MarioWiki:Featured articles/N1/Nintendo 3DS: Difference between revisions
From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Undo revision 1436077 by Luigi700MarioWiki (talk)) |
(Undo revision 1436076 by Luigi700MarioWiki (talk) Stuff like this gets you warnings and blocked) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
}} | }} | ||
===Support=== | ===Support=== | ||
#{{User| | #{{User|Electrical Bowser jr.}} Plenty of detail and pics, no construction templates, blah blah blah. The point is, it deserves to be featured. | ||
#{{User|Chaossy}} | #{{User|Chaossy}} | ||
#{{User|SombreroGuy}} | #{{User|SombreroGuy}} | ||
#{{User|Elderkingshroob}} | #{{User|Elderkingshroob}} | ||
#{{User|Luigi700MarioWiki}} | |||
===Oppose=== | ===Oppose=== | ||
#{{User|GreenDisaster}} The introductory paragraph is rather clunky, and the Mario-themed accessories section is littered with low-quality images. | #{{User|GreenDisaster}} The introductory paragraph is rather clunky, and the Mario-themed accessories section is littered with low-quality images. | ||
Revision as of 14:30, March 27, 2013
Nintendo 3DS
Support
- Electrical Bowser jr. (talk) Plenty of detail and pics, no construction templates, blah blah blah. The point is, it deserves to be featured.
- Chaossy (talk)
- SombreroGuy (talk)
- Elderkingshroob (talk)
- Luigi700MarioWiki (talk)
Oppose
- GreenDisaster (talk) The introductory paragraph is rather clunky, and the Mario-themed accessories section is littered with low-quality images.
- MeritC (talk) Per GreenDisaster; the page is a complete mess. And honestly, the stuff from the introduction could be moved to the respective sections. The introductory paragraph should only contain the primary facts about what the article is all about.
- Wintermelon43 (talk) The bignning has WAY too much!!!! And everything else dosen't have enough
- Yoshi876 (talk) Some of those images look awful
- King Pikante (talk) Per all.
Removal of Opposes
Comments
One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven images that are low quality. And what do you mean, it isn't that clunky? By using the word "that", you're implying that it is clunky, but not to a severe degree. It shouldn't matter how clunky it is, it's still clunky. GreenDisaster (talk)
