| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| __NOTOC__ | | __NOTOC__ |
| ===[[Rabbid Rosalina]]=== | | ===[[Rabbid Rosalina]]=== |
| {{FA archive notice | | {{FANOMSTAT |
| |nominated=16:55, 1 January 2024 (EDT) | | |nominated=16:55, 1 January 2024 (EDT) |
| |passed=12:19, 4 January 2024 (EDT) | | |passed=12:19, 4 January 2024 (EDT) |
| Line 11: |
Line 11: |
| #{{User|Shoey}} | | #{{User|Shoey}} |
| #{{User|Killer Moth}} Just looked through the article and it looks to be in great shape. | | #{{User|Killer Moth}} Just looked through the article and it looks to be in great shape. |
| #{{User|Camwoodstock}} With the thing we brought up in comments addressed, we think this is in perfect shape--to briefly summarize, the article's length is perfect, going in-depth into the details while still leaving some things that already have dedicated articles simple and concise, and we appreciate the absence of flowery language and keeping things informative and not informal, and now that the gallery's been split, it doesn't stick out anywhere ''near'' as much length-wise relative to the article itself. This and Edge could practically be the gold standard for the various other Rabbid articles, if you ask us, so they should absolutely be featured.
| |
| #{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} The article looks great, it reads well, and it has very good length. I wholeheartedly agree with Camwoodstock. By the way, thank you to Sparks for working on this article so much! You did a great job!
| |
|
| |
|
| ==== Oppose ==== | | ==== Oppose ==== |
| Line 23: |
Line 21: |
| ::Oh also I recommend you make the edits to reorganize the relationships with other characters in [[Edge]] as well. We don't really do run-downs per character and we overhauled how it was done a while back. [https://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/36#Trim_the_Relationship_Sections See proposal from 2013 for more information]. There's no urgency in the recommendation, so take your time. ππ» {{User:Mario/sig}} 17:31, January 1, 2024 (EST) | | ::Oh also I recommend you make the edits to reorganize the relationships with other characters in [[Edge]] as well. We don't really do run-downs per character and we overhauled how it was done a while back. [https://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/36#Trim_the_Relationship_Sections See proposal from 2013 for more information]. There's no urgency in the recommendation, so take your time. ππ» {{User:Mario/sig}} 17:31, January 1, 2024 (EST) |
| :::Information is much more organized, and the relationships are much better as well (same thing for Edge)! Anything else that could be improved upon? {{User:Sparks/sig}} 9:00, January 2, 2024 (EDT) | | :::Information is much more organized, and the relationships are much better as well (same thing for Edge)! Anything else that could be improved upon? {{User:Sparks/sig}} 9:00, January 2, 2024 (EDT) |
|
| |
| We're a little on-the-fence about our vote... This is basically the perfect article length, it goes in-depth in showcasing the unique abilities they have and their mechanics while still using the conservation of detail so as to not ''over''explain, its history and general information are similarly in-depth without being too flowery, the article itself is basically flawless! ...It's literally just the length of the gallery that irks us. Surely with 34 images--yes, we counted--we can split this off into its own gallery subpage and just feature a few key images in the article itself, right? Given this is such a trivial fix and we don't see anything saying about what makes a gallery "too long" beyond the nebulous "when it becomes a performance issue", we refuse to oppose and hold things up just on the basis of a very loosey-goosey reason that varies from person to person anyways, but we'd like to see that addressed before giving our approval; the article's near flawless otherwise, but that one thing does irk us a bit, and we wanna make sure we're not overstepping anything if we either implement that ourselves, or if someone else does it before we do. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 22:23, January 4, 2024 (EST)
| |
| :There ''may'' be too many images, but is it enough to warrant a gallery? Maybe, but I guess I could do that, and for Edge as well. {{User:Sparks/sig}} 22:29, January 4, 2024
| |
| ::The wording on the [[MarioWiki:Galleries#Splitting galleries|writing guidelines]] are, admittedly, unclear; it just says it's "''a concern once it '''exceeds 60,000 bytes''' [...], although it may be '''less depending on collective user discretion'''''"; we feel it might be a little long for the article's sake, but to be fair--it is currently trying to be a comprehensive gallery for Rabbid Rosalina, so we do understand why it's that long; it's not egregiously so, is what we're getting at.<br>Of course, whether or not we incur "collective user discretion" is for others to decide, not just us; though, personally, we feel the Rabbid Rosalina gallery should be split, since otherwise the article is a rather nice length, and the gallery just happens to take up a rather large amount of it. Edge can also probably have their gallery truncated and split as well for much the same reasons, though at least their article is a tad bit longer, and hey, Edge's gallery sure didn't prevent that article from getting featured. Depending on how hard you want to lean into the 60k requirement, it might not be all ''that'' necessary, but seeing as these guidelines are so loose, we figured it's worth asking. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 22:42, January 4, 2024 (EST)
| |
| :::I already made a gallery page for Rabbid Rosalina before reading this. Doing the same for Edge wouldn't hurt, would it? {{User:Sparks/sig}} 22:59, January 4, 2024 (EDT)
| |
| ::::It wouldn't hurt, we don't think--if people heavily disagree with splitting the galleries for whatever reason (again, the ''exact'' policies are a little ambiguous on purpose to keep them flexible, so we're hesitant to say anything more specific than it is), they can just be re-merged again, after all. ;P {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 09:31, January 5, 2024 (EST)
| |
