Editing MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N1/Mt. Teapot

__NOTOC__
===[[{{#titleparts:{{PAGENAME}}||4}}]]===
{{UNFANOMSTAT
|nominated=23:14, 22 January 2018 (EST)
|passed=<!--When it is 5-0, put the time (such as 12:10, 11 December 2009) of the fifth support/removal of last oppose by copying it from the history of the page.-->
}}
==== Remove featured article status ====
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} An unimpressive articles with pretty much the same problems as [[Rice Beach]]. If Rice Beach cannot be featured, so can't this article.

==== Keep featured article status ====
#{{User|Lcrossmk8}} Your reasons are not very explanatory or solid. Also, I don't see many mistakes, if any, in this article---the conventions and grammar are all fine-tuned and top-notch, and the information is well-written, concise, clear, and straight.

==== Removal of support/oppose votes ====
'''Lcrossmk8'''
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} Please read [[MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N1/Clockwork Ruins Galaxy|this]], [[MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N1/Clockwork Ruins Galaxy|this]], and [[MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N2/Honeyhive Galaxy|that]]. This article fails rule number #11, in which an article "'''…be of reasonable length''' and not marked as a stub.", with bold for emphasis. Also, [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_47#Remove_the_eleventh_featured_article.2Flist_standard|read this proposal]] before you further comment.

==== Comments ====
I think it's pretty clear that this thing is of reasonable length and it's not a stub---it seems to have all of the necessary information it needs. Are you telling me you want to turn this article into the second version of the ''[[Mario & Luigi: Dream Team]]'' article? That does NOT sound like a good idea at all to me. {{User:Lcrossmk8/sig}} 23:30, 22 January 2018 (EST)
:All the article is a summary and a small table of one-liners. That is not a sufficient enough requirement for an article (not a list) to be featured on the main page in the wiki. Mario & Luigi: Dream Team has its own problems that I will not elaborate on for the sake of keeping things on topic. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 23:32, 22 January 2018 (EST)
::The small table of one-liners is used in so many other tables as well. Again, what's the matter with a simple summary and a clear and straightforward table that gets the job done? That is EXACTLY what featured articles are all about. {{User:Lcrossmk8/sig}} 23:36, 22 January 2018 (EST)
:::Give me examples of featured articles (not lists) that have only a summary as their body and a small table. Also, as someone who very often works with featured articles, your statement of "That is EXACTLY what featured articles are all about." is incorrect. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 23:38, 22 January 2018 (EST)
::::You have the wrong idea, Cross. While there's nothing ''wrong'' with this article per se, it's far from an ''exemplary'' article, which is what Featured Articles are intended to be. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 23:41, 22 January 2018 (EST)
:::::Well, number one, thanks for edit-conflicting me, Doc, that was really nice. And plus, if there's nothing ''wrong'' with the article, then what exactly does not make it exemplary? It lists the details in a simple, yet effective format. Again, are we saying that articles should be like these elaborate, carefully crafted and honed structures that will make people's jaws drop to the floor when they see them, or are we saying that they should be simple and effective, like the clothes you wear when you're painting the fence or mowing the lawn or doing something similar to those? {{User:Lcrossmk8/sig}} 23:44, 22 January 2018 (EST)
::::::If there's nothing wrong with the article, then it's considered "standard". Articles should have no issues in the first place. However, Featured Articles have stricter, more quality standards, and these are the standards this article fails on. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 23:46, 22 January 2018 (EST)
::::::(and now ''I've'' been edit conflicted ''three times'', so no more complaining.) "Outstanding" or "Exemplary" do not mean "absence of bad." They mean they are higher in the positives. And Featured Articles are intended to represent the absolute ''best'', not just any article that happens to be executed OK. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 23:50, 22 January 2018 (EST)
:::::::actually, yes. Featured Articles should be like these, ahem, "elaborate, carefully crafted and honed structures that will make people's jaws drop to the floor when they see them". Please take a random look at any other featured article. I'll bring up my favorite, [[Mario Sports Superstars]]. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 23:50, 22 January 2018 (EST)
:::::::And what exactly is this article failing on? Is it just too bland? Well, how do we fix it? By the system we designed for featured articles, '''any''' article should have the equal ability to become a featured article, no matter what. How do we pull off the trick for this one? {{User:Lcrossmk8/sig}} 23:51, 22 January 2018 (EST)
::::::::This article is failing on presentation and length. And no, I don't know what you're talking about. Our length restriction is there to prevent articles such as [[Kersti]] or [[Duel Glove]] to be featured. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 23:53, 22 January 2018 (EST)
:::::::And you do realize what ends up happening because of that? You start deliberately discriminating against articles like those just so they don't get featured. I don't understand what I'm missing here--or maybe I'm not missing anything. I don't know. {{User:Lcrossmk8/sig}} 23:55, 22 January 2018 (EST)
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 __NOTOC__
 ===[[{{#titleparts:{{PAGENAME}}||4}}]]===
-{{FA archive notice
+{{UNFANOMSTAT
 |nominated=23:14, 22 January 2018 (EST)
-|passed=21:08, 24 January 2018 (EST)
+|passed=<!--When it is 5-0, put the time (such as 12:10, 11 December 2009) of the fifth support/removal of last oppose by copying it from the history of the page.-->
-|unfeature=yes
 }}
 ==== Remove featured article status ====
 #{{User|Baby Luigi}} An unimpressive articles with pretty much the same problems as [[Rice Beach]]. If Rice Beach cannot be featured, so can't this article.
-#{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} Fails rule 3 and especially rule 11. The article consists only of a long (yet not too shabby) lead paragraph, a list of levels, a "names in other languages" section, and some references. That's it. There's not even enough references; one confirms a certain in-game appearance of the location, and the other confirms two different Japanese names. And again, that's it. Given our coverage policy on levels, this article is now nowhere near qualified for FA status.
-#{{User|LuigiMaster123}} Per Baby Luigi and Toadette.
-#{{user|Mario jc}} Not of a reasonable enough length to be featured. Per all.
-#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} It's a decent article, but doesn't deserve to be grandstanded above others, as it's not strikingly amazing. And per all those parameters it doesn't fall within.
-#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.
-#{{User|Alex95}} - Per the reasons on Rice Beach.
 ==== Keep featured article status ====
+#{{User|Lcrossmk8}} Your reasons are not very explanatory or solid. Also, I don't see many mistakes, if any, in this article---the conventions and grammar are all fine-tuned and top-notch, and the information is well-written, concise, clear, and straight.
 ==== Removal of support/oppose votes ====
+'''Lcrossmk8'''
+#{{User|Baby Luigi}} Please read [[MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N1/Clockwork Ruins Galaxy|this]], [[MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N1/Clockwork Ruins Galaxy|this]], and [[MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N2/Honeyhive Galaxy|that]]. This article fails rule number #11, in which an article "'''…be of reasonable length''' and not marked as a stub.", with bold for emphasis. Also, [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_47#Remove_the_eleventh_featured_article.2Flist_standard|read this proposal]] before you further comment.
 ==== Comments ====
@@ Line 32: / Line 28: @@
 ::::::::This article is failing on presentation and length. And no, I don't know what you're talking about. Our length restriction is there to prevent articles such as [[Kersti]] or [[Duel Glove]] to be featured. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 23:53, 22 January 2018 (EST)
 :::::::And you do realize what ends up happening because of that? You start deliberately discriminating against articles like those just so they don't get featured. I don't understand what I'm missing here--or maybe I'm not missing anything. I don't know. {{User:Lcrossmk8/sig}} 23:55, 22 January 2018 (EST)
-::::::::We're already frankly aware that this discrimination is very deliberate. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 23:56, 22 January 2018 (EST)
-:::::::::If there weren't that discrimination, Pirate Goomba could have been nominated. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 23:59, 22 January 2018 (EST)
-:::::::I don't mean about articles like Pirate Goomba. I'm talking about the articles that give all the details in the most clear and concise format but don't get nominated for featured articles. As far as I know, Pirate Goomba never did that. {{User:Lcrossmk8/sig}} 00:09, 23 January 2018 (EST)
-::::::::But Pirate Goomba does give all the details in the most clear and concise format....? {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 00:24, 23 January 2018 (EST)
-:::::::Pirate Goomba didn't state that the character was from Mario Party 8, he gave a star to you when you made it to the end of the board and sent you right back to the start to make another journey, and things like that. ''That'' is what I am talking about when I talk about articles being clear and concise. {{User:Lcrossmk8/sig}} 00:30, 23 January 2018 (EST)
-::::::::[[Captain Goomba (Mario Party 8)|but it does]]? {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 00:33, 23 January 2018 (EST)
-@Lcrossmk8; If we barred "discrimination" against articles, what would be stopping people from nominating literally every single article on the wiki? Of course we have to have standards and minimum requirements in order to have articles featured, because not having them would defeat the purpose entirely. By your logic, all of the recipes articles from the Paper Mario games have just as much of a right to be featured, disregarding their length. {{User:Lord Bowser/sig}} 00:40, 23 January 2018 (EST)
-:...[[List of Tayce T. recipes|Two]] of [[List of Zess T. recipes|them]] are already featured. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 00:46, 23 January 2018 (EST)
-::I think he's talking about the food items themselves, not the lists. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 00:46, 23 January 2018 (EST)