MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N1/Deanna Mustard: Difference between revisions
From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
m (Text replacement - "{{[Ff]a-archive" to "{{FA archive notice") |
||
| (20 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
__NOTOC__ | __NOTOC__ | ||
{{FA archive notice|nominated=15:01, 2 February 2009 (EST)|passed=18:21, 3 February 2009|unfeature=yes}} | |||
===[[{{SUBPAGENAME}}]]=== | ===[[{{SUBPAGENAME}}]]=== | ||
==== Remove Featured Article Status ==== | ==== Remove Featured Article Status ==== | ||
#{{User:Time Q/sig}}: While it is undoubtedly well-written, it doesn't meet the 4,000 characters criterion. After removing some of the coding (templates, categories, links section, image coding...) I count 3,303 characters. (Even without removing anything of the current code, it's only 4,026 characters.) Moreover, I'm not sure whether the "School Life and Theatrical Interest" section is really relevant to the wiki (see [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 9#Bios|this proposal]]). | #{{User:Time Q/sig}}: While it is undoubtedly well-written, it doesn't meet the 4,000 characters criterion. After removing some of the coding (templates, categories, links section, image coding...) I count 3,303 characters. (Even without removing anything of the current code, it's only 4,026 characters.) Moreover, I'm not sure whether the "School Life and Theatrical Interest" section is really relevant to the wiki (see [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/9#Bios|this proposal]]). | ||
#{{User:Jaffffey/sig}}: Per Time Q, plus I never really thought this looked like a good feature article. Not sure why. | #{{User:Jaffffey/sig}}: Per Time Q, plus I never really thought this looked like a good feature article. Not sure why. | ||
#{{User|Stumpers}} - Per Time Q - we've voted on these rules, so we have to stand by them. | |||
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - As fantastic as I think the article is, I have to agree with it's removal of FA status. | |||
#{{user|Bloc Partier}} - Per Stoobs. | |||
#{{User|Luigifreak}} Per all. | |||
==== Keep Featured Article Status ==== | ==== Keep Featured Article Status ==== | ||
| Line 13: | Line 15: | ||
==== Comments ==== | ==== Comments ==== | ||
Hmmm... The information may not be relevant, but it is certainly interesting. I don't see why we can't keep it. {{User:Bloc Partier/sig}} | |||
:Well, there are a lot of interesting things we don't cover because they're not relevant ;) {{User:Time Q/sig}} 00:48, 4 February 2009 (EST) | |||
::Eh, true. {{User:Bloc Partier/sig}} | |||
Although I'm saddened it has come to this, I understand the reasoning. By now opposing is obviously an empty vote, but I'm glad people can still acknowledge it is a good article. [[User:ForeverDaisy09|ForeverDaisy09]] | |||
Latest revision as of 16:40, May 31, 2024
This is an archive of a successful unfeature article nomination. If this page is unprotected, do not modify its contents, as it is an archive of past discussions.
Deanna Mustard was nominated to be unfeatured at 15:01, 2 February 2009 (EST) and passed at 13:21, 10 February 2009.
Deanna Mustard
Remove Featured Article Status
- Time Questions: While it is undoubtedly well-written, it doesn't meet the 4,000 characters criterion. After removing some of the coding (templates, categories, links section, image coding...) I count 3,303 characters. (Even without removing anything of the current code, it's only 4,026 characters.) Moreover, I'm not sure whether the "School Life and Theatrical Interest" section is really relevant to the wiki (see this proposal).
- MisterJaffffey
G0 Featured articles/Unfeature/N1/Deanna Mustard: Per Time Q, plus I never really thought this looked like a good feature article. Not sure why. - Stumpers (talk) - Per Time Q - we've voted on these rules, so we have to stand by them.
- Stooben Rooben (talk) - As fantastic as I think the article is, I have to agree with it's removal of FA status.
- Bloc Partier (talk) - Per Stoobs.
- Luigifreak (talk) Per all.
Keep Featured Article Status
Removal of Support/Oppose Votes
Comments
Hmmm... The information may not be relevant, but it is certainly interesting. I don't see why we can't keep it. .
- Well, there are a lot of interesting things we don't cover because they're not relevant ;) Time Questions 00:48, 4 February 2009 (EST)
- Eh, true. .
Although I'm saddened it has come to this, I understand the reasoning. By now opposing is obviously an empty vote, but I'm glad people can still acknowledge it is a good article. ForeverDaisy09
