MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N1/List of Paper Mario beta elements: Difference between revisions
From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Ztar Power (talk | contribs) |
m (Text replacement - "Proposals\/Archive[ _]" to "Proposals/Archive/") |
||
| (23 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
__NOTOC__ | __NOTOC__ | ||
===[[{{#titleparts:{{PAGENAME}}||4}}]]=== | ===[[{{#titleparts:{{PAGENAME}}||4}}]]=== | ||
{{ | {{UNFANOMFAIL | ||
|nominated=04:40, 31 October 2013 (EDT) | |nominated=04:40, 31 October 2013 (EDT) | ||
| | |lastedit=08:40, 30 December 2013 (EDT) | ||
|nosupport=false | |||
}} | }} | ||
==== Remove Featured Article Status ==== | ==== Remove Featured Article Status ==== | ||
#{{User|Yoshi876}} The starting section is 12 words, there is no way that can be used in the featured box so it violates rule 6. Usually, this would be a simple fix, but then you look at [[MarioWiki: | #{{User|Yoshi876}} The starting section is 12 words, there is no way that can be used in the featured box so it violates rule 6. Usually, this would be a simple fix, but then you look at [[MarioWiki:Lists]] and find that it has to be like that. If it stays in its current state it is violating Rule 6, and if it's expanded so it follows Rule 6, it is in violation of policy. | ||
#{{User|Randombob-omb4761}} Per Yoshi876. I don't think putting a Beta elements as a featured article is a good idea. | #{{User|Randombob-omb4761}} Per Yoshi876. I don't think putting a Beta elements as a featured article is a good idea. | ||
==== Keep Featured Article Status ==== | ==== Keep Featured Article Status ==== | ||
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} This article got featured on the main page before without any issues of any sort. [http://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Template:Featured&diff=prev&oldid=1462538 This] is what it looked like. We can't expand the first section any more because it's a sub-page. We should go by the rules but not live by it; it still looks good when it's featured. | #{{User|Baby Luigi}} This article got featured on the main page before without any issues of any sort. [http://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Template:Featured&diff=prev&oldid=1462538 This] is what it looked like. We can't expand the first section any more because it's a sub-page. We should go by the rules but not live by it; it still looks good when it's featured. | ||
#{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} The article should not be unfeatured just because some negligible problem concerning a paradox in the rules. Also, per my sister. | #{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} The article should not be unfeatured just because some negligible problem concerning a paradox in the rules. Also, per my sister (Baby Luigi). | ||
#{{User|Toadette 4evur}} Per all. | #{{User|Toadette 4evur}} Per all. | ||
#{{User|Icemario11}} Per Baby Luigi. | #{{User|Icemario11}} Per Baby Luigi. | ||
#{{User|Iggy Koopa Jr}} The actual article isn't much of a problem. Actually, it's nice. | |||
#{{User|Megadardery}} The article is plain good. Rules got Offbeats.. And the only reason of the 6th rule exiting is to be ''"used for the front page featured box"''. | |||
#{{User|Gonzales Kart Inc.}} Per Dardery. | |||
#{{User|Tucayo}} - It would be ridiculous to unfeature a good article just because of some technicalities. | |||
#{{User|WeHatePoisonMushrooms66}} Per all | |||
==== Removal of Support/Oppose Votes ==== | ==== Removal of Support/Oppose Votes ==== | ||
==== Comments ==== | ==== Comments ==== | ||
| Line 27: | Line 28: | ||
Then who featured it in the first place? I'm fine with keeping it this way, the more, the better. {{User|Ztar Power}} | Then who featured it in the first place? I'm fine with keeping it this way, the more, the better. {{User|Ztar Power}} | ||
:It's somewhere in the archives, and more the better isn't really valid, as FAs are meant to be the best articles, and if it's violating rules to be an FA it's not one of the best articles. {{User|Yoshi876}} | :It's somewhere in the archives, and more the better isn't really valid, as FAs are meant to be the best articles, and if it's violating rules to be an FA it's not one of the best articles. {{User|Yoshi876}} | ||
::Not necessarily. Rules aren't hard set-in-stone laws; they are simply guidelines to what ''should'' be a featured article or not. Of course a featured article should be complete, have an adequate amount of pictures, have good writing, and have barely any red links. In this case, however, the rules simply obstruct an otherwise great article from being featured rather than filter the good from the not so good. So, it's best not to follow the rules exactly this time. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | |||
Because the original nominator of removing my oppose has retracted their vote, may I remove the other two? {{User|Ztar Power}} | Because the original nominator of removing my oppose has retracted their vote, may I remove the other two? {{User|Ztar Power}} | ||
:You should be allowed to. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | |||
Unless a new problem is highlighted this nomination can fail once [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/37#Allow Featuring and Unfeaturing nominations to fail before the deadline|7 days has passed]]. {{User|Yoshi876}} | |||
Latest revision as of 10:32, September 13, 2021
List of Paper Mario beta elements[edit]
Remove Featured Article Status[edit]
- Yoshi876 (talk) The starting section is 12 words, there is no way that can be used in the featured box so it violates rule 6. Usually, this would be a simple fix, but then you look at MarioWiki:Lists and find that it has to be like that. If it stays in its current state it is violating Rule 6, and if it's expanded so it follows Rule 6, it is in violation of policy.
- Randombob-omb4761 (talk) Per Yoshi876. I don't think putting a Beta elements as a featured article is a good idea.
Keep Featured Article Status[edit]
- Baby Luigi (talk) This article got featured on the main page before without any issues of any sort. This is what it looked like. We can't expand the first section any more because it's a sub-page. We should go by the rules but not live by it; it still looks good when it's featured.
- LeftyGreenMario (talk) The article should not be unfeatured just because some negligible problem concerning a paradox in the rules. Also, per my sister (Baby Luigi).
- Toadette 4evur (talk) Per all.
- Icemario11 (talk) Per Baby Luigi.
- Iggy Koopa Jr (talk) The actual article isn't much of a problem. Actually, it's nice.
- Megadardery (talk) The article is plain good. Rules got Offbeats.. And the only reason of the 6th rule exiting is to be "used for the front page featured box".
- Gonzales Kart Inc. (talk) Per Dardery.
- Tucayo (talk) - It would be ridiculous to unfeature a good article just because of some technicalities.
- WeHatePoisonMushrooms66 (talk) Per all
Removal of Support/Oppose Votes[edit]
Comments[edit]
@Ztar, you can't fix it because it will go against policy. Yoshi876 (talk)
Then who featured it in the first place? I'm fine with keeping it this way, the more, the better. Ztar Power (talk)
- It's somewhere in the archives, and more the better isn't really valid, as FAs are meant to be the best articles, and if it's violating rules to be an FA it's not one of the best articles. Yoshi876 (talk)
- Not necessarily. Rules aren't hard set-in-stone laws; they are simply guidelines to what should be a featured article or not. Of course a featured article should be complete, have an adequate amount of pictures, have good writing, and have barely any red links. In this case, however, the rules simply obstruct an otherwise great article from being featured rather than filter the good from the not so good. So, it's best not to follow the rules exactly this time. LeftyGreenMario (talk)
Because the original nominator of removing my oppose has retracted their vote, may I remove the other two? Ztar Power (talk)
- You should be allowed to. LeftyGreenMario (talk)
Unless a new problem is highlighted this nomination can fail once 7 days has passed. Yoshi876 (talk)
