MarioWiki talk:Featured articles

"All Appearances"

One of the FA requirements is: "[An article must] be sourced with all available sources and appearances." Currently, there is a debate on whether this includes non-Mario-related appearances as well. I propose, in order to make this line unambiguous, to add: "be sourced with all available sources and Mario-related appearances." Any objections? Time Questions 05:51, 25 September 2009 (EDT)

Nope, I totally agree, me and 2257 were discussing that on chat Marioguy1 (Talk | Contribs)

Ok, if no one objects until tomorrow, I'll edit the rule. Time Questions 06:43, 26 September 2009 (EDT)

I agree with this proposed policy: It is impossible by our current coverage policy to allow non-Mario content in the articles, it would be nice to have our Featured Article system follow the rules. · SMB (Talk) · 09:26, 26 September 2009 (EDT)

I really don't understand what's wrong with the current rule preventing non-Mario articles from being featured. Looking at the article Ganon and being a Zelda fan, it just looks very incomplete to me, and I don't understand how it can be considered high quality enough to feature. It's adequate to understand the very minor way the character is related to Mario, but it's not an adequate amount of information for an FA, as it says virtually nothing about the character himself. And looking at it as a Mario fan, I'm confused as to how a topic so tangentially related to Mario could ever be considered important enough to feature. It has to send a confusing message to guests when they come to the main page and get an infodump about a Mario-unrelated topic. - 2257^(Talk) 04:56, 28 September 2009 (EDT)

D'oh, I somehow forgot about this discussion, sorry. Anyway: What is wrong with the current rule in my opinion is that since we're the Mario Wiki, nobody expects to read non-Mario content here. If people come here to read an article about, say, Kirby, they don't expect any information that has nothing to do with Mario. There are other sources of information then. See: Kirby's or Ganondorf's role in the Marioverse is bigger than some original Mario character's. It would be unfair to reject FA status for characters like Ganondorf when the only reason is that they originated from a different series. Articles should cover Mario content, that's our task. And any article that meets this requirement should get the chance to become featured. Time Questions 13:01, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

Shoot, I forgot about it again >.< So, are there any objections left? Otherwise I'll amend the rule tomorrow (if I don't forget it again...) Time Questions 06:26, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

Support Votes

It's obvious we have to do something about the support votes on FA nominations. Until some months ago, we would just accept any support vote. Personally, I liked it that way, but there were legitimate objections because too much "fan votes" with elaborate "reasons" clutter up the pages. So currently admins are allowed to remove support votes. In my opinion, this made things worse because there are no rules when a support vote should be removed - admins can do it at will. T.c.w7468 (talk) made a good suggestion that could satisfy both sides: we could keep all the support votes, but remove the reasons attached to them, or at least the reasons of the votes that come after the first or fifth one or so. This way, we would still accept any votes, even if they're "fan votes" (which do no harm, since from the sixth support vote on they don't count anyway), but we would avoid cluttered up nomination pages. Of course, this would only apply to FA nominations, not to Unfeature ones, where still any vote needs a reason. What do you think about this? Time Questions 14:39, 30 December 2009 (EST)

Considering that 90% of support votes essentially say "per the first guy", this sounds like an elegant system that prevents wasting our time with requesting a reason for the 10th vote in an FA nomination. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 16:19, 30 December 2009 (EST)

I agree with Cobold. Additionally, I'd like to say:

...this made things worse because there are no rules when a support vote should be removed - admins can do it at will.

This is not true! There are many votes I'd like to remove, only being held back by those rules that "don't exist". - Gabumon^(talk) 16:28, 30 December 2009 (EST)

Per all Edo said. --™ The 'Shroom 16:33, 30 December 2009 (EST)

@Edo: Where are those rules? The proposal didn't mention them, IIRC. Time Questions 20:00, 30 December 2009 (EST)

I believe to remember the Proposal clarified those rules. Any vote that does not relate to the article it supports can be removed. The drawback of this is that votes are safe from removal as long as they relate to the article in some way. There are many votes I would personally consider to be fan votes, just with a "great article" quickly attached to them. But out of respect of the rules and other user's opinions, I do not dare to touch them. If you just claim there is no rule and we just act randomly and at will, this feels like a slap to the face for me (and I assume for Tucayo as well). - Gabumon^(talk) 20:10, 30 December 2009 (EST)

Sorry, I didn't intend to offend you. I didn't say you actually act at will but that the proposal allows us admins to do so. This is actually the case; the proposal description was as short as this, with no clarification what exactly are those votes that "do anything but help". So basically, I could go and remove all votes starting from the 6th, since they do not help (only the first 5 votes count). Time Questions 20:18, 30 December 2009 (EST)

Thank you all for your opinions. Before I actually make a proposal about it, there are a few more questions to talk about. What do you think how many votes with reasons we should keep? Delete all reasons but the first one? Or keep the first five, as T.c.w7468 originally suggested? Another thing is: how do we inform the users that reasons are not allowed? We could just delete the reasons after people voted, but that would be quite a lot of work and likely lead to confusion. Time Questions 06:32, 31 December 2009 (EST)

I'd say we delete every reason except for the first one. We must view this issue in regards to the problem we want to eliminate: The lack of quotable reason. The first one to support doesn't have this problem, since he or she usually has some sort of reason to nominate the article. Every additional vote is just a "per", so it doesn't need a reason. As for the additional work: I'm ready to do my share. Systematic maintenance like this is one of my specialities. - Gabumon^(talk) 21:26, 3 January 2010 (EST)

When will this start?? --™ The 'Shroom 22:48, 3 January 2010 (EST)

Once Time Q's questions are answered, I assume. - Gabumon^(talk) 22:55, 3 January 2010 (EST)

Thanks for your input, I think it's a good idea to have only a reason for the first one. Time Questions 09:44, 4 January 2010 (EST)

In my opninion, fan votes really don't do much harm, because they have about as much reason as "Per [User]" that most votes' support reasons are anyway(which, now that I fully read the discussion, has been mentioned.) Also, as for the no reasons for following votes, I think we could have a little box below the FANOMSTAT template that has the reason for nomination, rather than having the reason next to the nominator's name. (I can create an example page if you'd like to see what I'm trying to say) Garlic Man (talk)

GM's idea is really good. --™ The 'Shroom 21:28, 4 January 2010 (EST)

I don't think this is a good idea because this would mean that each supporter had to support the reasons put by the nominator. I mean, one should support only under one circumstance anyway, that is if one is of the opinion that all the criteria listed here are fulfilled. But we can't force users to put all those criteria and say they're fulfilled, that would be redundant. So why not remove the first reasons as well, or make it optional? Time Q (talk)

Perhaps make it so users can add something, if they have someting else to say. --™ The 'Shroom 11:31, 5 January 2010 (EST)

I honestly think it doesn't matter if users have reasons or not(for support votes, at least). People could choose to add comments next to their name or just leave it blank. IMO, it doesn't make much of a difference. --Garlic Man (talk)

Yes, I agree with that. Time Questions 16:47, 5 January 2010 (EST)

Ok, it's time to come to a conclusion here. Here are some questions with my personal answers:

• How many reasons will we keep, with all others after them being deleted? Having only one reason from the original nominator is reasonable, IMO.
• Will it be obligatory for the nominator to give a ("valid") reason? I'd tend to say no, but for the sake of the compromise, I would agree to require a reason for the first supporter that in some way relates to the quality of the article. However, when we're in doubt, we should assume good faith in the nominator (i.e., "I like it" would be sufficient, no need to repeat each and every FA condition).
• How do we inform users of the changes? It would probably be sufficient to edit the FA page, and the message that appears when one tries to nominate an article (don't know how it's called, it's at the top of this page). The reasons that will be added regardless of those notices can be removed manually.
• Should we make a proposal before we amend the changes? I'd say no, since there have not been any objections to the basic idea. Also, it's really just an administrative issue, those are usually handled without proposals.

If you have any objections to my suggestions, please state them. Thanks. Time Questions 11:05, 15 February 2010 (EST)

1: I say 1. 2: I say yes, they should nominate it for something. 3: I say put somthiing in {{Announcement}} saying "Please check our new FA policies!". 4: I say no :) --™ The 'Shroom 15:45, 15 February 2010 (EST)

Thanks, Tucayo. If there are no further objections, I will make the changes on Friday. Time Questions 14:42, 16 February 2010 (EST)

Oh, one more thing. What will we do about the support votes on the current FA nominations? We can't just remove the reasons retroactively, can we? Time Questions 14:44, 16 February 2010 (EST)

Well, I don't know. Leaving a message on the voters' talk pages would be the best choice, although there's a lot of users that voted and are now gone. Hello, I'm Time Turner.

Perhaps leave the reasons in current nominations, but remove it for future ones. This also includes any votes posted after the day the policy gets changed. --™ The 'Shroom 15:32, 16 February 2010 (EST)

I also thought about this possibility, but there's one problem: some nominations for major topics (Boo, Luigi, Mario, ...) stay here for months. It would be strange if at the end of the year no reasons will be allowed except for the Mario nomination just because it was already there when we made the changes. Time Questions 15:49, 16 February 2010 (EST)

You have a good point. And I had an idea about deleting nominations older than X months, but I dont know if you would like it.... If its not that, perhaps we can simply go and remove all reasons. After all, theya re not needed --™ The 'Shroom 15:46, 17 February 2010 (EST)

How about we delete a nomination if either the article that's being nominated breaks one of the rules, oppose votes outweigh support votes by five or the reason that the nominator chose to nominate the article wasn't valid? Hello, I'm Time Turner.

I agree, we cant have those forever. --™ The 'Shroom 16:30, 17 February 2010 (EST)

Those are some good ideas, I'll think about them and give my opinion later, but we should discuss that somewhere else, as it has nothing to do with the removal of support vote reasons. I think I agree with Tucayo, we should simply remove the reasons of all the supports on current nominations. Perhaps we can wait until they are edited by someone before we remove the reasons, in order to avoid manipulating the time they were last edited (remember that nominations are deleted when they stay unedited for one month). Time Questions 16:49, 17 February 2010 (EST)

BTW, are rules for unfeaturing the same? --™ The 'Shroom 11:38, 27 February 2010 (EST)

No, each vote needs a valid reason there, no matter if support or oppose. Time Questions 06:05, 28 February 2010 (EST)

Ok, thanks :) Is that specified in the rules? --™ The 'Shroom 10:41, 28 February 2010 (EST)

Yes, it's all in the rules: at the top of the FA page, it says that the new rules do not apply to Unfeature nominations; and in the Unfeature sub-page, it says that "not only opposers, but also supporters need to give reasons for their vote". Time Questions 11:28, 28 February 2010 (EST)

Archiving

We decided through a proposal to archive FA and Unfeature nominations that have not passed. In which way will we do this? Time Questions 08:29, 8 March 2010 (EST)

My suggestion would be to number them in case there are multiple failed ones. What I'm not sure about is the letter we would use. We could just go with "A1" and "A2" while saving "A" alone for the nomination that passes, or use "F" for failed nomination or something similar. For example, a failed nomination for Mario may be Template:Fakelink or Template:Fakelink. --Marcelagus (T • C • E)

I like Garlic's idea. (Is it OK to still call you Garlic?) --™ The 'Shroom 16:51, 8 March 2010 (EST)

Post-unfeatured Featured Article Nominations

I recently noticed a minor quandary that we could potentially encounter. Since we haven't run into this problem yet, it's probably best to discuss it now. Hypothetically speaking using Luigi for the purposes of this example, let's say the article is nominated. Once the nomination passes, the nomination page is moved from Template:Fakelink to Template:Fakelink. Months later, let's say that someone realizes major flaws in the article and the article ends up becoming unfeatured. However, somebody else works on the article to the point where it is nearly flawless, and decides to nominate it again.

There's the problem; where would this new nomination page be located? It seems the easiest way to handle this would be to move the original archived feature nomination page (Template:Fakelink) from "A" to "A1" once a featured article becomes unfeatured. This way we don't get confusion with failed nominations (which currently uses "N1"), and in case we do get this "Featured --> Unfeatured --> Refeatured" situation, we'll have a place to create new nomination pages each time. This also applies to Feature nomination pages of currently unfeatured but formerly featured articles. What do you guys think about this? Approve? --Marcelagus (T • C • E)

Sounds like a good solution to me. Time Questions 10:34, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

If you haven't already, it would be appreciated if you could move those as soon as possible. (I would do them myself, but the archived pages are move-protected.) --Marcelagus (T • C • E)

Done. Time Questions 14:02, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

All HTML...

How am I supposed to make a featured/unfeatured article? All I see is HTML.

Like this:

It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 05:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the extension is missing. --™ The 'Shroom 14:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Good eye on ya. --Steve (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What Happened?

Recently there was an unfeature nomination for Geno which was failing, but now it has completely disappeared. Geno hasn't been unfeatured, nor is the nomination still in process, and it isn't archived either. MrConcreteDonkey

Well, I asked someone like CoinCollector to remove it. I mean, I AM the proposer. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 21:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, shouldn't it still be archived? MrConcreteDonkey 07:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleted nominations do not have to be archived as they did nothing to affect the "featuredness" of the article. Marioguy1 (talk)

N1 fail

Shouldn't we add a rule for failed nominations? Right now, the process seems unclear, like how Mario and Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story got an N1 one time.

It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 19:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ya, we should. I'm debating whether or not to make a proposal about that. Marioguy1 (talk)

Re-featured articles

What's with the articles that have already been featured being nominated? I saw Baby Daisy on there and she's been featured before. Why do articles have to be re-featured? Doesn't it just make people bored?

I <3 BVB!!

Images worth denominating

I've noticed that quite a few feautured articles, such as King K. Rool, Goomba, Bowser Jr.,Princess Daisy, etc. are lacking in images in a quarter/half of their sections. Would this reason be reason enough to denominate them? Hello, I'm Time Turner.

Well, then, slap a template on them. Yes, this is reason enough to denominate them. Check out Geno; I denominated the article due to the lack of images. Later, it failed, but that's because I brought people's attention to upload more images. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 03:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Rainbow Road

I'm not in the mood for bumping this nomination, and since a month passed without anyone editing it, it's marked as failed. Will someone please protect the nomination page and add it to the list of failed nominations? I would have done it myself except... It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 03:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

To figure out how to archive nominations, read the section on archiving. If you require further explanation, look at my archiving of the Rainbow Road nom. Copy that (but update the parameters) and you should archive without problem :)

Note that this is only for failed nominations (failed unfeature nominations follow the same process but use {{UNFANOMFAIL}}). Marioguy1 (talk)

Oh, thanks. The Rainbow Road thing has last been edited since Augustish. Next time, I'll attempt to move a failed nomination.

By the way, does a banned user's nomination fails too? Need some clarification on that. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 03:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, a banned user's nomination should not fail as the nomination contains merit even if the user who nominated it is banned. If the nomination is something stupid that contributed to the reason that they were banned, it should be deleted. However if their nomination is a good one, by all means it should be kept. Marioguy1 (talk)

Talk Page Proposal: DPL Table

Template:SettledTPP USE THE DPL TABLE 8-0

Has everyone seen the table at the very bottom of the page? In the section Failed Nominations? Well that table is currently "experimental" but what it should (and, if you look at it, does) do is list any nominations that have failed, when they failed and when they can be renominated. When an article can be renominated, it disappears from the table. The template was coded by 2257 (with absolutely no help from me though I'll still take some of the credit for it :P) and it uses "DPL coding" which is...complicated. Basically it is self-updating and will minimize the user's workloads. However it also makes it a necessity for archivers to use {{FANOMFAIL}} and {{UNFANOMFAIL}} when archiving failed nominations.

Proposer: Marioguy1 (talk)
Deadline: October 13, 3:00 (UTC)

Use the table

1. Marioguy1 (talk) - This table will be much more updated than the (outdated) list we currently have.
2. Cosmic Blue Toad (talk) per proposal
3. Cosmic Red Toad (talk) per proposal and MG1
4. Frostyfireyoshi (talk) Per MG1 & proposal
5. MrConcreteDonkey (talk) Per all. Much more updated and informative.
6. LeftyGreenMario (talk) How this didn't crop up in my mind? Why do we have this list instead of a table like all the other nominations? The table is a better way of organizing information than a messy list.
7. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) Better organized, better looking, less fat, less calories, more nutrients, and costs less. Who wouldn't want to make that swap?
8. JF (talk) Per BLOF.

Comments

The reason I decided to put this here and not on the proposals page is because it deals with the aesthetics and the content of the FA article itself and not with the general featured article process. If this was changing the process of the featured article system, it would definitely take a visit to the proposals page. Marioguy1 (talk)

I think it should go on the proposals page, actually: this type of change isn't what TPPs were designed for at all. TPPs are meant to keep small changes that are pertinent to a single mainspace article (or a few closely related ones) with the article, making it easier to track the history of that article with a single look at it's talk page, rather than having to comb through the main proposal archives. All FA-related proposals have been normal proposals, so making another change there instead of here on the talk isn't really inconvenient: one could even argue that it'd be keeping all the changes in the same place... - Walkazo (talk)

But this proposal is not related to the FA process, it is related to the FA article itself and how the article will appear. Talk Page Proposals are made for doing things directly related to a single article, this is related to this article and does not change any policies, rules. It doesn't add any new systems, it just decides which (if either) thing I will delete out of that section at the bottom. Marioguy1 (talk)

Whatever you want: either venue would work, I think. - Walkazo (talk)

This FA archiving stuff confuses me sometimes.

When I try to nominate Donkey Kong Country, it takes me to a redirect page. Should I change the redirect into the nomination page or just leave it alone, since I know the article was nominated several months ago for FA? Fawfulfury65

Redirects should be deleted :) --™ The 'Shroom 00:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I got it ;D Fawfulfury65

Unfeature Nomination

This nomination doesn't show up on the DPL chart. What's the problem? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 04:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea, it is identical to the Kirby nomination. All I can say is maybe it will update with time. Marioguy1 (talk)

DPL Chart

Why is the DPL chart removed? Personally, I found it more convenient to have all the links in one page ordered by the last edit than to rather click on some category links. I think the Category links look lazier than the DPL chart. I hope you guys can give an explanation for this. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:05, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

Probably because the DPL extension has been uninstalled... Bop1996 _(Talk)

Why was it installed? Could we reinstall it, or is that impossible? -_- It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:22, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

I was inactive at the time, but I believe it was because of the servers or something like that... Anyway, from what I've heard, there aren't any plans to reinstall it any time soon. Bop1996 _(Talk)

Improvement Templates

…not be tagged with any sort of improvement tags (i.e. {{rewrite}}, {{sectionstub}}, etc).

Does this include {{image-quality}}? I mean, should a featured article have no images tagged with this? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 13:09, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

FA succession archives

Is it a good idea to put archives for FA nominations that have succeeded as well? It's quite difficult to access these archives at this time of writing. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 00:01, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

It's always good to have archives. --™ The 'Shroom 00:27, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

So, when is a good time to have those archives? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 19:56, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

Whenever you (or anyone else, for that matter) want. The change is a no-brainer and void of any undesirable consequences, so it's not like you need to bother with a TPP. --Glowsquid (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

OK, but if people want to help, they should use this image for easy access because it's found in successful nominations and failures:

It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:26, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

Well, in some pages, I can't edit it, such as MarioWiki:Featured Articles/A1/Baby Mario, I'll leave it to those who can access it. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:29, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

Actually, scratch that. Most of the pages are protected. -_- It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:32, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

This page needs to be categorized. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:47, 22 August 2013 (EDT)

New rule

This talk page or section has a conflict or question that needs to be answered. Please try to help and resolve the issue by leaving a comment.

As of this revision, the staff reserves the right to remove any nomination they deem unfit. Okay, but we have another rule that is supposed to limit a user's nomination to prevent spam.

I'm wondering since staff can remove nominations prematurely, this can render this limit moot since it can make a situation where a user makes a junk nomination, a staff removes it, the user makes another junk nomination, a staff removes it, and so on. Technically, the user is still under the limit, so there should be something to address this potential problem.
It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 14:50, 19 November 2013 (EST)

How do you mean? If a user makes a junk nomination, and it's removed it no longer counts as one of their nominations, the limit is only for active nominations. Yoshi876 (talk)

Rewrite?

I was thinking about making some edits to this... look below. These are some examples though, it should be applied to everything. Xs are putted here for not copying the dates. And the format could not be exactly the same of now. Feel free to modify the format as you think it's better. Headers are bigger.

Currently

Featured Articles/Lists

Goomba (featured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx)
Yoshi (featured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx) (unfeatured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx)
King Boo (featured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx) (unfeatured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx) (refeatured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx)
Princess Daisy (featured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx) (unfeatured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx) (refeatured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx) (unfeatured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx)
[others unincluded in this example]

Proposed

Featured Articles/Lists

Name	Date of Featuration	Possible date of Unfeaturation and Refeaturation
Goomba	Featured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx	None
King Boo	Featured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx	Unfeatured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx Refeatured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx
[others unincluded in this example]

Unfeatured List/Examples

<description>

Name	Date of Featuration	Date of Unfeaturation and possible Refeaturation
Princess Daisy	Featured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx	Unfeatured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx Refeatured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx Reunfeatured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx
Yoshi	Featured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx	Unfeatured at xx:xx, xx xx xxxx
[others unincluded in this example]

If you others agree, I'll try to make this work myself as faster I can. Oh, another thing? How about adding at Unfeatured articles previously Featured? TSUNAMI
I saw you asked Glowsquid about putting the articles in alphabetical order, though it is actually organized: by the date it became an FA on. So I don't know about reordering. I also am unsure about the tables as well. I definitely think no UNFA Star, though, because they're really no different from standard articles and I don't think they're unique or special because they were ever featured before. BabyLuigi64

OK, that start was one of my worse ideas. But I sincerely don't know if it's better organized by date or name... I personally got a bit lost. And FA and UNFA articles toghter make all more confusionary. If you don't like tables, I think the format can be keeped, but I mainly proposed this because UNFA should be in another section, under FA. TSUNAMI

I have a question

About unfeaturing articles. That happens when it doesn't meet the requirements anymore, right? Well if that happens, could we not just fix the page again? --Triple K, Skye 21:57, 25 November 2014 (EST)

Huh? Could you clarify? Ray Trace^(T|C) 22:54, 25 November 2014 (EST)

@BabyLuigi Think of the question as "Since unfeaturing FAs happens when they don't meet all the requirements anymore, can't we just fix the article up?" I thought it was obvious that UNFAs can fail if before the article didn't meet the requirements anymore, UNFA is proposed and in the meanwhile all requirements are met. Only that if more people denote the bad FA status, there is often not much time to fix everything. TSUNAMI