the Mario Party sections are very short and poorly written.
 * 2) There was a little to much images for some of the games and not enough or even no images for some of the games on the article.
 * 1) There was a little to much images for some of the games and not enough or even no images for some of the games on the article.

Keep Featured Article Status

 * 1) I fixed most, if not, all the problems you have mentioned. The "Name Analysis" section should not be removed because it is based on facts, not speculation. The tense template is gone. The Mario Party section is updated with all the information I can find in all the Mario Party games. I deleted the "allegiances" section. The article has plenty of images; it can use more images, but that should not mean it should be unfeatured. The background section is implemented in the first game it appeared. The whole article is rewritten to be informative and not like a story. There, I objected to all your reasons to unfeature. If you see any more problems, please mention them or I will have to vote to remove your vote. This article can stay featured. I would like to point out that the four supporters above me MUST have a reason for voting. This is directly quote from the rules: Not only opposers, but also supporters need to give reasons for their vote. This is due to the fact that what they are doing basically is opposing the FA status of an article, and this needs to be justified.
 * 2) i fixed some of the problems as well i think it meets that standards of a featured article
 * 3) Per LGM. This article is long and now fixed and meets the standards to be a featured article.
 * 4) Most supporters to removing FA gave no reason. Per LGM.
 * 5) It's in good shape. For the most part, each section has a lot of information. For example this section has plenty of information and for the Paper Mario 3DS section, there is a lot of information and that game has not even been released yet!
 * 1) Most supporters to removing FA gave no reason. Per LGM.
 * 2) It's in good shape. For the most part, each section has a lot of information. For example this section has plenty of information and for the Paper Mario 3DS section, there is a lot of information and that game has not even been released yet!

Removal of Support/Oppose Votes
SWFlash Yoshidude99 Bowser's luma
 * 1) No reason stated, and I have already said that all voters must give a reason. This isn't a feature nomination.
 * 2) You must give reasons on your support, unlike Feature Nominations.
 * 3) Per all
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 1) No reason stated, and I have already said that all voters must give a reason. This isn't a feature nomination.
 * 2) You must give reasons on your support, unlike Feature Nominations.
 * 3) Per all
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 1) No reason stated, and I have already said that all voters must give a reason. This isn't a feature nomination.
 * 2) You must give reasons on your support, unlike Feature Nominations.
 * 3) Per all
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all.

Fredthefish
 * 1) No reason stated, and I have already said that all voters must give a reason. This isn't a feature nomination.
 * 2) Per him
 * 3) Per all.

Reversinator Superfiremario
 * 1) The tense template is absent. The background section is moved to the history and modified. The history is modified itself. The article has enough images. The leadership and allegiances section is removed. The Mario Party section has expanded to include all the games. The name origins can stay, and it is moved to the description section. All your reasons are now void for unfeaturing this article.
 * 2) also i added an image of a Goomba from Hotel Mario
 * 1) No reasons given. You must give reasons or I'll be forced to vote for your vote's removal.
 * 2) Per him
 * 3) Per all.

FawfulFury65
 * 1) I searched through all the minigames in all the Mario Party games. The first two Mario Parties barely have Goombas in the minigames or anywhere else. Really, do a little research before coming to conclusions that a section needs expansion. Poorly written? Just because it is short means it is poorly written? Besides, no other section looks "poorly written" to me. Short? Yes. Poorly written? I don't think so.

YoshiGo99
 * 1) The article has an ample amount of images. The images are evenly spaced out to me. Besides, your vote is extremely vague. The article has enough images. It can use a little more, but that doesn't mean that it should be unfeatured.

Comments
Way too much work, it's better to just unfeature it.

I agree it needs a lot of sorting out.

on the whole Leadership and Allegiances section thing there are a few other like the shy guy article the Bob-omb and the Crazee Dayzee Article has one
 * The thing is, those sections could easily be merged with the other sections since it's basically saying "Goombas work for Bowser in most games, but they're peaceful in this game and that game". And it's really incocistent, because other articles, such as Piranha Plant and Koopa Troopa, don't have this section.

so instead of fixing the problem we just ignore it...
 * Yes, someone will. Eventually. But right now, since this article has problems, I voted to get rid of its fesatured status.

@Reversinator, I only voted against you, you don't have to make a big deal about it! >:-(  DKPetey99 17:19, 31 March 2011 (EDT)
 * ...What are you talking about? You made a false reason, I said you made a false reason on your talk page, and then I voted to remove your reason because it isn't valid.

But isn't it better to address the problems i mean yeah it sucks to do it but wouldnt it look better if we adressed the problem instead of simply saying nah
 * I did. Address means to point out. That's what I did. The thing is, I can't help with the problems, but someone else can. But until someone fixes the problems, I stay still.

if you will explain to me how yo put an image up i'll fix one of them right now
 * On the left, click on "Upload file". But do you have images for most, if not all, of the sections missing images?

No but i can fix the hotel mario one unless you don't want an actually in game image
 * Ingame will do. But still, there are still other sections with missing images, so my reason still stands.

ok i uploaded it now what
 * Help:Image

there i think i did it right

Supporters: You have to add a reason. This isn't featuring an article.

Reversinator: Not every single section needs an image. Why does Super Mario Galaxy 2's section need an image? I looks fine to me. There are no spots in the article where there is a big wall of text.

Superfiremario: Just tell me why you oppose the nomination.

Iggykoopa: Uh, LGM and I are twin sisters. :/

Sorry Bout that honest mistake