MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N2/Princess Daisy

Remove Featured Article Status

 * 1) About a year ago, I made a nomination to unfeature Daisy's article. Since then, the article has had a lot of work put into it and has been refeatured. I commend everyone who pitched in to improve it, and the article does look better than I last saw it, but some of the flaws I brought up in the denomination haven't been settled, such as the sections that still lack images, or the "relationships" section that's still awkwardly written and grasping at straws. There are also a couple of areas that seem to be flawed: several of the sections covering games are rather short, and, though I understand that nothing more can really be said about them, they could be organized in a similar fashion to how the Mario Party series is organized; Music brings up several points of interest, such as how the song lyrics had flaws or that Save Me (With Your Charm) was sung by Daisy, but does not elaborate at all on these points, and would benefit greatly from some expansion; Special abilities goes into far more detail than is necessary for the section, and lists a lot of general aspects about Daisy rather than her genuine special abilities; Appearance and Clothing border on being straight from a novel ("sapphire-blue eyes and orange-ginger hair"?), and definitely needs to be rewritten. At this point, I've already outlined numerous problems with the article, problems that, in my opinion, need to be corrected for this article to be considered worthy of keeping its status as a featured article.
 * 2) I've always wondered why the hell her clothing and sports wear section isn't merged with the appearance (and renamed to physical description), like any other normal character article I cleaned it up so it looks better. Per Time Turner, by the way.
 * 3) Per Time Turner
 * 4) Some sections require expansion, such as Mario Strikers Charged, Mario Baseball games, Mario Power Tennis, and Nintendo Comics System (needs to specify on WHICH volume). The "general information" section is cluttered with images and is padded with mumbo jumbo description. The "relationships" section also needs to be rearranged and rewritten. I can't find the f***ing guideline for the relationship section, but the section obviously doesn't adhere. Also, Time Turner's wall of td;lr has reason.
 * 5) Per Mario.(Even if it kills me... DX)
 * 6) Per Time Turner.
 * 7) The only reason it got featured was because of all the Daisy fans that really don't care about the article, it seems like.
 * 8) Per all.

Keep Featured Article Status

 * 1) I honestly think the article is looking pretty good. Lots of users have been hard at work fixing the article, removing bad information, and improving everything possible. It can stay featured.
 * 2) per Goombasrock2001

Removal of Support/Oppose Votes
Goombasrock2001
 * 1) The vote doesn't address the problems and merely just looks at the article and assumed stuff is fixed. Besides, the "Story Mode" section is terrible.
 * 2) The article is still cluttered with images and poorly written. Due to the obstinate, overly-protective attitude of some editors, nothing is going to be changed, and I hope this article becomes unfeatured.
 * 3) Per above.
 * 4) Per Baby Luigi.

Comments
I will try to fix clothing/abilities section( as I said above). I think that the "Relationships" sectoon looks good, but I will try to rewrite some things there. And @TimeTurner, I didn't understood her "songs" part of your support
 * In the section that I linked to, there are mentions of numerous songs, including one that's apparently sung by Daisy herself. However, the article does not actually tell us anything about the song's lyrics, which is something that would be very relevant to this article.

What... the... hell... ANOTHER UNFA NOMINATION? You guys want to unfeature every article on this wiki? (quote from past archive)
 * Yes if they don't comply with the rules.

If they don't meet FA standards as they currently are, then an unfeature nomination isn't all that unreasonable. I don't see a problem with it, as it ultimately results in constructive work, though I'm sure most people would prefer they were up to standard BEFORE they get considered for unfeaturing (I know I do).

If that's what you think, I think this wiki has a lot of dumb rules here.
 * It's not dumb rule if the article legitimately has problems. Do you want a problem-infested article featured on this wiki?

I don't give a crap about the quality of the article, I just care about that pretty star in the top corner!
 * Then you totally missed the point of featured articles

If it weren't for those "dumb rules", a lot of featured articles wouldn't BE featured to begin with - including the ones that "deserved" it, so to speak. Also, though the rules aren't necessarily something to live by, featured articles are somewhat of an exception, because to feature an article means that it is automatically held to a higher standard than most other articles, and should be scrutinized accordingly. We can't just feature articles willy-nilly, there has to be a standard of some sort by design. In other words, the article has tobe worthy of that "pretty star". That mindset is particularly annoying to me, especially since the wiki is about a lot more than just shiny status trinkets, and I've watched users get themselves banned over similarly pointless issues. It's exhausting.
 * Also, just as a forewarning to you, Rosalina: watch your tone. You're coming across as rude.

Well I'm TRYING not to be rude, but I sometimes can have anger issues and especially considering that it seems ridiculous unfeature an article twice.
 * Just keep a cool head around here. Don't be angry over particularly nothing. If there's an issue, try fixing it. I would like to do it myself but my agenda is cluttered up with crap (and sometimes I just don't plain feel like doing). If the Daisy article is fixed before this passes, it won't be unfeatured twice.
 * And if it DOES get unfeatured... then we just make sure to keep it as high-quality as possible, and wait for however long it'll take before it's featured again. It's really not that big a deal.

Uhhh..Rosa, keep it cool. I know it is hard (personal experience, ya know). Now, can anyone rrply my 1st comment
 * LeftyGreenMario and I do have that song in our computer so maybe my sister can help out there.

How can I fix an article if my computer is too freaking slow to edit large pages like this?
 * Edit by sections. That worked for me in the past.
 * If you really want to fix this article, then loading times shouldn't get in the way. The main reason I am not working a lot on Mario recently is simply I have other stuff to do. And Princess Daisy's page is dwarfed by MY favorite character's page anyway.
 * Baby weege is right: I am doing that right now
 * I had to correct your writing (your English isn't perfect I'm afraid) but this is a good start.

Whatever. I fixed what I could, but this nomination WILL NOT pass, because I'm gonna go around and try and fix the article, and also ask other users to help me out with this. PS: Demanding gets you nowhere. How about you ask politely?
 * I placed my input in the article. We can do this.

Thank you, Baby Luigi. I am glad you are trying to save the article too.
 * Consider yourself lucky. My mood right now is just laying down and sleeeeeeping forever. zzzzzzz. I have another article to save in the meantime, as with my other planned projects. zzzzz

You do NOT obstruct passage of this nomination just by announcing that you'll work on it. You must complete your work first. What you're doing, I strongly disapprove and I'm going to demand you remove your vote. I don't dislike you, but again, the actions you take, frankly, I'm annoyed and even disgusted. One week ISN'T that long, and if you're going to continue with that attitude, you can work on this article by yourself. Being a person that managed to leave Super Smash Bros. Brawl featured, especially by rewriting one huge section from the ground-up, I'm more than capable of expanding it, too.

The reason I am so against this nomination from passing is because my philosophy is that once an article is featured, it should stay featured. PS: I'd prefer THIS article be worked on because it's in danger of passing the nomination right now.
 * So... we're just supposed to ignore all of the problems that the article has? Can you explain to me where this philosophy of yours came from?

Well if an article needs some "minor touch ups," go ahead but this whole unfa BS never should've been invented because we should just fix it ourselves.
 * Standards change. You should have seen some of the earlier ty featured articles that got unfeatured for a good reason. Also, some nominations just pass on a blind eye without any sort of deep scrutiny. It happens.
 * We need the option to have articles unfeatured because the wiki is in a constant flux. Something that may be "good" previously, like, 5+ years ago, may be absolute billshot by today's standards. Extreme examples include Tabuu, Shadow Queen, and tidbits of Goomba, and tidbits of others, including King Boo, all which were featured articles. If these articles contain major problems, then it wouldn't have a good image and we need to take them down from the main page.

This is something that is going to leave me disappointed for days...And now I REALLY want a Shamrock Shake,even if its 10:30 (for me at least XD).

@Mario, the baseball and tennis section looks OK. But I agree, her charged section needs some xpansion
 * I've actually had Mario Strikers Charged Football in the past, and everything that should be mentioned is there, so any further expansion would be unnecessary.
 * The Strikers Charged section needs to specify on what exactly "Defense" and "Movement" is, but that's about it.

Any particular reason Daisy requires a separate section for her "special" abilities?
 * Isn't better do the sections like it was (before my edits). Being honest, I think that the Mario Party sections are...a mess.

Why is it her headers signifying separate games and sections have been removed? Most all other character articles still have this. UhHuhAlrightDaisy (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2014 (EDT)