Featured Articles

Waluigi (MarioWiki:Featured Articles/Unfeature/N/Waluigi) has been nominated for unfeaturing.

I'm not sure whether it contains any flowery writing, no idea how Strikers can be fixed. Whilst I agree that powers is large, it is a simple problem that can be easily fixed and doesn't warrant the unfeaturing.
 
Sven said:
Can we make a distinct rule (do we already have a rule?) about people intentionally trying to block the nomination from passing for the sole reason of blocking the nomination from passing?
Click to expand...

I think that falls under fan votes; we can always ask an admin about questionable actions like those
 
Baby Luigi said:
Sven said:
Can we make a distinct rule (do we already have a rule?) about people intentionally trying to block the nomination from passing for the sole reason of blocking the nomination from passing?
Click to expand...

I think that falls under fan votes; we can always ask an admin about questionable actions like those
Click to expand...

I'm willing to say yes, but I'd like other staff members to chime in as well.

Jim McGinn said:
Waluigi (MarioWiki:Featured Articles/Unfeature/N/Waluigi) has been nominated for unfeaturing.

I'm not sure whether it contains any flowery writing, no idea how Strikers can be fixed. Whilst I agree that powers is large, it is a simple problem that can be easily fixed and doesn't warrant the unfeaturing.
Click to expand...

I wish people would stop abusing the Unfeatured Articles process for simplistic and petty things that aren't even a big deal. It's like the King K. Rool fiasco, which was stupid.
 
Sven said:
Hypochondriac Mario said:
Sven said:
Geno (MarioWiki:Featured Articles/Unfeature/N2/Geno) has been nominated for denomination.
Click to expand...
That makes no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Well, it's not wrong.
Click to expand...
Looks like you're saying the article should be nominated to be denominated. Shouldn't it be... demotion or something?

Ira Gamagoori said:
It's like the King K. Rool fiasco, which was stupid.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like somebody nominating the moment my sister put up a rewrite template.
 
Ok.

So, any other news? Or are we getting more articles nominated to be unfeatured because "player" is capitalized incorrectly and therefore, breaks the rules?
 
Ira Gamagoori said:
Baby Luigi said:
Sven said:
Can we make a distinct rule (do we already have a rule?) about people intentionally trying to block the nomination from passing for the sole reason of blocking the nomination from passing?
Click to expand...

I think that falls under fan votes; we can always ask an admin about questionable actions like those
Click to expand...

I'm willing to say yes, but I'd like other staff members to chime in as well.
Click to expand...

Well, if in trying to block the nomination from passing, they aren't addressing the points brought up that justify the nomination, their opinions are invalid.
 
I wish people would stop abusing the Unfeatured Articles process for simplistic and petty things that aren't even a big deal. It's like the King K. Rool fiasco, which was stupid.
Click to expand...

My favourite instance is still when someone nominated the Paper Mario beta page because it didn't have the "This is a list of Beta elements in [name of the page]" text at the top. And people argued in the comments instead of just adding the stupid thing.
 
Glowsquid said:
I wish people would stop abusing the Unfeatured Articles process for simplistic and petty things that aren't even a big deal. It's like the King K. Rool fiasco, which was stupid.
Click to expand...

My favourite instance is still when someone nominated the Paper Mario beta page because it didn't have the "This is a list of Beta elements in [name of the page]" text at the top. And people argued in the comments instead of just adding the stupid thing.
Click to expand...
Er... I took a glance at the page (MarioWiki:Featured Articles/Unfeature/N1/List of Paper Mario beta elements), and people were arguing that the intro was far too short for a featured article, which would violate Rule 6. People subsequently discussed the subpages rules in relation to the FA rules. It really wasn't because nobody wanted to add a sentence.
 
I think it was a dumb nomination because the article had been previously featured before, with no problems whatsoever.
 
I stand behind nominating it to be unfeatured for that reason. In my opinion it was a problem and it should have been brought up in the original nomination.
 
Baby Luigi said:
I think it was a dumb nomination because the article had been previously featured before, with no problems whatsoever.
Click to expand...
So was Princess Daisy, Geno, Beldam, Shadow Queen... We have the ability to unfeature because standards change, or a glaring problem was somehow overlooked, or the rules change, or anything else.
 
Well what the issue Yoshi876 mentioned is specific only to the beta elements article, where the problem itself was "corrected" when it was featured on the main page.
 
Pedantry and mastery are opposite attitudes toward rules. To apply a rule to the letter, rigidly, unquestioningly, in cases where it fits and in cases where it does not fit, is pedantry... To apply a rule with natural ease, with judgment, noticing the cases where it fits, and without ever letting the words of the rule obscure the purpose of the action or the opportunities of the situation, is mastery.

-George Pólya

Sven said:
Baby Luigi said:
I think it was a dumb nomination because the article had been previously featured before, with no problems whatsoever.
Click to expand...
So was Princess Daisy, Geno, Beldam, Shadow Queen... We have the ability to unfeature because standards change, or a glaring problem was somehow overlooked, or the rules change, or anything else.
Click to expand...
You're missing the point. The article is totally fine. It's just that since it's a list, it has only an opening sentence. Therefore, it can't be featured because it breaks Rule 6.
 
Ok. Sorry, I've been on a short hiatus, so I'm going to update the opening post again. If you are able to edit the opening post, feel free to do so.
 
Due to a month of inactivity the nominations for Rawk Hawk and Diddy Kong have failed.
 
Since when does activity dictate a nomination's failure?

MarioWiki: Featured Articles said:
A nomination may fail if it does not pass after an automatically calculated two month deadline.
Click to expand...

That's it. I thought we amended that rule a long time ago because of people bumping fan nominations for no reason.
 
I used "Nominees that are inactive for a month will be eliminated from the nominations list." from the page.
 
Really? Why do we have a contradictory ruleset here? I remember a proposal having a strict 2 month deadline and I remember this was in an older ruleset before the proposal was enacted because of fan votes extending the life of FA nominations.
 
Nominations can fail by these two ways:

Being inactive after one month.
The ultimate deadline being met or exceeded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back