13,261
edits
MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N1/Krunch: Difference between revisions
MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N1/Krunch (edit)
Revision as of 21:09, December 2, 2022
, 1 year agoResults
(Results) |
|||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
__NOTOC__ | __NOTOC__ | ||
===[[{{#titleparts:{{PAGENAME}}||4}}]]=== | ===[[{{#titleparts:{{PAGENAME}}||4}}]]=== | ||
{{ | {{UNFANOMFAIL | ||
|nominated= 19:12, October 2, 2022 (EDT) | |nominated=19:12, October 2, 2022 (EDT) | ||
| | |lastedit=23:10, 1 December 2022 (EDT) | ||
|nosupport=false | |||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 57: | Line 58: | ||
(edit conflict) I'm not particularly impressed by this article (and I'm a little baffled by the language a lot of oppose votes rely on); i.e. I echo sentiment that this article is very unremarkable for a featured article. Our own guidelines say "if editors have to ask the following question, 'Is this article long enough to be featured?' chances are, the article likely does not pass the grade comfortably and therefore should not be considered to be featured" so that multiple people questioned this page's length, me included, probably casts this article in an uncertain future. I also think the suggestion to abolish length in the future or loosen the requirement even further (also the assumption that length inherently "homogenizes" articles is not a very strong argument) is also not a direction I'd like to see Featured Articles take. I do think we should consider a good article tier below featured articles where the likes of Krunch and Culex and Baby Donkey Kong can fit with less contention in the future but this will require a policy write, more judgement that needs to be made. It's been proposed before, failed, but I do think we might need to reconsider in the future. | (edit conflict) I'm not particularly impressed by this article (and I'm a little baffled by the language a lot of oppose votes rely on); i.e. I echo sentiment that this article is very unremarkable for a featured article. Our own guidelines say "if editors have to ask the following question, 'Is this article long enough to be featured?' chances are, the article likely does not pass the grade comfortably and therefore should not be considered to be featured" so that multiple people questioned this page's length, me included, probably casts this article in an uncertain future. I also think the suggestion to abolish length in the future or loosen the requirement even further (also the assumption that length inherently "homogenizes" articles is not a very strong argument) is also not a direction I'd like to see Featured Articles take. I do think we should consider a good article tier below featured articles where the likes of Krunch and Culex and Baby Donkey Kong can fit with less contention in the future but this will require a policy write, more judgement that needs to be made. It's been proposed before, failed, but I do think we might need to reconsider in the future. | ||
That being said we should quibble too much over content. I don't think it's the end of the world that this article is featured and I do think it's, like, okay enough to be featured and is has some nice pictures from obscure manga. It's a fun little thing. It's not worth it to get worked up over. I had to go over and fix King Boo's article, which had passages that were embarrassing to be put in a featured article like ''srs bsns voice'': "King Boo has sociopathic tendencies". I'd rather have Krunch up before King Boo at this rate and I'd rather we have more (frankly) bland articles like Krunch than some of the nonsense in our older featured articles especially before like 2014 or so. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 18:56, October 13, 2022 (EDT) | That being said we should not quibble too much over content. I don't think it's the end of the world that this article is featured and I do think it's, like, okay enough to be featured and is has some nice pictures from obscure manga. It's a fun little thing. It's not worth it to get worked up over. I had to go over and fix King Boo's article, which had passages that were embarrassing to be put in a featured article like ''srs bsns voice'': "King Boo has sociopathic tendencies". I'd rather have Krunch up before King Boo at this rate and I'd rather we have more (frankly) bland articles like Krunch than some of the nonsense in our older featured articles especially before like 2014 or so. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 18:56, October 13, 2022 (EDT) | ||
Yeah, I have to be honest, I'm not sure about my unnomination in hindsight. I wish I can cancel it but the guidelines make no reference to it. I feel we need to come up with a standard on the length here. I'm also in favor of having "good" articles tier. That way we can have the articles that aren't as lengthy, but well done enough. Featured ones would be articles that can very well apply to most subjects. I should've probably come up with a length before doing this. And with Ray Trace, we really need to be serious when nominating this article. [[User:Wikiboy10|Wikiboy10]] ([[User talk:Wikiboy10|talk]]) 19:52, October 13, 2022 (EDT) | |||
:You don't need to cancel it imo just let it run its course and I guess we can chat a little more in Discord, MarioWiki talk, whatever we can all do to help the wiki! There's no shame in having people disagree! [[File:Luigi '98.png|30px]] {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 20:55, October 13, 2022 (EDT) | |||
:Couldn't you change your vote to be a vote for keeping the article nominated if you don't feel like it should be un-nominated? There's nothing saying votes are final... '''''[[User:Camwood777|<font color="red">~Camwood777</font>]]''' [[User talk:Camwood777|<font color="red">(talk)</font>]]'' 17:19, October 19, 2022 (EDT) | |||