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 or wenn it has not been talked 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] Gods of Tyria

Interesting Lore article which spans all campaigns, perhaps a bit too much of a mass of links without so much information on the page itself, but generally informative and looks good. Garrett 16:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

i for one veto this article not because of poor writing or format but because it has spoilers that shouldn't be on the main page imo.-- Zesbeer 07:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If every page that had a spoiler on it was rejected, then most of the wiki would be disqualified. That being said, I do think that this page is too much like an index to be a featured page.--The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Pyron Sy (talk).

Zesbeer brings a good point. As for the poor writing/format, like I said in the Kurzick/Luxon section above, I'm intending to go through all/most of the lore-related articles and "clean" them up or expand on them. I have done so with some of the smaller ones, but not the larger ones. I am on the fence about this article being a featured article. But the Charr article had spoilers, so that's not that big of a deal. I say, first this article needs to be cleaned up *like many others* before it should be continued to be debated. I.e., a temporary denial. But this may go towards many articles. Again, like above, I will go through the lore-articles this week and expand/clean them. -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 17:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit: I've made a revision of the Gods of Tyria article here, tell me if you find anything that should be changed on the talk page. If no disagreements with anything by this time tomorrow, I'll replace the article. -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 22:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Very nice edit. This would be a good page to have, but liek the others said, it seems kind of like an index of the gods. Maybe have a certain god, or, and this kinda contradicts the idea of it being 1 article, but feature the 5 gods. Perhaps take the first paragraph from the gods page, and link to all of them. I'm sure someone, if not me, could throw together a nice image with all 5 of them in it. ~Farlo Talk 21:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, would it be possible to put some spoiler-less lore at the top, then the bits with spoilers below, since atm the whole page is labeled as containing them which means someone who doesn't want to read them will have to ignore the whole page. I'm sure it could be organised so that there's some core info for all to read then campaign-specific stuff below. Imo it would also give it some more structure. 86.24.115.34 16:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Rephrased the article and moved spoilers down so now the whole article isn't one big spoiler. I don't think I missed any spoilers where they should not be. I think now that this article is worthy of featuring. -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 21:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Lacks good pictures. There are beautiful god pictures in the game (think of the murals or the statues in ToA), yet almost none here. --Xeeron 22:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In agreement with Xeeron. -- Salome 01:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Only issue with the God Murals is 1) They show individual gods, would make the article too clumped unless we can merge them somehow and 2) Those murals are on the individual god pages. I remember that there is some Avatar concept art that has a white background, maybe someone can merge those 5 into one? Other than that, and the 3 gods above Doric concept, there really isn't any concept that would be really usable on the Gods of Tyria page. -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 03:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it could do with a little something extra to make it look nicer imo, but other than that it's a good page. 86.24.115.34 09:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Compared to the amount of lore that is on the gods, it actually is somewhat lacking. I think this page is missing a big chunk of lore type information. -- Salome 13:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Most lore on the gods are just on the individual gods, which then means it belongs of their own respective page. The lore that belongs on the Gods of Tyria page would be a overall grouping, which means there are some that can be added, mostly just in the "History of the True Gods" and expanding on the "Other Gods of Tyria" sections. The reason why I didn't expand the later is because info on the Mursaat being worshipped is on the Mursaat page, and the Norn's animal spirits have their own page (which I still need to heavily expand). So unless you want the individual information put up on that article (instead of expanding the individual gods), then there is a lot missing. But, elsewise, just a few notes here and there, to be honest. -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 22:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

We could feature this page, I think, without showing any spoilers on the main page. Think about it. :) — Why 12:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

We can indeed. Just remove "(after Nightfall, six)" and the preview is spoiler free. By the way, I've found the avatar of the god concept arts with a white background, so I'll work on making them one picture for the article. I'll also find a place for the Doric and 3 gods concept art. -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 23:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm.... I see the points above but it still feel a bit sparse. I still feel it needs a wee bit of blurb about each god with a wee pic and then maybe a pic of each of the avatars and chat about each. -- Salome 01:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Once I finish the Kurzick and Luxon pages, I'll go back to this and see what I can add. Moving the pic that's there down next to the Avatars, add the concept of the avatars to where the pic is *once I merge it*, add Doric and the gods somewhere in the middle if needed. -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 02:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been thinking, and I can't see of how to add onto this article. But a thought came to my mind. Since this page cannot, due to the article title, contain all religions, why not split this article into two? One would be a "Religions of Tyria" the other being what it is, but specifically about the "True Gods" (perhaps a name change would be in order as well?). Just a thought to have this article more area specific while not leaving out the non-gods religions in an overview article like this has been. -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 09:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

that sounds good but is there enough info to support that other article?- Zesbeer 21:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The other page would include the Great Dwarf/Great Forge, the Charr's religion (Shaman Caste rule and then Aetheist), Eternal Alchemy, Unseen Ones, the Spirits of the Wild (Norn deities - probably a removal of that article), a short summary of the True Gods (linked of course), the Sky Above the Sky (same with Norn deities, removal of the article), and perhaps the two Ancestor Trees. Can't think of other religions atm. -- Konig/talk 22:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

well i say go for it but i suggest preparing the other page first and then suggest the split/merge.- Zesbeer 22:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

[reset intent] Do to lack of interrest in this article I will move this article too the rejected part on 1 november 19:00:00 (UTC)--Wysth 18:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have been working on a Religions of Tyria page here, once I get enough time to finish that off, I'll post that up and see how I can change the Gods of Tyria page (aside from removing the non-Six Gods). Feel free to edit the rework page if you have suggestions. -- Konig/talk 18:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you're link is wrong. And if the work on the page is done we can always disguse it again if we want to feature it but for now I think we should reject it.--Wysth 16:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The link is fixed now. Was remake, not rework. x) It just needs an entry on the White Mantle faith, Skale Cultists/God, and the Stone Face Cultists. Luxon demi-gods were brought up on the Gods of Tyria talk page, so I'll now have to look into that too. -- Konig/talk 03:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Miniature

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)

[edit] Dance

Would need collector editon's dances, the devourer dance and some references from where the dances are wich we can ask to linsey but otherwise a fun article to read and certainly to watch :) Rhonin Soren 20:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

the text also needs editing for consistency. but yeah, if we can get the issues resolved, this would be a fun page to feature. --VVong|BA 22:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

While it has some nice information and animations, the page itself is damn ugly with all the white spaces in it.. — Why 02:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

i wouldnt say damn ugly but it dose need some imporvement and its also missing images for the bonus dances and for abandon.-- Zesbeer 22:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Zesbeer it is not really a article, it is more a list of all dances and stuff. Not really text. the page is build on the pictures wich is good for this subject, but I dont think we should feature it. I would love to hear someones opion.--Yours faithfully Wysth 17:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this page being plausible. I think it needs more work done to it. -- riyen ♥ 17:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Snare (tactic)

A good tactic to use that many, especially PvE players (and it is helpful in PvE, especially with NPCs that run in circles), ignore and forget about. Also seems to be complete and well rounded for both PvP and PvE. -- Konig/talk 04:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it looks good but we need a picture if we want it too be featured. And i have no clue how we could get a picture about someone going slower. Thats kinda hard to get in a picture.--Wysth 17:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

How about a render of someone with the cripple condition? Maybe my memory is failing but I seem to recall a distinct limp. Misery 17:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

An image would make it look better on the main page, but if the page is good without images, I say go ahead and feature it without any images, or something. Or simply add the Cripple-icon to the featured article bit on the main page. No need to go making up images on the page we want to feature, unless they actually add something to the page itself. A render of a crippled person would be rather funny, but which npc/pc do we want to use? — Why 20:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont think that would matter but to I suggest a warrior because, if you sare them they are really wourthless. so how about Thom the bravelar Henchmen.--Yours faithfully Wysth 17:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Only problem is, this page lacks an image, but the information is good. -- riyen ♥ 17:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Polymock

Accurate and complete. -- Konig/talk 04:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

agreed but i think that it needs a new image.. ill work on something for that also do we want to feature something that people only really do once?-- Zesbeer 22:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont see why that could be a argument against feature since the lore article is of no importance too the game accept that it is intresting. I find this article very well written and explains I think everything you need to know i agree on the picture though we need a new one.--Wysth 19:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I haven't quite read the entire page yet, but at a glance it looks okay. Will try to give some more feedback tomorrow. — Why 22:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I would love to have someones opion on this page. I think it is a very nice page with something that could use some attention. I dont think it is good if we move this page to the accepted area without at least more people saying they agree with it.--Wysth 16:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

i disagree with it only because you only do polymock once per toon.- Zesbeer 20:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily, you do the quests once, but you can do the polymock tournament anytime you wish afterwards. Just because you don't see people farming it like the Norn Tournament or Dwarven Boxing, doesn't mean every person only does the quests. -- Konig/talk 21:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

yea but its not worth it to do the quests over again when you can raptor farm or just vanquish and get a lot more rep also its not very fun...- Zesbeer 21:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a bad idea to determine featuring (or dont featuring) a article beceause it is in the game very interresting or it is not. We should first look if the article is good and interresting and has everything it takes then we can start talking about what is interresting in the game or not. I think featuring this artcle is a good job just because it is a part of guildwars that is not played very much, it could give some more attention to it.--Wysth 13:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this would be a good page to display as you can do the polymock more than once. It would get some interested in this mini-game. -- riyen ♥ 17:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sorrow's Furnace

A perfect example of what an explorable area page should look like. --94.171.77.82 14:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

its a nice article but it feels like it needs a little more.- Zesbeer 20:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Not really something great for display, nor is any explorable page really 'perfect'. ♥ Ariyen ♀ 22:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I Don't think this page has enough tekst to fill up the front page and I don't think we can gather enough information either so I vote against--Wysth 19:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is complete, and there is enough text, I think, to fill the spot. So, I'm for it. -- Konig/talk 21:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont really think there is enough tekst but if you think we should do it put it in the accpted part you have my blessing.--Wysth 11:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It really doesn't have enough information to be displayed on the front page. One of the problems is it doesn't seem to have that much 'lore' or 'detail' about the area. I vote against this page. It's lacking a little bit, because it doesn't offer enough information. -- riyen ♥ 16:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

GOOD IDEA! this is a good area of the game but is rarly used! N122333

I agree with N122333 for it beeing a good idea but I dont think the pages is good enough too be featured. That brings us to nthe next question how do we improve it so we can feature it?--Wysth 09:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Title

I think this is a very interesting page for al users it not only explains a part of the game that most players use i also gives a good picture on wich titles you can acieve and how much variety there is in guildwars. The only problem will be what do we do with the picture on the front page there is non on this pages can we create one? I dont spot red links anywhere. --Wysth 19:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. A picture of the hero panel (preferably with gwamm) would be apt for the page but that still wouldn't make a very nice front page pic. Tidas 13:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

True thats why i was think about a picture of someobe where you can see the title tag under his name. But i dont know if we can use a picture directly from guildwars because of cpyrights and stuf.--Wysth 05:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Like with the Nicholas suggestion, I think we should avoid articles which are always on the front page. At least for now. -- Konig/talk 05:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

With the difference that Title is a good article if you ask me and it doesn't have a prominent place on the frontpage it just is between the other stuff. HWere nicholas has his almost his own colom and it jumps out. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Wysth (talk).

i would rather feature the individual titles, though i dont think there is enough info on the pages to do that...- Zesbeer 22:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on featuring all the titles but i dont think that is do able so the main page would be a start wont it.--Yours faithfully Wysth 12:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this would be alright as it would help those with titles. Also an idea for a photo would be of someone who has maxed out a few titles. -- riyen ♥ 17:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Henge of Denravi

Give some love to the city nobody goes to — Seru Talk 00:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

would love to if there was more info on the page it looks like all the other out post pages.. bare- Zesbeer 00:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree this page needs a lot of work before we can feature it at least that is what I say--Wysth 18:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

[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)

[edit] Attribute

im only suggesting this page it might be more fitting to do the attribute quest page, i just think it would be useful to feature one of these pages because a lot of players don't know about the fact that pve toons don't have all there attribute points until after they do the quests.- Zesbeer 22:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think if we want to feature a page because of what you say we can better feature the attribute piont page don't we?--Wysth 12:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that the Attributes description it's self needs more work, before we display this page. -- riyen ♥ 17:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Accepted pages

[edit] Dwayna Vs Grenth

Accepted to be featured during Wintersday 2009

Nice article, informative, and has a nice map. --syn // talk 23:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I say yes, but during Wintersday. Pointless to feature if we cannot enter the map, imo. -- Azazel the Assassin/talk

hey, nice... an article i've made significant contribs to. i of course vote for featuring it, and agree w/ azazel on displaying it only during wintersday events. i was actually considering nominating the dragon arena article to be featured during the dragon festival, but didn't think of it in time. if others agree, this article could be featured during wintersday in july. --VVong|BA 01:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, yes, I like. I'm sure we can make an exception for this. I wouldn't have agreed when it was just some article related to Wintersday, but it is actually well-written, complete and informative too! — Why 01:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to say just for Wintersday, even though I very much like the article. Visitors who don't know what this is, don't know what Wintersday is, or are just plain confused will get even MORE confused - even though the article explains this very well, I'd rather they see this when it's available. Plus, featuring it during or just before Wintersday would be a help to them! Unless we have a shortage of good articles to feature, I can't say I'd put this up when the feature is unavailable. MiraLantis 07:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

anyone else wanna comment? wintersday in july is this weekend, so it'd be nice if this got a firm thumbs up for a feature by tomorrow. --VVong|BA 14:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's a yes from me of course. --syn // talk 15:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This and next week's featured article is up, so this wouldn't go up for Wintersday in July anyways. :P I'm still up for holding this back til the actual Wintersday. Or just before.-- Azazel the Assassin/talk 18:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

why don't we just jump this article ahead of the others for this weekend only? --VVong|BA 19:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) If people think it's a good idea to have this featured in the lead up to wintersday in July there is no reason not to. The two week period for featured pages was decided to give the project structure instead of just randomly changing it when people feel like it. The occasional exception for special events would be fine. Personally I think it would be great to feature the page during Wintersday in July, the after the event the current feature can be returned and given an extra week or something so that it's been up for a full two weeks. Garrett 01:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

so we have a few ppl in favor of featuring this article this weekend. how about featuring it starting friday morning? any nay's to this idea? --VVong|BA 19:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

i've gone ahead and moved the article to accepted b/c there weren't any objections. maybe someone could look at preparing the main page for featuring this article tomorrow? --VVong|BA 19:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming this will be on hold until... next Wintersday? lol--syn // talk 22:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's put it on hold until the first real Wintersday, this was just a weekend event. :) — Why 22:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

well, i went so far as to change the copy/edit page for this, but no one w/ edit privileges put it on the front page. so yeah, whatever. --VVong|BA 22:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Norn Fighting Tournament

Accepted 11:56, 18 oktober 2009 (UTC)

Seems accurate and informative. -- Konig/talk 04:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

agreed.-- Zesbeer 22:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I support this. I is informative and well structured and looks good. Balwin 11:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it looks good and it is informative so why not. Please let me know if someone is against this one beeing featured. otherwise i will put it in the accepted list on 18 oktober 17:00:00 (UTC)(or at least i will try) --Wysth 17:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Guide to character creation

Accepted 11:59, 03 November 2009 (UTC)

this page seems to be well written the only problem i see is a lack of images and the Statistical trivia section needs to be updated.-- Zesbeer 23:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well its a nice page, of course we would need to sort that update tag in Statistical Trivia. Tidas 06:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree on it beeing a nice page but it is really a basic page I dont think people that have played the game longer then a week will be intressed.--Wysth 16:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It's good for beginners, but not for those who have played a while. -- riyen ♥ 17:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

To stay faire it is a good article i say featuring it but only if we don't have other pages left.--Wysth 18:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing on it. It is basic, but it is helpful for those who are browsing out of interest in thinking about getting the game. And, since Factions and Nightfall as well, it has changed (mainly PvP and additional campaigns), so if there are any old players returning from pre-release of either of those, would be semi-helpful. So, I agree on featuring (besides, it's good written and will give us 2 weeks to find more pages!) -- Konig/talk 18:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok I agree on the last statement, I will move it to the accepted part on 1 november 19:00:00 (UTC)--Wysth 17:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rejected pages

Also see this archive.

[edit] Animal Companion

Rejected 11:55, 03 November 2009 (UTC)

Well written with lots of information. Mini Me 13:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

has disputed and cleanup tags. this shouldn't be featured until those issues are remedied. --VVong|BA 20:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

based on the new information we gain from the Zaishen Menagerie, we will probably be able to resolve all that in future and get more information about it. poke | talk 20:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather wait till the research that is still being done on this subject is done before featuring this page. But yea, it is one of the best we have. — Why 12:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

yea and the artical is very long and some of the info dosnt really belong on that page i would say, and just some normal clean up would be good. Zesbeer 22:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Once it has been researched more and the tags removed I personally feel that this would be an ideal candidate for a featured article. EDIT:also the page has 1.5 million hits thus its clear people are interested in it. -- Salome 00:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

so as you can see my changes thus far what do you think and do we fell that it still needs the clean up tag? i feel that the Zaishen Menagerie part and evolution needs to be cleaned up a bit, mainly because the info about the Zaishen menagerie is about the evolution. and the evolution info is incomplete and we need to decide what we want on that page.-- Zesbeer 00:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I will be completely candid, some of your changes to this article have been helpful and constructive, however their are a few of your additions which are either not following our formatting standards and need to be changed, are incorrect or indeed just look plain old odd from my subjective visual tastes. For example changing skill names to pictures of the skill icon is not how we format things within articles as it breaks lines, as you have done with the charm animal skill; the wolf pic is a nice touch but its position on the page is creating a horrible white space on that part of the page and could probably be added somewhere else to be more visually pleasing and your information on retraining is kinda wrong, as one cannot retrain a pet. The menagerie only offers the ability to tame a pet of an equal or lower lvl with the opposite evolution and start again from there, but technically you are not retraining your initial pet as you still have to get rid of it and get a new one. I'm not meaning to be rude as your help on this page is appreciated, it's just some of your additions are cluttering the page rather than making it smoother and more user friendly. -- Salome 01:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

eh whatever, the image of the wolf can be removed and i only did the charm animal skill icon in one place and the text is still there. i would also like to point out if you "give way your pet" to who i have listed it unlocks it to that lvl and so you can just re spawn it. feel free to change it to have it make more scene. that tag for clean up had been there for a wile, so i acted.-- Zesbeer 02:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay went through the page and reformatted and reworded it heavily. Updated alot of the information to make it accurate and took out alot of the redundant/inaccurate stuff. I've also removed the clear up tab as I think it is matching wiki formatting guidelines now. The only outstanding things that needs done to it now, are the evolution thingy needs checked and rechecked and I would appreciate another editor, other than myself and Zesbeer to go through the page and make sure it reads correctly. Unfortunately in reformatting the article I moved great deal of Zesbeers edits, so sorry about that matey. -- -- Salome 14:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

salome a lot of my basic ideas are still there. i still feel that the info under zaishen menagerie needs to be moved down to the evolution section and the evolution section needs some clean up.-- Zesbeer 19:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure on that one myself. I see your point as the evolution and the Z-Zoo are so closely linked but then so is acquisition and the z-zoo. I think the standard formatting however needs to be considered after we have finally sorted out he evolution section as I dont think the article can be featured until that actually has confirmed information. -- Salome 12:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay all we need to do now for this article is the following:

• Verify how you evolve a pet. (After talking to Wyn it seems to be the implied that if you use more pet buffs than attacks you get playful pets and vica versa, however this doesnt seem right, as i death levelled every pet in my menageri and all of them were lvl 20 hearty by the end with no pet skills used at all, so it must be some kinda damage ratio thingy)
• Verify the Critical hit scale for pets (I think im gonna ask Lynsey this when she gets some time as I dont think we'll be able to work that out ourselves)
• Work out the mean DPS of each evolution against a none resistant/vulnerable foe
• Verify the damage type for Moss Spiders. (I did alot of this today by using my second account and scrimming against my mule sin switching between infiltrator and sabotuer insignias and seeing which it did more dmg against. Rainbow phoenix was a bitch as it seems to use both and swap between the two regardless of its evolution. Also alot of pets seem to have a different form of dmg dependant upon their evolution, it seems to be in these circumstances that dire pets do slashing and hearty pets do piercing)

After those things are done I think that will be the article ready for feature. I've had a wee gander at what zesbeer suggested about moving the Z-zoo to down near the evolution thingy, however I think the Z-zoo is most pertinent to aquisition than evolution and also how the formatting stands now seems to make most logical sense to me. So I think its more filling in missing information now, than fixing formatting of this article. Thus ive removed the cleanup tag and left the disputed tag as at the moment the article meets our formatting standards, its just missing some verified info. -- Salome 10:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone feels like updating this page after that I think we can feature it but aslong as the banner is stil there it cant be featured.--Wysth 17:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Do to lack of interrest in this article I wil place this article in the rejected part at 1 november 19:00:00 (UTC)--Wysth 18:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is less of interest in the article, and more in interest in reworking the article (or not knowing how to rework it - like myself). -- Konig/talk 18:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Same here but you agree with me to place it into the rejected part?--Wysth 16:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Party

Rejected 11:56, 03 november 2009 (UTC)

seems like a fairly basic and descriptive page to me, kind of like the profession page. how about it? 82.8.227.172 18:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I spy a red link. Otherwise, fix up any possible errors, and I agree. ~ Ryuu Desu[ Talk|Contributions ] 02:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed it a bit, but couldn't find anything for the red link. But sure after the link fixed i have nothing against this page. - J.P.Talk 10:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

An image of the party window (Both the one that lists party members and the one that's for Party requests, etc), could be useful, even if it is already covered in the UI Article. Otherwise, I agree, support. Edit: Oops, forgot to sign /doh --Alex Eternal 10:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I just remembered that this article doesn't mention anything about Party Search or about any other methods to form a party. Or does it have to? If it does, this pages gives me a big NO. EDIT: And yes, the pictures. Had those in mind when i fixed the page, but forgot to mention it here XP - J.P.Talk 10:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, personally I think Party Search belongs here more than on party, as it's a way to seek invites, etc. ~ Ryuu Desu[ Talk|Contributions ] 00:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Did some conventions to the page, and removed the red link. Revise my changes as seen necessary, but I think this page is pretty much feature worthy now. If the general agreement is that an image of the party window is needed, I can provide one too. ~ Ryuu Desu[ Talk|Contributions ] 00:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Although it's a fine page as it goes, I personally think it's pointless. It's EXTREMELY basic and not really that helpful, not because of its content though, raher it has very little subject matter to play with. -- Salome 15:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

As pointed out above, it needs a picture of the party list. Furthermore a discussion of random vs player formed parties would be good. Lastly, it should mention the role of "party" as a skill-related mechanism (the "... party member ..." part in skill descriptions). --Xeeron 00:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

i think all thouse pages could be merged i mean do we really need a septet page for part, party search and invite? the other pages seem like filler to me along with this page...- Zesbeer 21:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

[reset intent]Do to lack of interrest in this article I will move this article to the rejected part on 1 november 19:00:00 (UTC)--Wysth 18:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nicholas the Traveler

Rejected 11:59, 03 november 2009 (UTC)

I think this would be good because for one, some people don't know who he is XD Getefix 17:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but sadly its a really dull page. Tidas 17:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

And secondly ther is allready a link on the main page too Nicholas the Traveler. I mean the article is I think one of the most vieuwed place on wiki since it existes.--Wysth 11:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I disagree, it could be remade to be better for a featured article, however, it's on the front page. I think that we should avoid articles on the front page from featuring. -- Konig/talk 05:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

agreed with konig des todes, the hole point of featured pages is that they are pages not often visited that are well written pages.- Zesbeer 00:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Many go here often enough as it is a weekly event to go to him to collect gifts and they may check out who he is. I don't see the need for this on the front page. -- riyen ♥ 17:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think most people agree with me if I move this article to the rejected part on 1 november 19:00:00 (UTC)--Wysth 18:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Featured pages

Also see this archive.

[edit] Alliance battle

Accepted 19:04, 29 september 2009 (UTC), Featured 10:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

best part of guild wars

Could use an image, the red link bugs me --Lemming 18:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yea, the page looks OK but what lemming said. — Why 12:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

lemming how about a luxon and kurzick guy standing next to eachother? ill photo shop something real quick tell me what you think-- Zesbeer 22:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The page is good for what it does, in that it describes AB's but really the concept of AB itself lacks substance, thus the article has very little to work with. It's not really telling anyone anything that isnt self apparent. -- Salome 00:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Support. The article features all that is to know about AB, including several little known facts (e.g. the exact underdog bonus, the number of OPs owned, the 500-500 tie breaking rule) in a aesthetically pleasing way. --Xeeron 22:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup, looks good. Any opposition? — Why 12:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, i still think the page is somewhat obvious due to the rather straight forward mechanics of AB but it is a thorough page and it may help some people, thus suppose im in favour. -- Salome 01:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because what the article is about is straight forward shouldn't mean the article not be featured. I say yes to this article. -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 02:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I support this article, because it has needed information, is well formated and generally looks good. Balwin 17:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I'm not touching this until consensus is reached about the possible split of the page. — Why 03:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

well got that removed so vote on this now?-- Zesbeer 10:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, Iv'e got nothing against it, although i think that bug note should probably be moved to the bottom of the winning the battle section rather than below the base defenders. Tidas 13:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks OK, but the image is irrelevant to the content of the page. — Why 13:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

True but I'm struggling to think of an alternative, especially one that would fit in that space nicely, what about an image of the Lux/Kurz border? Tidas 13:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Could do the Kurz/Lux (as k goes before l) Banners like we have this . Just a suggestion as a photo for the main page. ♥ Ariyen ♀ 23:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

that image looks bad imo i think the image we have right now is fine....- Zesbeer 21:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't have a Kurzick Luxson border combined so the image we have, really wouldn't suite for main page. ♥ Ariyen ♀ 22:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

its better then your idea. also its Luxon.- Zesbeer 01:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

After reading al the posts about his article I checked if everything was okay counted the votes in favor(5) and against(0)and put it in the accept sections if this is not okay please turn it back and let me know on my userpage--Wysth 19:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)