Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Featured pages

Featured pages

[edit] The procedure

To nominate a page to be featured on the Main Page, add it to the nominated pages section on this page. When nominating pages, please consider if the page you are nominating is good enough to be featured on the Main Page. If you do not believe the article is good enough, please refrain from nominating it and work on improving it instead. Nominated articles should be discussed on this page. When consensus has been reached in favor of the article, the section with the discussion about that article should be moved to the accepted pages section, and a time stamp displaying when the article has been accepted should be added. If an article has been rejected by the community, it should be removed from the nominated pages list. Articles should be moved into their respective sections (accepted/rejected) when there has not been comments about it for a month or longer.

If an article has been featured on the Main Page for more than two weeks and there are pages in the accepted pages section, the current featured page (if any) should be replaced with the first accepted article in the accepted pages section. This new article is to be tagged with the Template:Featured article and will be featured on the Main Page for at least two weeks, after which it can be replaced with a new accepted article.

There are no requirements for featured pages. Whether an article will be featured or not is based solely on consensus in the discussion on this page.

The current featured page can be found at Main Page/featured article. The next featured page should be formatted at Main Page/featured article/next before it is rotated in.

Note: Pages nominated prior to April 29, 2009, have been moved to this archive. If you wish to nominate one of these pages, please move them out of the archive back to this page.

[edit] Nominated pages

[edit] Mursaat

this page is rather good though i think if we could add in some of the info that is on the guild wars 2 wiki page it would be even better. i don't know how the licensing works for that but eh.- Zesbeer 03:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You can't back add if it has nothing to do with the original GW series. — Seru Talk 03:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

did you read the page? it has everything to do with the mursaat in guildwars1- Zesbeer 03:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Mursaat <-- Guess that page does have a good story on it =] Think most of it can be added. — Seru Talk 04:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If the page gets revamped with the lore, then yes. I'm (slowly) working on revamping various different articles with the lore information, I'd love for someone else to take this off of the long list. :P For the paraphrasing of the GW2W article, only up to "The Veil Falls" should be included. Maybe part of the "Return of the Unseen Ones" section, and of course, replacing current info (since it's the same info just expanded) and with spoilers. -- Konig/talk 04:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

@konig des todes i would love to help with that i just get overwhelmed sometimes at how much there is to be done. also whats the rules for using info from the guild wars2 wiki? would it be copy right infringement? i dont know exactly how that works.- Zesbeer 21:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, it cannot be word for word, and then there is the "pertaining to GW1/2 only" rule. I think all that on the Mursaat page is a bit much for the GW1W article for the Mursaat, as well. So be sure to take out anything that doesn't really pertain to GW1's time. -- Konig/talk 23:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

when i asked wyn about it here she said it was compatible to copy. because they share the same licensing.- Zesbeer 01:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Not enough information and to copy Guild Wars 2 into this article is not acceptable. Separate times, etc. Characters can be changed from Guild Wars 1 to Guild Wars 2. Guild Wars 1 has it's own timeline as Guild Wars 2 will have it's own timeline and stories. -- riyen ♥ 16:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ariyen, most of the information from the GW2W on the Mursaat, in fact all of it, is from GW1 or this wiki. -- Konig/talk 19:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Then why not update this one to fit the in game? -- riyen ♥ 20:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ariyen it is acceptable to copy the guild wars 2 info we just discussed that above. and it is probably time i haven't had the time and i don't think konig des todes has either your more then welcome to go and edit the page.- Zesbeer 22:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a lot of people care for the lore on the wiki, unfortunately. I have been (slowly) rewriting articles to have accurate and more lore on them. However, I have not gotten to it, nor had time to get to the Mursaat article. -- Konig/talk 23:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It's okay, Konig. Just get to it when you want/can. No one is in a 'hurry' or shouldn't be. Real life comes first. -- riyen ♥ 18:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

instead of just commenting on everything you could actually work on the article your self.- Zesbeer 21:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have other things to do besides that article. Also, I don't do lore much, I prefer to contribute in other ways. Instead of replying as well, why don't you work on it? -- riyen ♥ 22:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

oh look at that i am L2history i was also working on the rework for the vanquishing tables.- Zesbeer 22:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Tables don't need rework, but better post your 'ideas' in a subpage and suggest it in the talk page there. -- riyen ♥ 22:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

i think they do please stay on topic thanks also i already made a comment about the tables on the vanquishing page. back on topic ill try and add the lore from the guild wars 2 page latter.- Zesbeer 22:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Due to lack of interrest in this page I will move It too the rejected part on Wednesday 2 december 2009 --Wysth 20:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If I have time this weekend, I will fix this page up, since we got a tiny bit of new lore from Nicholas last week on them. After that, I say we re-vote on whether or not it should be accepted. -- Konig/talk 20:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

OK if you have time. I dont have it at the moment. But I only gave al the pages this tage because (what has been talked about on the talk page) there has not been a post on it for a month.--Wysth 20:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

no i will work on this topic don't move it as i already said on the discussion page also please make a comment first instead of saying i am going to archive stuff just because it hasn't have interest. because some of the articles do have interest. people just don't have the time.- Zesbeer 00:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

As discussed on the talkpage after a month we can move it too the rejected part but feel free to re-nominate the page if it has been improved.--Wysth 18:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC) PS for now I will leave this page here.

unless something changes that i cant talk about. i will try and work on this page today.- Zesbeer 21:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Re: the discussion on porting the GW2 article, above: if you do that, I think you have to credit the contributors to the GW2 page in the edit summary or on the talk page, because the GFDL requires you to attribute the work to whoever wrote it, which obviously can be done on this wiki because contributors are stored in the history of the page, but can be lost when copying from another wiki. --Santax (talk · contribs) 14:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

yea i think what i will end up doing is adding there name in my summary.- Zesbeer 21:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

i made the edit i wasn't sure who put that on the page in the first place so i just explained it in the edit summary.- Zesbeer 22:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Zesbeer nice work on the mursaat page it looks really good. I think the page is ready to be featured. please let me know if not.--Wysth 22:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, it isn't. The way it is written is in a storytelling format, which is used for telling the past of a topic (i.e., wasn't edited from GW2W), and (imo) should not be in that format since it isn't history for this. It has a ton of information which isn't necessary as well (mostly the information from Prophecies, which basically tells the storyline from Divinity's Coast to Hell's Precipice, which is unneeded). -- Konig/talk 23:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Konig. Also, the page is still seeing several cleanup edits, and its current state is still debated; as was the argument for not yet featuring the Dhuum page, I think featuring should wait until it dies down. --Kyoshi (Talk) 21:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) i think a lot of the dust has settled and the page is a lot better now and able to be featured.- Zesbeer 09:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. This article is a nice read and well formated, but it is more about the history of the White Mantle or the Prophecies storyline but about the Mursaat. Halve the article would realy appropriate for the White Mantle page. Just my two cents. Balwin 18:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Balwin. While the dust has indeed settled, edits for the page were proposed and (mostly) agreed upon but were never implemented, and very important ones at that. There was even a phase of addition of pictures and text to the article when it was nearly unanimous among those posting on the talk page that we should in fact have less on the page. I would love to implement the proposals myself, but I don't have much time to spend on this wiki anymore, and everyone seemed very much against my actions on the page previously; while that's usually not an issue, I would rather not be the one to start an edit war. Regardless, it's not ready. --Kyoshi (Talk) 19:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay lets move it to the rejections section until the page is ready.--Wysth 14:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

one i thought we need consensuses to move it and 2 i think konig is going to work on it see somewhere on the walls of text on the talk page.- Zesbeer 00:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on Dwarf, Deldrimor, and Stone Summit articles atm (my current revision work can always be seen here), after those (which are mostly done), I'll work on Mursaat. Anyone is welcomed to help with the current revisions going on the linked userpage. -- Konig/talk 05:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

i would edit that page if i thought it need to be...- Zesbeer 05:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't move it to rejected, because it's still being discussed. I think we're waiting on the outcome and so I don't think this should be moved to rejected yet. Kaisha 17:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've made a rough draft of a shortening here, any thoughts on where it could be improved? Edit: Just to note, due to the table of contents being above the rewrite, the flow of the pictures is different from how it would work on the actual article. -- Konig/talk 10:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

With Konig's recent edit of the page (and a few minor revisions of my own) I now have no problem with this page being featured. The lore seems to be of reasonable length, and while I don't think the screenshots are necessary, it's not an issue to me. --Kyoshi (Talk) 02:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Changed said screenshots to concept art (I find concept art more pleasing for longer articles than screenshots, as concept art are less seen by people and thus more interesting to readers). I believe there shouldn't be any more issues with this. -- Konig/talk 03:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I thnik its is ready. Nice reading, nice pictures(the concept art looks good). Lets feature this article after so many months.--Wysth 08:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I will move this article to accepted on the 24 of march--Wysth 08:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

dude we didt even vote on it yet but i guess so gj konig- Zesbeer 09:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no consensus on this to be accepted yet after the changes. I'd wait for more input. I am for it to be featured, but more input as I wouldn't move it on no consensus. Kaisha 21:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If we wait until we have more imput we can wait until next year. As long as nobody has any negative comments about the article i will move it on the 24 of marche.--Wysth 11:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Guide to hard mode

It is a comprehensive guide, with plenty of great tips for players wanting to try out hard mode, the only problem is there is no image, perhaps we could add the hard mode helmet icon to the page? San Darkwood 16:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 02:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I, too, don't see why not. -- Konig/talk 03:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I vote for all the guide articles except maybe the PvE guide. Learning as you play is fun in my opinion. Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 20:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This page is certainly interesting for players, but to be featured it needs at least some kind of picture. Balwin 18:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

An image of the red and gold helmets next to each other (perhaps 2 red helmets - one with and one without the vanquishing bar - and 1/2 gold helmet(s)). However, images are not needed for articles, it just makes it nicer on the front page, but it isn't necessary (besides, it is hard to get an appropriate picture for guide pages). -- Konig/talk 18:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

How about something like this? taken from the official site. San Darkwood 11:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it looks nice--Wysth 17:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to remind you guys, images are not a requirement for a good page. We don't need one if it is of no added value to the page. I suggest that if you really think we need an image, place it on the Main Page only when it is featured. The image linked above is nice but not relevant to the article. It could possibly be used for the main page, but I think featuring something without an image is something we should consider if there is no image on the page to be featured. — Why 18:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, does that mean this page can be confirmed as a featurable page? San Darkwood 19:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Just bumping to see if we can get this accepted as a featurable page. San Darkwood 22:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I ahve expressed my concerns, but if no one else has objections - go ahead. Balwin 17:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

@ san darkwood if u add that pic or something from in game to it i think it should be added.- Zesbeer 23:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

as Why said before, we only need an image for the front page, not for article, however, someone has added an image now, so what do people think about this one? San Darkwood 11:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

i think its to small. also my feeling is the more pictures the better, even if we dont need it for the page if it gives a clear example i think it would be useful.- Zesbeer 07:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have created a new image for this page, and I moved the current image down. The caption might need rewording though. What do you think? San Darkwood 01:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind the article. I just don't see enough paragraph type detail to use. Kaisha 01:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the special mention of minion masters and trap rangers is warranted, but in general, the article is good to go. --Xeeron 12:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think all the problems have been handeld so move this article to accepted. I won't because of some complains.--Wysth 14:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we need more in the paragraph to use, before we go putting this in the accepted. I would like to see the paragraph expanded more. If you guys can do this, then I can agree to it being in accepted. Kaisha 17:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

my problem with this article after actually looking at it is that it says nothing about doing missions on hard mode. so untill some section about that is added i say reject.- Zesbeer 00:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at that, but I cant establish what could be added regarding missions. The basics, as in team build, enemies, tactics all apply and mission specific advice is listed on each missions article. So what could be said that is still missing? --Xeeron 15:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a note or something that the Hard mode parts of the missons are on the respective pages? Kaisha 18:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

the section should say something to the effect of that u can do missions in hard mode as well and link to the mission guys and say all missions have a section for hard mode.- Zesbeer 08:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Guide to PvE

Is a nice, basic, guide for new players. Complete and, from what I noticed, accurate. -- Konig/talk 03:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this page shouldn't be featured. Theres already a direct link from the main page. so i say no Akela Rumi 16:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Since Miniature has already been accepted, I don't think we can disqualify an article simply because it's linked from the Main Page.--Pyron Sy 16:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Not only that, but Profession and Lore has already been featured, Tyria (world) is accepted, and Guide to hard mode is widely liked to be accepted, and those are on the front page as well. And not to mention I didn't know this Guide page was on the front page. It is actually the popular pages we shouldn't feature, at least, not yet. -- Konig/talk 18:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that this page should be featured, it has a good format and is complete for the most part. --hadowphoenix 20:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I really like this article and I would like to see this page featured. Kaisha 01:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This is one of my favorite articles, and I agree to it being worthy of being featured (I just went over it to correct some minor stuff). If anyone is up for it and has a lot of time, some pictures could be added (e.g. a screenshot with someone pulling, including the rader to show positions, one with lots of red numbers for tanking, another one showing good terrain use for terrain), but I don't think they are strictly needed for featuring it. --Xeeron 13:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we can feature this article.--Wysth 15:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If no one has any objections. I'll move it on the 11th of March. Kaisha 18:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

i think a pic with the 3 boses from the game should be added.. or something... - Zesbeer 08:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I dont think that will help the article in anyway except for decoration. I think the pictures should at least have the affect of clarifing something.--Wysth 11:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we cam Feature this page now and will move the page to accepted on the 24 of march--Wysth 08:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Zesbeer, would you be alright with this being featured? Kaisha 21:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Guide to making a build

Not keen on this article being only lists, however I think it is an accurate article page. Also, would be helpful in having people make their own build, instead of copying from PvX all the time (and I'm not saying no one makes their own builds, before that gets started). -- Konig/talk 03:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

So how come no one has posted an opinion here? -- Konig/talk 04:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

because you are right on the money about what is wrong with the article. its a bunch of lists it needs some beef.+ i think its only a hand full of us who care about this project.- Zesbeer 11:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I did not any time last months but wenn I got time again I will look at the page.--Wysth 14:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a very good artcile, well written and the article looking like a list makes it more clear. We could add some pictures showing the making of a build or something but I think we can feature it right now.--Wysth 11:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't like seeing a list on the main page. We feature a paragraph to go into the actual page. I don't see something like that - that would be good to feature. The page it's self is good, but that's my thoughts. Kaisha 20:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Abaddon

In my opinion, this article could potentially be complete. Despite Erasculio's constant removal of information, it is actually quite informative. -- Lacky 13:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

are pages with excessive spoiler alerts allowed as featured pages? San Darkwood 16:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

@San: Yes, it just depends on whether there is a consensus to feature it. There is no "it has/doesn't have <enter object in articles>, it shouldn't be featured" for this. It's all opinions. That said, the Abaddon article is one of the many (others being on GW2W) which is being edited constantly by Erasculio and he is removing important or worthwhile information just because it either has interwiki linking or isn't to his fitting (and he calls it "fan-fiction" - which none of it is). I think that little issue should be settled before we feature any articles he's been editing. Besides, that LONG wall of text is unnecessary, honestly what I had before Erasculio removed half of it was fine (maybe grammar and sentence rephrasing was needed, but he didn't need to remove canon lore which he called "fan-fiction" because it wasn't in the game). -- Konig/talk 20:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

^I think if we can summarise or cut down part of that WoT that is/was there, then it would be great. -- Lacky 06:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

its a bit small i think :P --Nick123 20:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're commenting on how it currently is, then you should go into the history - where the page was possibly longer than Lore. -- Konig/talk 21:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we can not feature it as long as Erasculio and konig are discussing about what is relevant and what is not.--Wysth 11:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

After looking at that article, I prefer to not have it featured as it seems like nothing is settled on what should and shouldn't be there. Kaisha 21:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Survivor

Only issue is the request for a split, but I see no discussion on it so not sure if it is really an issue. But it is complete and detailed. If either the split request is removed or it is settled then this page (or the Guide to equivalent) would be feature worthy. -- Konig/talk 04:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anything with a request should be shown until it's settled. I disagree with this site being shown, because it's not properly fixed up. There seems to be separate parts and yes at the moment I do agree with the split, but not that It should. I feel if it was more blended and detailed better, it would be more appealing. Right now, I am against this page being shown. Kaisha 06:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, the request was posted, but of what I found there was no discussion on it, and with it being added back in June 2009, obviously not many people really worry about it, so it could be removed. I'm not sure what you mean byt "more blended and detailed better" as honestly, I don't see how it could be detailed better - it has survivor farms, things to watch out for (such as cinematics where you can die), and much more. It seems to be as detailed as it could be, as for more blended... there needs to be some separation and I think that it is separated perfectly. -- Konig/talk 06:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

i think it should be split the there needs to be a page about the title and then a page about how to get it. i see that there is no discussion as konig said but i think it is clear as to why it needs to be split - Zesbeer 11:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I see why it might be interresting to split this article, but I am against it because you would split the article into 2 parts the first(survivor title track) part is very much needed for the second part( the how to get there) so you really need to add that to the guide. If you take a page about the survivor title track alone you got a very empty page with only a table and some notes. everything else goes to the survivor how to get it page.--Wysth 15:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

ok that is how all of the other title pages are...- Zesbeer 08:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Wysth's main point, and the reason that I'm against the split, is because the Guide to Survivor will contain everything that the Survivor title track page has, and more. Thus making the Survivor title track redundant. -- Konig/talk 08:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

ok my point is though that every title page has basic info about the title and then there is a guide this page should be no different.- Zesbeer 09:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

@koning thats what I mean @Zesbeer: I did not see every title page and there guides but I think it is wrong to have 2 pages who tell the same thing. If that is with every title page we mght wanna consider putting them together.--Wysth 11:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

@wysth i am not saying to have the same information on both pages i am saying have the info that deals with the title on the title page and have the info that deals with the guide on the guide page- Zesbeer 11:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I underdstand what you say and I agree with you, but we can not do that. Because in order to writh a good guide to getting the title you must write down how much XP you need to get to level one, two and three information put on the title track page. You also need to write down what the title is about, information also put on the title track page. Then the only unique information may or may not be the notes but they are suitable for both pages so there wont be any unique information on the title track page. I just dont think we need a page with information we can find on a other page to.--Wysth 15:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

i disagree with u then because i think it could be split with out having the same info both places. see sunspear and its guide.- Zesbeer 00:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Incidentially, the guide to farming Sunspear promotion points is a stub, and thus is not the best example. It doesn't explain how many points you'll need, which I think is why it is a stub. All it says is to "go here, kill these" which is not a prime kind of guide, where Survivor has builds, farms, strategies, and shows how much one needs to get survivor. But I'm not against the split. Either way, it would be Survivor (if as is) or Guide to Survivor (if split) to be featured. -- Konig/talk 03:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Konig, the guide to sunspear pionts page is only a list with place where you can easy farm them. It doesn't tell anything about how the system works to farm them. I think that part is very important because people will be able to find there own good places too. It is on the other hand on the survivorpage. I think splitting this page would only give two bad pages what we don't want I think.--Wysth 08:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I am thinking this is going towards rejected then, right? Kaisha 21:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No the page is very good I think we should wait a few weeks.--Wysth 11:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a good article but it needs to be figured out whether to split it or keep as is. Personally, I think splitting the articles will just reduce the quality of the article - I'd even go as far to say that the guides to titles should be merged with the title pages, if we want quality articles. I think those are a victim of over-specifying the articles. -- Konig/talk 19:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you one that.--Wysth 22:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Tank

In my experience, too many people accidentally break aggro because they apparently don't understand the concept of tanking. This could be helpful for the average PvE player who joins groups that utilizes tanking. -- Konig/talk 04:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with this and I have no problem with this page being shown. People need to learn more about Tank, not just by going in and boom you're like a hero or AI, dead. I feel this would help more than anything and doesn't have anything on the main page linking to it that I can tell. Kaisha 06:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

i think the setting up might need a bit of a clean up after some of the "tanking skills" got nerfed after the last patch...- Zesbeer 11:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's see about getting it cleaned up then? Kaisha 21:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Due to the SF nerf and other such things, some of this article is outdated. San Darkwood 00:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, surprisingly, despite not being updated since december, it is up to date as the only line including Shadow Form is "An Assassin using Shadow Form, Deadly Paradox and/or Glyph of Swiftness to reduce Shadow Form's recharge time. That way, the Assassin will be a near-invincible tank while the rest of the team can do their work. With a simple chain that involves Death Blossom, the assassin can also keep aggro easily, if necessary." And this is still the case, due to the "or" being used - only one is needed, and despite the misses gone and the replaced 5-10-15-20 damage reduction still keeps the Assassin alive. So, while no longer a specific case, it isn't out of date. Could be reworked to be specific though. I'm not one who knows all about the new preferred tanking skills, but I'll rework that a little. -- Konig/talk 00:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Languages of Tyria

Well researched page which goes into two more well researched (though one could use an expansion) pages. Only potential problem I see is the case of an introductory paragraph not being long enough. -- Konig/talk 12:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

A minor squabble is the longish bullet point list. A bigger problem, in my mind, is the the mixture between "in-game" and "out of game" parts. E.g. saying something like "Along with Old Canthan, an old form of the Kurzick language still exists in Cantha" next to "The chant appears to be a mixture of English, Latin, Yiddish, and German". There is no English, Latin, Yiddish or German in the game. Comparisons that are at the bottom just speculations about the way ANet's game designers work should be separated from in-game lore. --Xeeron 12:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason why that was done was because there are so many different languages and as such many different influences, so it would create a confusing mess if all of the influences were at the bottom - Phoenexian for Old Ascalonian runes, Yiddish, German, English and Latin for Old Kurzick, Latin for Titan, the cipher for the Empheral Spirit dialogue, etc. etc. It'll create a long, confusing, and mixed-up list at the bottom. -- Konig/talk 12:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It might be true that there is no better solution, but it still keeps this page from the level I would expect from a featured page. --Xeeron 13:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

We are documenting the game, therefore we look to simalarities with our own language and culture. Saying a language has simalarities with our own language helps the readers of the article understand better what kind language is meant without saying it is the same language or the language exists in this world. So I think it is perfectly legitemit to use these language her. Atleast that is how I see it.--Wysth 11:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

wasn't this already rejected? edit: kind of see [1] second edit sorry: after looking at the page i think it would be better if we merged the canthan and charr language pages seeing as this page is called languages of tyria it would also make this page more beefy and at least on the canthan page there isn't much info there. - Zesbeer 11:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no rule saying that a page that has been rejected can not be nominated again, but I think it would be a good idea to merge these three pages.--Wysth 16:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

i never said there was i was just thinking that the page was already rejected if u look at the link u will find it was the canthan language page that was rejected and if u read what i wrote it backs that up. any way adding a merge tag- Zesbeer 00:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I agree with Zesbeer that the articles should be merged and I brought it up here a while ago, but no discussion has been done. I would of merged them during my revision/expansion of the three articles, but didn't for the sake of there being no consensus yet. Secondly, this article was never nominated, just Canthan Languages, which this article has been updated since that nomination anyways. -- Konig/talk 03:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to wait until the dust settles, before I feel it to be accepted. Kaisha 21:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

i say if we merge the articles in a clean way and clean it up a bit i think it could be featured.- Zesbeer 02:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Accepted pages

[edit] Miniature

Accepted on 02:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC) or maybe on the 5th birthday?

Its fun, kinda random, and would make a good featured article. I was thinking if possible using a single miniature for the picture, such as the rendered picture for the black moa chick, or the gwen doll one from April fools day.--Venture 20:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I support that! It's a little long, but well-written, informative, and something that people would go, "Hey, I want to know more about that!" in my opinion. MiraLantis 19:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know... large part of the page is just a list of miniatures... - J.P.Talk 14:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Having mostly being lists shouldn't mean it shouldn't be accepted. I vote in favor because it is useful for mini collectors and new players. -- Azazel the Assassin/talk 00:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It's got long lists, but some good info too. We could do it, I think. — Why 02:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

i vote yes and agree on changing the image maybe just compiling all the renders together. or adding the borders that gale gray has on her page.-- Zesbeer 22:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree to this page as it is. People haven't had problems with the images on it in the past. -- riyen ♥ 17:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

no one has a problems with the images i think its just we want to clean up the page before we feature it.- Zesbeer 22:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If know one has a problem with it I will move it too the accepted part on 1 november 19:00:00 (UTC) --Wysth 18:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No one has a problem. Page is good as is, enough information, etc. -- riyen ♥ 18:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

i have a problem with the image ill change it and clean up the article.- Zesbeer 22:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Image has been there since 29 March 2007. No one has had a problem with it for a couple of years. If you do, please discuss it in the talk page, before changing the image to your liking. -- riyen ♥ 22:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay I won't move it until Zesbeer has done his work on it.--Wysth 16:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Due to lack of interrest in this page I will move It too the rejected part on Wednesday 2 december 2009 --Wysth 20:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thus far, only two people - against five - have an issue with featuring the page. I think it should be moved to accepted, to be honest. Majority wins. -- Konig/talk 20:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay I will move it too that accepte part on 2 december.--Wysth 20:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I support this page, too. I think it good and I have no objections against the picture. All I would suggest is to make the picture just a little bit bigger on the page, to be able to better recognice the minis. But that may be just me. Balwin 17:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Zesbeer hasn't fixed the picture yet. Are you guys not going to give him that chance? That's like going against AGF. Or Are you guys even asking him about the image? -- riyen ♥ 20:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello guys, please keep in mind, we're not voting, but working with consensus. Also, Ariyen, I'm sure Zesbeer knows where to find this project page.
On the subject of the Miniature page, I'm fine with featuring it as it is now, the image looks okay in my opinion. But, if it can be made better, well, better is always good. I suggest we wait a couple of days (no need to rush things, we have a new article up and two three on accepted) so everyone can have their say in this. :) — Why 01:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok I will wait a couple of days to give Zesbeer some time to do what he want's to do but the page looks nice how it is now with the bigger picture.--Wysth 05:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

@why wut? @ wysth i am makeing the image right now.- Zesbeer 06:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Resizing the picture didn't help. Quite sure Zesbeer is going to give us a better one. I prefer to wait till that photo. Moving it now, I'd be weary it might be put on display with that old photo... Don't get me wrong, the photo it's self is alright, but not really good enough for front page viewing. I do like the information, but I just prefer a better photo. 72.148.31.114 06:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

eh its not as good as i hoped it would turn out but i gave it the my available time to make the image ie from when i last posted until now. any way here it is that was kind of my idea but in second though i think it would be better if we just got a good pic from the hall of monuments my monument doesn't have all the minis but in the image i put up there i only put first year pets. it didn't turn out half as well as i was thinking it would but eh that was my thought. also sorry to disappoint for thous of you who think im a wiz photoshoper cuz i am not.- Zesbeer 06:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Better than me. I do collect miniatures, but I couldn't put them together. I'd be at it for days on end. -- riyen ♥ 07:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks good, you have my blessing to add it to the page. I think it is a better picture then we have now. And to answer you're question Zesbeer, I'm referring to the discussion on the talk page where we discussed that a article will be moved to the rejected area if the page has not been talked about for more then a month. After rejection of course you can ad it to the nomination area again if you want to or/and if you feel it is necessary. Moving pages to the rejection page will keep the nomination part shorter and more easy to read the current discussions so new people to the project won't be scared away because there are a lot of old and not current discussions. Also saying moving a page to the rejection part gives sometimes a littel bit of life back to the discussion so we can work to a page the is wourth featuring. I hope I have answerd you're question good enough if not, please leave a message on my talkpage I will answer al you're questions there.(just to stay on topic in this section).--Wysth 12:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry guys, but I think the old image is better for the Miniature page, because it actually shows how they look in-game. I suggest we add the inventory image of all minis to the lists in the article and keep the old image at the top. The image Zesbeer made can be used on the main page when we feature it though, it's a lot clearer than the screenshot. — Why 16:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a nice compromise only question wich inventory image?--Wysth 16:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

i am fine with that also re read the discussion page there is new stuff on there.- Zesbeer 21:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm awear of the new stuf on the discussion page I also mad some suggestions.--Wysth 17:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What I'd love to see on this page, is inventory icons added to the tables. I'll see if I can do anything about that when I get home, if none of you beat me to it. — Why 20:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops, think I might have 'beat you' to it? Just added images, rather the image of each npc miniature to that miniature in the tables. Think that helped, what do you all think? -- riyen ♥ 20:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this page is ready for the accepted pages. -- riyen ♥ 23:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good imo. — Why 00:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, feature-able. -- Konig/talk 00:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I Still dont like the image on there but i think its ready to be featured.- Zesbeer 01:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Condition

Accepted on 08.30.35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

A very detailed article with far more detail than most lists, and it isn't only a list. -- Konig/talk 04:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

its a good article but it dose seem very listie is there any way we could make some of the skills/condition it causes into a little bit more compact tables?- Zesbeer 11:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Better? –alistic 02:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks better. I think it looks suited for a show now. Kaisha 02:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A pretty good way to deal with the list problem and lots of nice info. --Xeeron 13:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

made and added a image if u feel a better one can be put up there feel free to change it BUT IT HAS TO BE BETTER!- Zesbeer 14:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks good, nice pictures I like the part where the things are hidden. Good to go if you ask me.--Wysth 15:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking with no objections - for this one to be moved to the accepted on the 11th of March. Kaisha 18:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Rejected pages

These pages were rejected because they were not ready to be featured yet. Feel free to renominate them if you think they have improved enough!

[edit] Hero behavior

Rejected 12 March 08:27:10

Page is a list and not a good page to show

Only issue I see is that it is a bunch of lists, however it seems to be detailed and complete when I skimmed it and it would be helpful to people who enjoy H/H'ing due to being able to know of Hero AI. -- Konig/talk 04:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I don't see a good paragraph of it to be posted on the main page. I don't think it's a good page to show, because of that. Well, not to mention that I prefer a beginning paragraph detailing about the page, about Hero behavior, etc. then the information listed below that. It's more like a notes page to me. Kaisha 06:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

agreed with kaisha, i also think though that hero ai is going to change a lot so i feel that this article is going to be in flux a lot.- Zesbeer 11:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I dont think this article is wourth featuring. If I read what you guys write I think we can move it to rejected dirrectly.--Wysth 16:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll move it on the 11th to the rejected, if nothing more is said. Kaisha 20:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Also see this archive.

[edit] Featured pages

Also see this archive.

[edit] Tyria (world)

Accepted on 22:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC), Featured 19:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic writting, Only problem is the banner but I think that one will be removed soon. What I know about Tyria it is also complete. I hope everyone agrees with me on featuring this fantastic article.--Wysth 19:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

As I am the one who wrote the rewritten version of the article, I will say that I am a biased yes to featuring. I still don't see the problem with having a in-game player-potent written view (that is, everything the playeres know, that is lore, is written from an in-game view). -- Konig/talk 13:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I dont see the problem either as I also said on Pling his talkpage. But aslong as the banner is there we can not feature it.--Wysth 14:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Conditional for. Once the geography section has been cleared up (to be fair there's not a lot wrong with it, it's just a bit wall-of-text and rhetorical, it's also not really to do with geography and more to do with Tyria in general, maybe shuffle it about into a different section or something?), I think page will be good for the front page. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 94.171.77.82 (talk).

I fixed the geography section so that it is more on the geography than the lore of the regions. That should fix the issue for why it was tagged. -- Konig/talk 03:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

looks good to me though i would rather they use a screen of the in game map instead of one of the user made images but that might just be me, also if i had to choose between the two user made maps i would say the one made by SuperCobra.- Zesbeer 03:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The one by SuperCobra is inaccurate. The higher one is accurate to lore. If we remove either of those two maps, we should remove the bottom one. Also, we don't have any in-game map with all three continents and the added area from EN that doesn't look crappy. -- Konig/talk 04:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

i think it doesn't need to be a shot of the entire world per-say but could be a small section.- Zesbeer 05:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the page is perfect how it is now. Nice job with the fix Konig. I think we need to leave the picture's/maps how they are. One the bottom one looks nice (even if it is not accurate) and adds a nice touche too the page that after new research our vieuw of Tyria changes, and two we can not have an imcompleet picture on the page as Zesbeer suggested, because it would be incompleet.--Wysth 17:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone has aproblem with me moving this to the accepted part?--Wysth 15:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. — Why 15:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

One problem with the article. It stops mid sentence.--Pyron Sy 07:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Expand where desired. -- Konig/talk 08:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Article needs a rewrite before being displayed. Did you guys not really look at it? It has speculation from gw2 in the first paragraph alone and all that seems to be together. Nothing separated as if the destroyer is dead. Hello, but that's eye of the north and should not be there for those who have not completed all that. It's a spoiler. Things like that need to be rewritten and separated more before displayed. Please Please redo it before display or you will have others confused like I was. I prefer gw2 to be at bottom and very little or a redirect to the gw2 article. I prefer spoilers be on down and noted that it's a Spoiler for those who complete Eye of the North. I do not think this should be displayed with soo many errors. I don't know how this got accepted but I feel it's wrong at this time, until the article is fixed. Kaisha 19:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)