MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N/Equipment: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
Line 11: Line 11:
#{{User|Sparks}} Per my comment below. I also want to say that it doesn't matter if a game is forgotten or bad; it's about the quality of the article itself.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per my comment below. I also want to say that it doesn't matter if a game is forgotten or bad; it's about the quality of the article itself.
#{{User|Tails777}} Per Sparks.Crossover content or game relevancy should not impact if an article can, can't, should or shouldn't be featured. If the article itself is still a good quality article, it can stay featured.
#{{User|Tails777}} Per Sparks.Crossover content or game relevancy should not impact if an article can, can't, should or shouldn't be featured. If the article itself is still a good quality article, it can stay featured.
#{{User|Power Flotzo}} Per all.


==== Removal of support/oppose votes ====
==== Removal of support/oppose votes ====

Revision as of 13:24, November 2, 2024

Equipment

Remove featured article status

  1. RickTommy (talk) 1) Unlike most other Smash-related articles, it still includes non-Mario-related stuff. 2) SSB4 hasn't been at the front of peoples' minds since Ultimate was released (and is — I'm not making this up — possibly the game to which this most applies).

Keep featured article status

  1. Sparks (talk) Per my comment below. I also want to say that it doesn't matter if a game is forgotten or bad; it's about the quality of the article itself.
  2. Tails777 (talk) Per Sparks.Crossover content or game relevancy should not impact if an article can, can't, should or shouldn't be featured. If the article itself is still a good quality article, it can stay featured.
  3. Power Flotzo (talk) Per all.

Removal of support/oppose votes

Comments

I'm not going to vote at the moment, but I don't think the article should be unfeatured just because of having too much non-Mario coverage. Glancing at the article, I think it looks neat and detailed. link:User:Sparks Sparks (talk) link:User:Sparks