MarioWiki:Featured Articles/N/Koopa Troopa

From the Super Mario Wiki

Koopa Troopa was nominated at 14:09, 8 March 2008.

[edit] Koopa Troopa

[edit] Support

1. Garlic Man - Very well written article, organized, plenty of information.
2. Glitz Hawk - Koopa Troopas are Mario's 2nd most common enemies next to goombas. This is also a good article to be featured with a good organization.
3. MisterJaffffey G0 Featured Articles/N/Koopa Troopa - Without the Koopa Troop, Mario has nothing to beat up on Friday nights!
4. Blue Blooper^C, i agree, he should be featured, good written article
5. User:Meat Knight Classic Enemy with a tremendous article = FEATURED
6. Bob-omb buddy - This page is full of info, but unlike the Bowser page, You dont have to scroll down for 5 minuites. Very organised.
7. Goldguy- You know the motto "A mushroom a day keeps the Koopas away!".Or something like that....Anyway, per Jaffffey.
8. Mumbles 18:34, 27 May 2008 (EDT) Per Jaffffey, half of us would have nothing to do after we won the game. Even common and often very weak enemies contribute a lot to the game.
9. - Per Garlic Man. Very complete article, organized. its a very good article talking about links.
10. Starry Parakarry - Well written, plenty of info, helpful game stats and not to mention, it's organized! The only thing I would say needs a little improvement is the lack of pictures.
11. Yoshi Speedstar An exallent, well written, and good pictures, It should be put on by now
12. Jakeyboy01 - U gotta luv koopa troopa. not only is this a large article, but koopa troopa rules, and i contributed! yay!

[edit] Oppose

1. InfectedShroom. Arrighty then, new oppose. We'll start from the top. The Mario Bros. section still needs a little bit more information. I would really rather have some more the info on this page rather than having to switch back and forth. Also, the Super Mario Land "Section" should mention the Japanese name of the mentioned exploding Koopas. I know we used to have a page on it, but apparently it was merged. The Super Mario 64 section should mention Koopa the Quick. The "RPG's" section should be split into multiple sections for PM and PM:TTYD, while still mentioning their absence from SMRPG. Also, it should mention the similar species actually in the game. In the Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga section, the "beanified" Koopa should be mentioned. Sorry, I forgot it's name. A small amount more should be mentioned about Koopa's stats and such in Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour. Lastly, a citation is needed in the "Film" section. Sorry to ask so much. It just looks like a ton. :P
2. Per IS. Toadette !!
3. This is much better than most featured articles, but is still not quite there. Remember, people, giving out FAs like they were going out of style just diminishes the purpose of them. For one, try to have less POV in the article. The headers shouldn't be so "emotionalized". Another thing that could make the article smaller (remember - large articles are not necessarily quality articles) is to make an article for a list of Koopas (and note that I in no way suggest any merging to such a list) and remove such a list from this article. Also, change those templates to be auto-hidden. That is one thing that causes the excessive loading. - A Link to the Past 02:27, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
4. Luigi3000Per toadette!
5. DaWeegeeManPer IS

[edit] Comments

This should have been nminated a LOOOOONG time ago.Goldguy

It was. Also, I call for the removal of the following votes: Jaffffey's (fan vote), and Goldguy's (fan vote; per a fan vote). InfectedShroom.

Yeah, of course, "tremendous article" is a fan vote -,- ... opposed. Time Questions 07:53, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh, my bad. *removed* InfectedShroom.

Heres an idea for a proposal: lets stop making article sections for every individual game. If there is not enough information simply, mix there role in one game with the section for another (I'm pissing off everyone, coming back after 2 years and instantly issuing advice ;). Anyway, my biggest problem is the intro. will someone fix it? - Ultimatetoad

Actually, some articles (e.g. Goomba) already have such "mixed" sections you're proposing. I agree with you that we should try to do the same with more articles. By the way, your oppose was invalid, so I removed it (you need to state which part(s) of the article exactly need work, see here for more info). Time Questions 07:12, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Meh, NM. I'm not going to vote, I'm just going to work on the article. By the way, I'm going to change that name section to one entitled concept & Creation. I've seen a lot of ficitonal character articles that start out like that. - Ultimatetoad

I revised the "Other Appearances" section. Not sure how official the section is or even if it's allowed, but at least it's readable now. :O InfectedShroom.

Toadette, as IS has revised his oppose, do you still "per" him? Time Questions 02:13, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Yo, A Link to the Past, just so you know, the "emotional" headers of which you speak were deemed "OK" by a past proposal. Just so you know. InfectedShroom.

Everything else of what I've said is still legitimate. Featured articles should be treated as if they're only for the very best, and considering how much could easily be improved with this article, it's definitely not the very best. - A Link to the Past 12:47, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

And may I add that a past proposal, according to an admin of this Wiki, was not for making them okay, but rather, to eliminate them? - A Link to the Past 13:57, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

"Humorous image captions" are allowed, and so are "creative headers". The template problem you pointed out is not a problem with this article, in my opinion. To auto-hide them, you have to edit the templates themselves, not the Koopa Troopa article. Time Questions 15:21, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

1. They are allowed, but why? There's bias in the headings. They are personal headings created by one user, and are unstable by the fact that he cannot keep the headers the same - users may change them if they see fit, and I'm sure many will and have seen fit to do so.
2. Just because the problem lies in the templates doesn't mean that the problem doesn't affect the article. If all of the images became deleted, a bunch of dead link images being all over the article would be a problem for the article. - A Link to the Past 15:34, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Why they are allowed? Because the community voted and made this decision :P I don't really agree with it either. But I think that all the "creative header" proposal is about is that we should try to avoid putting simply the game's title in the header, and instead think of a better summary of the respective section. POV, of course, is not allowed. And if you think that some headers are too "emotional", then I think it would be fine to make them less emotional. As for the template problem: You have a point. Still, the amount of templates is a general problem of this wiki, and if you oppose the nomination of Koopa Troopa for this reason, you'd have to oppose almost any other nomination. Time Questions 04:14, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

The problem with your last statement is that there are better reasons to oppose these articles being featured than the templates. - A Link to the Past 11:57, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

How is that a problem? Whether other articles have bigger problems than the template thing is totally irrelevant here. Fact is that if opposing an FA nomination for the template problem is valid, then every other nomination should be opposed for this reason (and possibly for others) as well. Time Questions 13:18, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

I agree with almost everything LTTP said, except the bit about the list of Koopas. While long articles do not make good articles, Making the article shorter will (likewise) not actually improve it's quality. - Ultimatetoad

1. The problem is that even if you're right, it fails for so many other things.
2. And yes, if the templates make the article noticeably worse, it IS the article's problem. The templates need to be modified so that they can be hidden.
3. If shortening an article is shortening it to remove clutter, that does improve it. The list doesn't need to be there, and saying that "shortening it doesn't make it better" is merely a modified version of "lengthening it makes it better". Longer =/= better, shorter =/= worse. - A Link to the Past 23:35, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Now why exactly does that list not have to be there? And how so is it clutter? They are subspecies, and the descrpition is a good guide to compare the differences between the special sub-species, and the "Common" Koopas. LTTP, it's starting to sound more like you're just trying to get your idea through, rather than trying to improve the article. Getting rid of that section will not improve the article in any way, and will just take away information, making it worse. Making an article longer doesn't always make it better, true, but making it shorter by force won't either, A Link to the Past. Garlic Man