MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N2/Kiddy Kong: Difference between revisions
From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
m (Baby Luigi moved page MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N2/Kiddy Kong to MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N/Kiddy Kong: it's named wrong...?) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
Any reason that said patroller put it up? {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 16:00, 24 December 2016 (EST) | Any reason that said patroller put it up? {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 16:00, 24 December 2016 (EST) | ||
:{{User|Yoshi876}} [http://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Kiddy_Kong&diff=2037203&oldid=2032597 was the one to include it], though no specific reason was given. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 16:03, 24 December 2016 (EST) | :{{User|Yoshi876}} [http://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Kiddy_Kong&diff=2037203&oldid=2032597 was the one to include it], though no specific reason was given. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 16:03, 24 December 2016 (EST) | ||
I've discovered that the section rewrite template isn't enough. The ''entire'' article is poorly written. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 22:34, 29 December 2016 (EST) | |||
Revision as of 22:34, December 29, 2016
Kiddy Kong
Remove featured article status
- Yoshi the Space Station Manager (talk) Back in 2011, this page was put up to be unfeatured. It failed, but now I think it is time to have it unfeatured. I found this article while looking at the upcoming FA. I went to look at it, and found that it has a rewrite template on it. This was put on by a patroller who knows that feature articles aren't suppose to have these marks. It has been since August of this year since the rewrite has been placed. There may be more to this article that falls under FA requirements, but this is extremely noticeable. Summary: This can't be a FA according to the one of the rules.
- Alex95 (talk) Per rule
Keep featured article status
Removal of support/oppose votes
Comments
Any reason that said patroller put it up? 
Ray Trace(T|C) 16:00, 24 December 2016 (EST)
- Yoshi876 (talk) was the one to include it, though no specific reason was given.
16:03, 24 December 2016 (EST)
I've discovered that the section rewrite template isn't enough. The entire article is poorly written. Ray Trace(T|C) 22:34, 29 December 2016 (EST)
