Featured Articles

Baby Luigi said:
I also think a map of Shroom City would suffice, so we know what "Seaside Section" exactly is.
Click to expand...
This map from Spriter's Resource should do, right?
 
Yeah that's perfect.

You also need a table of the spaces you land on, like other Mario Party articles, like the yellow spaces or the dice block areas. Try looking at my Mario Party 6 article for some inspiration of how Mario Party Advance should ideally look like and edit accordingly.
 
I'm not sure a table for the spaces is necessary. There are four spaces, and one of them is a do-nothing space (unless a random event happens). I think that it would be better if I simply describe them in a section, and then use that as a launching point to talk about the rock-paper-scissors minigame and the Bowser blockade.
 
I could try fixing those if I find the time.
 
No, you're wrong. I'll repeat what I said.

Alex95, you completely misinterpreted the rules. That rules is talking about per votes dealing with removal of opposition, where those votes would be automatically removed if the original reason is removed. Per votes FOR removing opposition is allowed. Tucayo's vote shouldn't be there at all, since we voted to remove his vote; he can't reinstate the vote for the ''exact'' reasons it was removed, that would be abusing the system.
Click to expand...
 
MarioWiki:Featured_articles#How_to_nominate doesn't say that anywhere, though yes, they would be removed as the vote would be missing then. "Any vote that has per'd without providing any additional reason will also be removed" is placed within the information on removing support and/or oppose votes. Seems to be more along the lines of "you need to provide a removal reason of your own."
Click to expand...
 
It seems completely stupid to provide your own reason for removing a vote if someone else lays out good enough reasoning.

Before a proposal that allowed removing fanvotes on sight, it would have been ridiculous to have three people all say fanvote, instead of one saying it, and the others perring it.

My interpretation of that sentence is any vote simply perring the vote that was removed are also to be removed.

EDIT
https://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_32#Remove_Per_Votes_When_Original_Vote_is_Removed

This is the proposal that brought in the rule, what the proposal sets out is that when someone sets up a removal of support/oppose if it's successful it removes that vote, and all other votes that just simply perred it. It states nothing about the people having to provide their own reasoning in the removal of support/oppose section. Rule was probably just put in the wrong place, and should be moved, and if there's still confusion rewritten.