Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Featured pages/Featured pages

This is an archive of the discussion about pages that have been featured on the front page.

Charr

Accepted 10:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC), Featured 15:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe this article is one of the completest articles we have, with a good amount of lore references and artwork to make the page both interesting to read and pretty to look at. — Why 19:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As there does not appear to be any opposition to featuring this page, shall we proceed and change it's status to Accepted? — Why 15:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

i think this is a good article, but how many ppl do we need to reach a "consensus"? it seems like there's only a few ppl inclined to pay attention to this page. --VVong|BA 16:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I reckon we will be getting more attention once the changes to the Main Page go live. Thing is, we will be needing an article to be featured for that, so I reckon it might as well be this one. My last comment was meant to start actual discussion really, not any definitive action. I suppose it'll take a couple more days 'till the main page gets changed, and if we don't get any more comments 'till then, I say feature this one. — Why 16:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that the Charr article would be a good starting point. --Shadowphoenix 18:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

As one of the future races of GW2 and a constant story point throughout Guild wars, i think the charr are deserving of having a featured article. Further to that reasoning this article is currently well researched and visually pleasing. So my opinion is that its a good starting point. -- Salome 00:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Profession

Accepted 08:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC), Featured 09:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Always liked the structure of this page. Very complete too (I would hope so)! --Antioch 18:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's not very long, but it has everything it needs. Is there anyone against featuring this page? — Why 14:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the article, it is very complete. --Shadowphoenix 14:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Love this page, I also kinda hope it would be the first featured article as it would be nice to start with something thats universal in its interest to the player base. -- Salome 00:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This page is pretty complete, ready to be featured. --Lemming 01:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved to accepted. As Salome said, it would be a nice starting point, but Charr has been accepted before this one. I kinda agree it'd be a very nice featured article to start with, so should we fake the timestamps and feature this one first? — Why 08:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Do we have to? I thought accepted pages were just giving us a stock of pages to feature. The timeline in which we feature them is up to us surely? -- Salome 11:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

← moved to GWWT:FEATURED

Hall of Monuments

Accepted 12:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC), Featured 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent page and I think extremely useful as so much of the player base still don't understand what the HoM's purpose is. (Ive had to explain to almost 20 people in the last month about GW2 and the hom) -- Salome 00:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Especially now that it has the account-wide option, it would make sense to feature this page. Also, it looks very good with all the concept art. — Why 08:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

it looks like some of the notes need to be sections in that main article.-- Zesbeer 11:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed the notes section is somewhat over heavy. Will take a look at it later today. -- Salome 11:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

i did a little reformatting here tell me what you think on the talk page.-- Zesbeer 10:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with making this page featured. And that reformatting looks good Zesbeer, I say go ahead and replace the article with that. -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 21:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

done. i think we need to add a little more info from this lattest update to the hom like info on sorting and some of the new bugs need to be documented...-- Zesbeer 01:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

/agree. This would be a great page to have as the next featured page. ~Farlo Talk 21:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone else could have any objections to this, it's nice and tidy and I for one support its move to the Featured Slot. --Alex Eternal 17:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Support. One of the most useful pages around and very good looking. --Xeeron 22:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved to accepted as consensus seems in favor of it. — Why 12:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

User interface

Accepted 14:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC), Featured 08:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Extremely useful collection of clear and accurate game information, especially for new players. Don't know if this is the kind of thing you're looking for in terms of featured pages, but if you're happy for more informational stuff instead of just lore then this is a great article. Garrett 16:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

i went thru and fixed the wording/grammar/spelling issues i saw. i'm onboard w/ featuring this article now. --VVong|BA 20:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually believe this could possibly make a great page to feature. Who else has an opinion? — Why 12:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this already on the front page? Or does that not matter for featured pages? :S --Alex Eternal 19:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Not really, I suppose. The front page is just links. — Why 19:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a link to it, but the point of the featured article is to draw special attention to an article. Generally someone will only click a link on the main page if they come looking for particular information, whereas featured articles are there to draw attention to a page you might not normally have looked at. Thus I don't see an issue with featuring a page which is already linked, because the two serve different purposes. Garrett 22:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to this article, seems a tad basic and obvious but could be helpful to newbies. :) -- Salome 01:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

-swoon- An article I helped make is being suggested for featured ^-^ Support, agree, etcetcetc. Strong article, good information, very vital information if not known- too. ~ Ryuu[ Talk|Contributions ] 16:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with this article being featured. Well written etc. --Saberhagen (My Talk) 11:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Informational, though basic, recent information included, at nicely written for the most part. I vote yes. -- Azazel the Assassin/talk 13:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Moved to accepted. — Why 14:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Rune

Accepted 15:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC), Featured 08:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Nicely organized, pictures to go, very clear. --Antioch 21:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. After fixing a few minor errors on this page, I believe it is good enough to be a featured article. ~ Ryuu Desu[ Talk|Contributions ] 15:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it looks alright and it's reasonably informative, though that note "Runes that imply to be non-stacking appear stacked in the attribute section, however will not be shown in build pinging." needs to be reworded imo, I'm not even sure exactly what it means (that they look non-stacking but stack, which isn't true, or just that runes don't show up if you ping your build? In which case what's with the first bit?). But otherwise yeah. 86.24.115.34 16:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I was about to go and correct this, but it seems [someone beat me to it]. Pretty solid article now. ~ Ryuu Desu[ Talk|Contributions ] 18:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Holy crap Ryuu, what's wrong with your link? It should be much shorter, like this --JonTheMon 18:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The long list of runes box and the profession icon box look weird in the way they currently part overlap each other on the page. --Xeeron 22:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess the only real way to fix that is make up more text to put above the list box so it's further down. That would help quite a bit, though, imo. 86.24.115.34 09:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could put the images for runes in a gallery type section, and add a link somewhere like this
For a table of the icons of every rune, see here. ~ Ryuu Desu[ Talk|Contributions ] 15:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Once the table overlapping issue is resolved, I think this can be moved to accepted. — Why 12:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the overlapping issue by move the paragraph that was under the second table to above it. I read it and didn't mess anything up (at least to me). Revert if don't agree. -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 02:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The overlapping issue is still present with a browser window at 1280x1024. I realise this isn't really a problem because most people run at a much lower resolution than this, but I thought I would mention it. Garrett 17:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Overlapping appears to have been fixed. I'm moving this to accepted. :) — Why 15:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Kurzick, Luxon

Accepted 12:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC), Featured Kurzick 14:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC), Featured Luxon 21:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well-built lore-pages no?The Savior 11:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A couple of red links in Kurzick makes this a fair deny for me. --Antioch 16:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

personally I feel a couple of concept art images might help the articles and make them more visually pleasing. If we could get them up to the same standard as that of the Charr article I would be in favour of these pages. -- Salome 00:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

They seem to be more pages of lists, along with some text from the guild wars manual for the most part, is there more that could be added? --Lemming 01:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeh I have the same feeling. More researched lore about them, maybe some concept art and some general chat about alliance battles and faction and the like as at the mo I feel it lacks the same kinda info as the charr page does. -- Salome 01:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

For the red links, and this goes for all red links that are links regarding lore, I am intending to make them if there are enough information for pages. Such, kurzick related, pages that I know have enough information on them would be like the Awakening Ceremony that is on a few pages (I do noticed someone changed a few links to go to Eternal Grove mission but I'll also change those eventually once I get the page up). Both of those pages, that is the Kurzick and Luxon pages, are on my list to look at for further adding of lore information. I say, for now, hold it back until myself or someone else can get to expanding these pages (and the red links). I'll go around and expand the lore pages this week. -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 17:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. There is almost no text apart from the bullet point lists. Looks closer to a stub than to an featured article. There is plenty to be written about the two sides. --Xeeron 22:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded the Kurzick article here. I can't think of anything else to add on, so I'll now ask for opinions and if there are things that could be added (and what those things are -looks at Salome-). I'll get to work on expanding the Luxon article now.-- Azazel The Assassin\talk 06:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the draft kurz page. I personally think it might need a wee addition about kurzick aesthetics, such as the gothic bent to it, which can be seen in the grand temple they've sculpted, their style of dress and the fact that gothic weapons only drop in kurzick places. That's just my oppinion though, but i do like Az's changes. -- Salome 01:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I realized that I forgot the culture of the Kurzicks, I'll add that in then replace the articles. And more than gothic buildings and the massive make-up, there's also the Awakening Ceremony *which I have to create the page of* which is how the Juggernauts are made, and a few other things here and there. Though I don't think the gothic weapon fact needs to be there, maybe as a note though. -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 02:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) OK! I finished both Kurzick and Luxon revisions which can be seen here I wanted to add a Luxon concept art, but could not find one unfortunately. :( If someone has one, please upload it onto the Luxon page once it gets swapped out (which I shall do if there are no disagreements with these pages). The Luxon page was annoying as I wasn't sure on so many things so I kept cross referencing the Manual, quests, town descriptions, NPC dialogues, and the "An Empire Divided" text. It was annoying x_x -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 11:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I changed out the two articles, so they should be featurable now. I don't think I messed up anywhere or missed much of anything. -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 08:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It does say in big red "spoiler alert". Personally I don't care much for spoilers but a spoiler on the main page might not be a good idea.// HeavenMonkey 22:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, already discussed below I see. // HeavenMonkey 22:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the article, there doesn't seem to be any spoilers aside from Manual information and An Empire Divided: A Selected History of Mysterious Cantha for the Traveling Scholar and the NPCs which, to be honest, isn't really spoilers. Gonna remove those tags. -- Azazel the Assassin/talk 04:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) The reasoning for these two pages not being featured have been fixed, so unless there is opposition to these by the time the Rune page gets featured, I'll move these two down then. Also a note for when featured: As these are two different articles, they need to be featured (why did the person put them together? :/) so it covers a full month of featured articles. (stating so they don't accidentally get featured at the same time :P) -- Azazel the Assassin/talk 01:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Lore

Accepted 12:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC), Featured 10:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

its full of awesome stuff and its really just an awesome section--Lord randy taylor 21:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with featuring. It provides a good introduction to lore and at the bottom links to the "basic" lore of the three campaigns - thus the three continents. It serves it's purpose well in my opinion. -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 22:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. yay to this article! -- Salome 01:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. ~Farlo Talk 05:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Go go Lore!-KlinH4xx0r 05:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Very good looking page, but why is it named "lore"? The whole page is concerned with something I'd call "History of Tyria" (the world, not continent), note how any newish material is missing, despite plenty of these entries in the lore category. --Xeeron 22:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The page was denoted lore to be a conduit of basic lore pages. What we have now was the first idea of how to make it more than just a tiny list and link to the Category:Lore page. Most of the information here is a revision of the original History of Tyria (work) article from the Prophecies manuscripts. The revision being that it changed some information that was found out in game or in later manuals. The article could probably use an expansion to be more than the history of the world, but it actually covers the general lore very well (and in fact well enough), as I said before. -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 22:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Gw Lora FTW, it lets us know what came before us and tht were nto the only thign to happen in the game, so i rly hope it gets in--Lord randy taylor 01:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This must be the next page featured! - J.P.Talk 10:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, now that I think about it, this page, Gods of Tyria, and Tyria (world) are all basically summaries of History of Tyria (work) with minor additional info. I think this, and the other two, should be expanded and revised a bit before featuring. Though they still work as is for featuring right now. I'll work on revisions this week for the three and change out if Lore or Gods of Tyria isn't moved down to Accepted yet. -- Azazel the Assassin/talk 11:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I would support this article. It is a nicely read and a good introduction to the lore of the GW world. Balwin 17:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad to have that article featured. Took long enough to research, organize, and write it. I see it hasn't changed hardly much at all since I did it, either. --Talonz // 09:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Nahpui Quarter

Accepted 11:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC), Featured 15:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

One of the completest mission pages we have, with a load of nice images. — Why 02:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure is. - J.P.Talk 15:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I vote for this to be featured. -- Azazel the Assassin/talk 16:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Just being picky but i spy a red link Tidas 14:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is a lore-related page. I really need to get back to fixing/expanding/making those lore pages... -- Azazel the Assassin/talk 15:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit: Made a stub page (with all known information, which is sadly very little) to remove the red link. -- Azazel the Assassin/talk 15:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well thats all i had against this, its a very nice page, i do wonder about featuring this type of page however, seeing as previous pages have all been general information rather than something this specific. Tidas 15:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Moved to accepted. It's a good article. :) — Why 11:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Costume Brawl

Accepted to be featured during Halloween 2009, Featured 14:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

i was thinking that it'd be nice to have feature pages approved for every major event if possible. so since snowball is already nominated, i'm adding the costume brawl. i understand that the page may be a bit basic, but that's what this approval process is for. --VVong|BA 22:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it does have a nice table of builds, and the information on it is useful, but i'd be cautious of featuring pages just to match events rather than because they are worth featuring, but in the case of this one im not against it. Tidas 15:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

just to be clear, i don't want a page featured if it's not a good article. if it turns out that ppl think the page needs work, i'll work on it to address whatever issues there are. --VVong|BA 18:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If i look too the page and compare it with other pages I vote in favor of this article it only needs a picture to so it can be on the front page. I dont spot any red-links did see that some skill bars are bigger compared too the rest of the skilbars (Paragon and Necromancer), I dont know how to chance this. But otherwise a good article with lots of information and also usful information. --Wysth 19:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

i added the costume brawl disguise icon on the page. the skillbar is sized to the icon and text of the skill. there's no way to reduce the necro skillbar b/c faintheartedness is a long word. any more suggestions? i'd be nice if we could get this approved before halloween. --VVong|BA 20:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you could hyphonate it to two rows if its really a problem. Tidas 20:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

eh, no. i didn't make it clear that i was trying to get opinions on issues other than the skillbar unevenness. i don't want to hyphenate a word that may look fine on other display settings. --VVong|BA 03:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

if there are no comments/objections, i'm moving this to accepted by the 8th so that it can get featured on halloween. --VVong|BA 20:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

The Norn Fighting Tournament

Accepted 11:56, 18 oktober 2009 (UTC), Featured 08:14, 16 November 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)

Guide to character creation

Accepted 11:59, 03 November 2009 (UTC), Featured 08:13, 30 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)

I'm gonna see if I can fix the outdated info. I'd prefer to have it straightened out before we push it to the main page. — Why 15:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. If you wanna check my numbers, go ahead. I might have miscalculated something somewhere but I think I did it right. — Why 17:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No I believe you. Good thamks for checking up again. I dont have enough game-experience (and time atm) too check al these tables before we send it too the mainpage. I mostly check it on spelling and red links. And if the aricle is well written.--Wysth 18:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Dwayna Vs Grenth

Accepted to be featured during Wintersday 2009, Featured 06:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

Go go go!--syn // talk 00:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Polymock

Accepted 21:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC), Featured 20:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

Is there anyone that has a problem if I move this page too the acceped part?--Wysth 08:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) The article is good, but really needs another picture. But I must admit, that I have no real idea what picture can be used. I have alreadythink about this, but did not find a solution. A picture from the arena is already with the specific areana and I did not get a good looking combination. So for short: I think it needs a better picture, but I have no clue what kind of picture is appropriate.Balwin 18:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

What about a lineup, like the profession page, either of the forms, or of the pieces (a subset, of course, since there are so many). -- FreedomBound 18:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thats right it needs a picture I always forget to look at that. I think the line up is good can you make that picture Freedom?--Wysth 19:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha! No. Unless you want it done in MS Paint. :) -- FreedomBound 19:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I dont think that will work sadly I cant do it either.--Wysth 13:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully, Jette accepts cookies, so he made this. Not quite what I had in mind, but it's very nice. -- FreedomBound 18:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Taking the idea from FreedomBound I created this picture. I don't know, if it would be good enough.Balwin 20:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a nice picture Baldwin but I like Jette's one better but I think there is room for more then one picture on the page. If you want too add it please ask also on the talk page of the Polymock page itself.--Wysth 12:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say, now this page is ready to be accepted. Any more objections? -- Konig/talk 09:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No it looks fantasict Well done.--Wysth 18:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) But now there is a discussion the its talk page, if the pictures are good enough. See here. :) Balwin 18:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the page is good enough now atleast it has the standards we wanted on this page. I will post a page on the Polymock talk page too about this article beeing featured but for now I think we can move it too the accepted part. Please let me know if someone has a problem with that.--Wysth 18:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I also left a message on the polymock talkpage so people know we have reached consensus.--Wysth 13:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it is good now, but my opinion may be biased :) Balwin 16:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I vehemently oppose the five-skill image. It looks good, but it's nonsensical. Let's take it out and then accept it. The lined-up polymock avatars are fine. But if consensus is in favor of featuring it with the fabricated fiveskill image, go ahead and ignore this message, I will not halt progress. — Why 16:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The lineup won't fit well in the featured section, I think. I like the skill mesh myself - though it is not very polymock-specific (that being, the skill icons are, obviously, used elsewhere so too could the picture be used elsewhere). But it is good enough. -- Konig/talk 17:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Okay I think that is a yes for featuring--Wysth 20:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have created a new NEXT page with Polymock. How to proceed now?? Balwin 18:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I sent a poke to Poke. Only admins and syspos can change the main page, so Poke can handle it. -- Konig/talk 19:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Snare (tactic)

Accepted on 20:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC), Featured 19:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

(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) PS if someone uploads a nice picture it is ready to be featured

I'm not very familiar with this project, but I'll get a few screenshots quick since this one seems like a good idea to me. --[-Kyoshi-]::[-Talk-] 20:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

How's this? --[-Kyoshi-]::[-Talk-] 20:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Until someone can get animations like on the Dance page (such as File:Male Warrior Dance.gif, that will do in my opinion. -- Konig/talk 20:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I could do that too, but it would be choppy between the end and restart of the animation unless I could find a consistent background (unlikely). Is that preferable anyway? It'd be easy enough. --[-Kyoshi-]::[-Talk-] 20:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you have Sony Vegas or some other fancy dancy video editing program, and if you have text mod, you could probably find a mod which has a single color background (like white for instance), and (if not white), remove the color of the background, then make the .gif out of that. I'm not good enough at texmod to make a mod for that, and I have never been able to do the color removal accurately... dunno why. But doing something like that should work. But for a placeholder, just recording and making the .gif could work. Doubt it has to be perfect anyways. -- Konig/talk 20:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, I'll make an imperfect one for now, then. I'm not good with Textmod either, but video editing I'm pretty good at; I've been working on skill animations for a while now. Bee arr bee with your gif video, then. --[-Kyoshi-]::[-Talk-] 20:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

OK if those two have been added to the page it is ready to be featured--Wysth 20:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Done! Use it as you please. --[-Kyoshi-]::[-Talk-] 20:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I added them too the page so this page is ready to be featured--Wysth 21:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Dragon Arena

Accepted to be featured during any Shing Jea Boardwalk event, Featured 19:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

nominating the DA article b/c i think it's informative and complete. the article picture that shows all the actual in-game boundaries was completed in a time consuming process that required 3rd party programs. the tips come from a dodgeball addicts like me, and it goes along w/ the other event mini-game articles that are featured only while the event is running. --VVong|BA 23:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see a bit more info on Dragon Arena emulation in the Guild Hall, otherwise at a glance this article looks nice and informative. Will give it a more in-depth read soon. — Why 18:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I can remeber reading a intro text about the dragon arena (can be mistaken), If it exists It would be nice to ad it to the page but it looks very good, and I'm a fan of featuring pages during events about the event.--Wysth 19:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

ok, i've added some more info on playing dodgeball in scrimmage mode. --VVong|BA 23:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice job Wongba, this will give players the possibilty to play this game also outside a festival.--Wysth 17:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

if there aren't any more objections, i'll move this to featured by the end of the week. --VVong|BA 18:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm for this one. I love playing Dragon Arena. :-) -- riyen ♥ 19:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It wont be featured by the end of this week I think it will be Wintersday that will be featured next but I think we can move it to accepted please let me know if someone has anything against featuring this page.--Wysth 17:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

haha, woops. i totally wrote that wrong. i meant i'd move it to ACCEPTED. me = idiot. --VVong|BA 04:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The tidbit about GvG in the trivia section could be merged into the GvG approximation section, but overall, I'm fine with featuring. — Why 04:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

Condition

Accepted on 08.30.35, 12 March 2010 (UTC), Featured 16:08, 22 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)

Mursaat

Accepted on 21:4:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC), Featured 22:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

what's the rush? who cares if it's accepted next year or rejected 2 years from now? accept it only when there's a consensus. -VVong|BA 04:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If you think the pages is not good enough move it back to nomination or move it to rejection but I think we can feature it because no one is opposing the article because the artcle is bad only because it is going fast.--78.104.112.200 14:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

@Wongba: Consensus does not mean you wait until someone disagrees, it means give a reasonable time for disagreement to be brought up. If there were concerns about the page, or turmoil on the page like before, then I would be fine waiting a year to approve it. Nobody has changed the page since the 13th. Nobody has voiced any concerns. How long should we wait for people to find this page and disagree? --Kyoshi (Talk) 23:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Miniature

Accepted on 02:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC), Featured 11:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

i thought we agreed to featuring this page with my image i guess someone didn't read the discussion.- Zesbeer 21:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Guide to hard mode

accepted 13:57, 06 May 2010 (UTC), featured 14:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

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 guides, and say all missions have a section for hard mode.- Zesbeer 08:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I added a short paragraph to that extend. --Xeeron 21:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think everything that has been discussed has been implemented. Can we move this to Accepted articles now, or is there more to be done? San Darkwood 09:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree lets move it to the accepted list.--Wysth 12:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I would, but I don't know how... -- San Darkwood 10:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It's too bad the image was changed while this is on the front page. It looks really bad on the yellow background. -- Wyn talk 19:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)