Guild Wars Wiki talk:Projects/Featured pages

Archived and Proposal
This page was long so I archived everything, but I want to bring up key points of the latest discussion (reason why I archived the discussion was due to their length). Thoughts, comments? If there's agreement, I'd like to start this after the next feature (unless it takes more than 2.5 weeks to discuss). -- Konig / talk 10:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) As poke pointed out, when we featured Human (the current article of this posting), we rushed a bit in order to try to get Interrupt in before. And I would agree with him in that was not a great thing, though the Human article was up for a bit so that one wasn't rushed, but Interrupt was perhaps, even if finished.
 * 2) In turn, I suggested (looking at the archived discussions, it would seem I resuggested) to bring up an alteration between old and new. This would give us a fall-back in case we ever run low on articles again, and we will.
 * 3) This would, once more in turn, aid with razor's complaint of there being too many lore-based features. If we cannot get a non-lore based article, we can feature an old article.
 * 4) In regard to festival features and the cycle feature, I suggest a following system, if possible:
 * 5) Take the current features and have them on an automatic cycle - if we cannot get a new cycle, it will go to a previous one. This will be a set order.*
 * 6) For festivals, there would be a separate group and these would have to be done manually and should, imo, be done alongside the main page's decoration pages.
 * 7) Any and all new article features would be placed at the current place of the cycle, thus when the cycle restarts, it would be between the same two articles as its first showing. (This is to prevent issue with the cycle)*
 * 8) *The cycle wouldn't technically have a "start" and "end" if possible. It should be an endless loop and, in turn, when new articles are added they are added in that loop to be right in front of the previous feature. This way, there shouldn't be any restarting to the system (like when new wanted bounties were added during the WiK's progression, the cycle ended up restarting the next day). Keeping it from being random would also prevent an issue that poke mentioned where the system wouldn't be able to choose a less-used article over a more-used article.
 * simi unrelated but i was thinking seeing as the main page already has a lot of lay outs for events that we should make that be automated. so every other year we get a different version of the main page for the events that have more then one. that way we dont get this bs where it sits unchanged until half of a week threw the event *cough* this years wintersday *cough*...
 * on this topic how many pages do we have that we can cycle threw? my ideal would be that there would be enough for an another feature article every week for 2 years. so that would be 104 articles if we even have half of that i would be happy...
 * a later edit:i also think that it would have hurt no one if we would have left the human article up or what ever article that was before it up until we came to a consensuses or that we repeated a older article.-[[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 10:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * regarding the amount, we have roughly 40 I think. To get 104 would need a LOT of remarking articles... And may simply be improbable.-- Konig / talk 17:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hero's
i want to nominate all the hero's pages because they all seem to be throw... there is also a lot of expanding that needs to be done.... just looking for thoughts about featuring them and who best to feature and not. i seem to remember people requesting features for henchmen in the past and i dont remember if anything came of it.- Zesbeer 00:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If they receive enough work, then I'll be considering them. But as they are, the only one worth nomination outside Gwen is Keiran Thackeray (unsurprisingly). Some that I notice can be expanded: Koss, Dunkoro, Melonni, Tahlkora, Livia, Jurah,Vekk, and possibly Norgu; Sousuke is missing manual quotation; Morgahn, Zhed, Ogden, and Jora are also plausibles. The rest we don't know much about, as far as I know, primarily so for the non-main storyline heroes. -- Konig / talk 02:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

If no one disagrees...
I think now is a good time to start featuring old articles, so I'm going to set up the next article as Profession. The project is slow as is new nominations. Plus I think enough time has passed since the original feature (to be specific, just short of 2 years has passed since the first feature of Charr - which I won't be placing as the set up since we've had a lot of lore features as of late, and there needs to be new text imo (along with a few others, such as Hall of Monuments, Lore, and probably more)). -- Konig / talk 21:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC) which i still disagree with be cause your just rephrasing the "listy" argument. where there really is no difference between the articles i have called list-esk.- Zesbeer 01:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC) as in it could be feature worthy, just not in its current condition. This is the same for most currently-not featured/accepted articles. Instead of merely nominating pages you'd like to see featured due to the topic, improve the articles then nominate them. -- Konig / talk 01:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * i feel like this is untrue because, i nominated a shit ton of pages which you rejected because you wanted to rewrite all of them. not to mention you were the only person to disagree with there featuring. and is why i stopped posting new articles-[[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 00:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A "shit ton of pages" translates into 5, and three of which had and still has section-stubs (much like another proposed feature). I'd also like to note that the other two that you nominated include the last two featured article - one of which being the current. -- Konig / talk 00:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * except for this: ""Listy" and "full of list" is different - what was said as not being a valid reason for no feature would be a large series of paragraphs. This is... a list. Does that mean it isn't feature worthy? Hell no. We just need it to be expanded before we can because unlike "listy" (or "list-esk" as it was called in the past) they're bulletpoints, not paragraphs."
 * Yes, I found that a single paragraph of original text was not feature worthy. And with the section-stub (which I found later after that little discussion), it was further to be non-feature worthy for the time being. It should be noted that I explicitly stated "Does that mean it isn't feature worthy? Hell no."

i disagree just nominated 6 pages that would make fine articles to feature.- Zesbeer 01:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * now i disagree even more there are 15 pages in the nomination category 2 weeks is more then enough time to get at least one of those pages threw to accepted.-[[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 00:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I still feel that we could start featuring old articles every now and then. It's been nearly 2 years and we're mostly getting lore articles - doing a system of "old->new->old->new->etc. etc." wouldn't be bad. -- Konig / talk 01:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mind this recycling of old features, but what happened with Body block? That one was accepted before the last feature's time was up. razor 39999 01:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * that was all konigs doing so ask him.-[[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 03:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Uhm... I put the old one up before body block got accepted. Not my fault no one changed it. Can't expect me to do everything, and since I don't do everything, don't blame me. <.< -- Konig / talk 03:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the Zesbeer and Konig Des Todes show....
i mean really i feel like this project has turned into that...- Zesbeer 01:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah. You guys have done some great work. I know I walk a fine line between critique and criticism (and not always on the correct side), but I'm very much impressed with the quantity and quality of work. The project seems daunting to me. I wonder if another tactic for getting more people to participate wouldn't be to post individual requests/queries on a couple of ppl's talk pages asking what they'd like to see in a featured article (content, quality, areas of the game, etc.). Pick something near and dear to someone's interests and they might be more likely to get involved.


 * I think this is an important project because it's one of the few that's primarily about highlighting some of the great content already here (rather than primarily about consistency, maintenance, and/or incremental improvements). — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 01:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, we need more people. Although soon enough I'll be done with this project - I just want to fix up ~7-10 articles, consider if they're featureable, and then I'll be more than happy to have the project go on recycle. *shrug*
 * Stay tuned, next on the Zes and Konig show, we'll be talking about how we need more articles! -- Konig / talk 03:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * lol i was contemplating trolling the wiki and seeing if i could get my user space and Konig's user space thew and featured... and see if anyone noticed...-[[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 03:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * not meaty enuf ;-) — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 03:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I can make my userspace "meaty" in seconds. -- Konig / talk 03:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for future articles
We've done Charr, Humans, and some monsters (Margonites, Mursaat). Perhaps we should also do Asura, Norn, Dwarves. And for monsters some that will come back in GW2 like: Centaurs, Oakhearts/Druids, Destroyers, Hylek, ... Just spewing ideas here ;) Feel free to add. Sjeng   10:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Those articles are not very informative or as feature worthy as those which were featured, imo, so I say no. -- Konig / talk 20:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

A state lowering quality
I've noticed that comparing the earliest features with current nominee's, there's an immense lack of information placed on the articles of the later. As such, I'd like to propose an entire wipe of the current nominations and instead focus on another aspect of the project as the main focus - with what we've been doing as a side focus.

The new main focus I propose is re-organizing the order of the past features (as currently the order is based on when we had them accepted) and keeping the text of what would go onto the main page up to date. I would also like to propose a second minor aspect to coincide with the current sole aspect of the project: To maintain feature-worthyness of the previously featured articles. By that, I mean that a lot of articles have already gotten a rework since their featuring - most prominent being Charr and Tyria (world) - the former got an expansion and almost complete revision while the later had lost an entire section (the history section), effectively halving it. So this new side-work would be in turn done to maintain the line-up of feature articles remains with a decent status quo.

In short, I'm wanting to re-organize this project (hopefully to put a little life into it) into the following format (in order of most important to lease): Due to the silence of this project as of late, if there's no complaints by the end of the month (6 days from posting), I'll go ahead an enact this. -- Konig / talk 23:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Focus 1: Determining an order of the accepted and featured articles. (This would be moved to focus 3 after an initial re-organization).
 * Focus 2: Maintaining the main-page text to be accurate with what's changed on the articles (shouldn't need much work).
 * Focus 3: Maintain the articles' feature-worthiness. Remove any articles which fall out of feature-worthiness.
 * Focus 4: Nominating and accepting new articles for featuring.
 * ADDENDUM: I'd also like to propose the removal of the Guild_Wars_Wiki:Projects/Featured_pages section as that only causes the page to get longer - going directly from the accepted list into an archive (so long as it gets the proper tag added) is more efficient. -- Konig / talk 23:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan to me. Kaisha  User Kaisha Sig.png 00:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not that I've been active here, but sounds good to me, maybe I'll start helping out :P ~Farlo Talk 05:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @konig i am fine with that...@farlo PLEASE do...-[[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 17:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

A preview
I have written up a preview for the above suggestion. It can be found here. Ignore the red links, as I wrote it as I would if it were going on the project page. If there's no refutes to this by May 31st, I will switch it out. And a reminder: I will move all current nominated articles not accepted to rejected on May 31st for reasons mentioned above. -- Konig / talk 07:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * give me a little time and ill read it latter today and leave comments...-[[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 20:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I already implemented... Konig /  talk  23:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Featured Project
I was wondering, once we have the interactive map project fully working could we have an article on it? Most players are not really going to be able to find the interactive maps when we first finish them - this would be a good place to raise awareness of the new maps :p (they're a fuck of a lot of effort and they're going to end up hidden in some back page of the wiki) -- Chieftain  Alex 19:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * i would before it if it had a good amount of information on the page.-[[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 20:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I support this, and it'd be cool to see them get on the front page. I guess another thing to do is make the projects page a bit more presentable. ~Farlo Talk 20:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Having an individual map on the front page won't work, but you could perhaps make an article about them and if it's good and agreed upon then that could be featured (e.g., no trophy would likely be featured, but if Trophy was more informative and better written then that could get a feature). -- Konig / talk 01:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I figured was going to happen. If we wanted to do this, which way to go would be better; make the projects page itself feature worthy or make another page?  If another page is better, what would we name it and how would that get setup? Don't know of any other pages like that on this wiki, haha. ~Farlo Talk 01:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

top 2 rejected....
what? there is mostly support for cantha, wikmc...- Zesbeer 20:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC) There were no disagreements to that. But rather than a complete wipe, I just removed stagnant and mostly-disagreement discussions. As always, they can be re-nominated, preferably after some improvements. Konig /  talk  23:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also @ Kaisha's comment: I moved some things simply because discussion was stangant and there was no consensus. Also: "I'd like to propose an entire wipe of the current nominations"
 * yea but there are other topics where u are the only person that disagrees that are still in the nomination phase.-[[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 01:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ...Your point being? If I'm the only disagree'ing party, shouldn't that mean it should remain in the nomination phase, which by your statement, is in fact the case? Konig /  talk  03:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * it also dosent mean that its auto rejected.-[[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 03:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussions have become stagnant, meaning: 1) No one else cares to comment; 2) No one's opinions have changed; 3) No one has or likely will bother changing them. As such, if things couldn't be agreed upon via consensus (the "rule" for such), then it'll just remain there. The point of the rejection isn't to say "it can never ever be featured" but rather to clear out the nomination list as it isn't fully agreed upon yet and, in turn, for it to be re-nominated once improved so that there are fewer disagreements for the articles' feature. In other words, I did nothing out of the ordinary. For the very same reason articles like Animal companion got rejected the first time, these got rejected.
 * If you want them to be featured, then you can go through the reasons for disagreements and improve the articles and renominate. That simple. Konig /  talk  03:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * sigh not even worth arguing with u about it right now... just because u don't like the article dost mean it's not feature worthily and for something to become stagnant is just you or me disagreeing with it. and like i said before u are the one who wants to change something so unless u link to the information people like me wont know what changes u want to magically pull from ur ass. so what i am saying is dont say this needs more lore or this needs to be changed if you are not willing to make the changes ur self, because clearly there are things that u want to change that may not be a issue for me or others.-[[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 03:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

"just because u don't like the article dost mean it's not feature worthily" Neither did I. Not once, in fact, did I reject something just because I disagree. Take note that I rejected article discussions I began. Including the last time. In regards to things in articles that cause for me to disagree: If I feel it's lacking, then I feel its lacking. If I don't say that I feel its lacking when I am, in fact, thinking that it is lacking then I am lying and allowing articles under what I'd feel is featurable - underneath previous featured articles - to be featured. Which is not beneficial to anyone. Me wanting to change something and me feeling something's not up to par are two different things. I am not a walking wiki unlike what people think. Maybe I don't know what should be added but I feel it should have more to it than it does. Or perhaps I'm just in a time crunch at the time and then I forget (I am not all remembering after all). In the case of Rurik, the only thing mentioned is what's covered in the manual excerpt, the post-Searing missions, and his love affair - there's, off the top of my head, Ascalon Academy and his dealings with Ambassador Zain (and in turn his feelings towards Kryta compared to, say, his father). The fact he's the last heir of Ascalon is also completely skipped over. That's just off the top of my head at this given time. Konig /  talk  04:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Canthan one. I was thinking on changing my mind to featuring it within a few days, but I wanted to question myself, etc. before I made a definate yes or no. At the time of my decision, was based on more so a short look of it. You moving it, doesn't really help get more discussions, etc. on it. Kind of a discouragement, imo. on something that's 50/50. Kaisha  User Kaisha Sig.png 05:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Rejection is meant to cease discussion for the time being and allows it to be brought up again at a later date. Shiro, animal companion, Mhenlo, White Mantle, Shining Blade, and far more articles were rejected and brought back at a later date. The only difference between now and then is that the project was more active then and thus there were larger discussions - but in the end they were all either on the fence articles, such as Cantha is now, or disagreements. They were improved and re-nominated. On Cantha specifically, there were 4 people commenting - including the nominator which in the past has been a "they shouldn't count situation" which means 1 for (on the basis of "Factions is a great campaign" which is hardly "this article is good") and at the time 2 against. Though now, after I move, you seem to have changed your mind - so do keep in mind I was going off of your sole public opinion and not your private on the fence one. I am tired of feeling like you guys are making me out as the bad guy when I did nothing out of the ordinary. So sorry for trying to keep this project moving. Konig / talk 16:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)