MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N1/Star Piece (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars): Difference between revisions
From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Remove votes.) |
|||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} Per Ninelvendo. Relevance to the Mario series or whatever relevance it has in general isn't important. Keep in mind it's the article itself that counts, NOT the subject of the article | #{{User|Baby Luigi}} Per Ninelvendo. Relevance to the Mario series or whatever relevance it has in general isn't important. Keep in mind it's the article itself that counts, NOT the subject of the article | ||
#{{User|Randombob-omb4761}} Per me and Ninelvendo. | #{{User|Randombob-omb4761}} Per me and Ninelvendo. | ||
#{{User|Mario}} I agree that the article should be unfeatured, but the reasoning behind your vote is invalid, so per all. | |||
==== Comments ==== | ==== Comments ==== | ||
Revision as of 18:26, July 22, 2014
Star Piece (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars)
Remove Featured Article Status
- Joseph (talk) It isn't much to the wiki' or the series' and besides' it's just an item. I say unfeature star piece. Also' it doesn't really help' but you need them to get to the final boss. Other than that' it's pretty much useless.
- Mario (talk) It's an article with bleh presentation. The writing is subpar as well, kind of fluffy. There's a lot of empty space, padding the article to make it appear lengthy. And yes, presentation does matter since Super Mario Galaxy got unfeatured because it looks like crap and has eh writing. Overall, the article is just standard, nothing too special to have it featured.
- Baby Luigi (talk) Per Mario. It's ----tily written.
Keep Featured Article Status
Removal of Support/Oppose Votes
Joseph
- Baby Luigi (talk) Per Ninelvendo. Relevance to the Mario series or whatever relevance it has in general isn't important. Keep in mind it's the article itself that counts, NOT the subject of the article
- Randombob-omb4761 (talk) Per me and Ninelvendo.
- Mario (talk) I agree that the article should be unfeatured, but the reasoning behind your vote is invalid, so per all.
Comments
Uhh... It's a Disambiguation that isn't even featured. I'll fix it for u. - 
02:25, 20 July 2014 (EDT)
- You didn't even formate this page correctly.I'll try to fix it. - 02:30, 20 July 2014 (EDT)
- It's fixed. By the way, this isn't the best article in the world, but it's featured for a reason, and unless someone gives a better reason than "It doesn't have much relevance to the wiki", than I ain't' changing my mind. - 02:40, 20 July 2014 (EDT)
- It's fixed. By the way, this isn't the best article in the world, but it's featured for a reason, and unless someone gives a better reason than "It doesn't have much relevance to the wiki", than I ain't' changing my mind. -
I put a question on your talk.
@Joseph Really? That's your vote why? ~~ Boo4761
Yay! I'm winning! Joseph (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2014 (EDT)
- Not necessarily. In order for your unfeature to pass, it must have exactly no opposition.
Ray Trace(T|C) 17:15, 22 July 2014 (EDT)
- Randombob-omb4761 has no ground to stand on, so I think we can safely remove the vote if the user doesn't respond. But, yes, Joseph, you are making progress nevertheless.
It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:20, 22 July 2014 (EDT)
- Making progress, but not from your reasoning. - 17:24, 22 July 2014 (EDT)
- Making progress, but not from your reasoning. -
- Randombob-omb4761 has no ground to stand on, so I think we can safely remove the vote if the user doesn't respond. But, yes, Joseph, you are making progress nevertheless.
