Featured Articles

Baby Luigi said:
I also think a map of Shroom City would suffice, so we know what "Seaside Section" exactly is.
Click to expand...
This map from Spriter's Resource should do, right?
 
Yeah that's perfect.

You also need a table of the spaces you land on, like other Mario Party articles, like the yellow spaces or the dice block areas. Try looking at my Mario Party 6 article for some inspiration of how Mario Party Advance should ideally look like and edit accordingly.
 
I'm not sure a table for the spaces is necessary. There are four spaces, and one of them is a do-nothing space (unless a random event happens). I think that it would be better if I simply describe them in a section, and then use that as a launching point to talk about the rock-paper-scissors minigame and the Bowser blockade.
 
I could try fixing those if I find the time.
 
No, you're wrong. I'll repeat what I said.

Alex95, you completely misinterpreted the rules. That rules is talking about per votes dealing with removal of opposition, where those votes would be automatically removed if the original reason is removed. Per votes FOR removing opposition is allowed. Tucayo's vote shouldn't be there at all, since we voted to remove his vote; he can't reinstate the vote for the ''exact'' reasons it was removed, that would be abusing the system.
Click to expand...
 
MarioWiki:Featured_articles#How_to_nominate doesn't say that anywhere, though yes, they would be removed as the vote would be missing then. "Any vote that has per'd without providing any additional reason will also be removed" is placed within the information on removing support and/or oppose votes. Seems to be more along the lines of "you need to provide a removal reason of your own."
Click to expand...
 
It seems completely stupid to provide your own reason for removing a vote if someone else lays out good enough reasoning.

Before a proposal that allowed removing fanvotes on sight, it would have been ridiculous to have three people all say fanvote, instead of one saying it, and the others perring it.

My interpretation of that sentence is any vote simply perring the vote that was removed are also to be removed.

EDIT
https://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_32#Remove_Per_Votes_When_Original_Vote_is_Removed

This is the proposal that brought in the rule, what the proposal sets out is that when someone sets up a removal of support/oppose if it's successful it removes that vote, and all other votes that just simply perred it. It states nothing about the people having to provide their own reasoning in the removal of support/oppose section. Rule was probably just put in the wrong place, and should be moved, and if there's still confusion rewritten.
 
I have no choice but to agree, can't feature that in that state.
 
Other characters sections don't need to be padded with information. They're usually minor hazards or audience members and I just don't see why we have to give those sections more than what's necessary. But anyhow, if you do give them sections, I'm not going to complain, but they're not reason enough to unfeature.
 
"Usually" is not "always" and the burden of determining which is which should not be on the reader. It's a list bereft of any details that only tells readers that these things might belong to this group or this group, maybe; considering the great detail of Mario Kart 8 (Mario_Kart_8#Additional_enemies.2C_obstacles.2C_and_species)'s section, I fail to see why this shouldn't be applied for other games.
 
It's nice if it were applied for other games, but I wouldn't go far to say it's a requirement. It's nice to have, but if we don't have it, it's not a huge loss for the reader, so not worth fretting over.
 
Why wouldn't it be a loss for the reader? It's information that's not obvious to them. If you're going to say that it's because the readers have links to the other articles, then it's like saying that empty sections are fine because readers can just click ahead to the main page. Why not also present the drivers as an undetailed list? Notability shouldn't matter; missing info is missing info.
 
It actually should've failed since October 17 2017 but common sense tells me that eeeh, maybe we should extend this one.
 
Why because nobody voted on it?
It didn't even get 5 votes at the buzzer
it just literally didn't pass
 
I knew it existed but currently, I had been occupied with other things than wiki editing.

I've known that Featured Article activity is pretty much in the dumps, and this article is a blatant testament to how horrible the activity is, and it has been down ever since a new update broke the way it ran and now we rely on those stupid categories to organize articles we should be manually doing.

I had worked on an overhaul with a list and everything but I'm not even close to finishing it.
 
I moved the nomination page to this (MarioWiki:Featured articles/N1/Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze). I will try to re-nominate DKCTF in January. I'm sure people will not hesitate to vote as much, since the article has been improved based on suggestions from comments. Not to mention I made it look really appealing :eek:

As for your and Toadette the Achiever's project, great job on that! I hope to see it implemented soon.
 
I'm sorry it had to fail due to no quorum. I think that was the first time a Featured Article failed on that.
 
Again, the nomination technically failed at 18 October 2017‎ due to the "one month of inactivity" rule. Quoted here: "Nominees that are inactive for a month will be eliminated from the nominations list."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back