Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Featured pages/Featured pages2

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

Guide to PvE

Accepted 12:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC), Featured 20:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i guess so i still think there could be some sort of image that is purely pve... that could be added.- Zesbeer 23:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not see how a picture would hep this page. So i suggest moving it to accepted unles someone els has a objection?.--Wysth 12:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

wait i just realized that this page says nothing about missions.... and they are a huge part of pve imho- Zesbeer 00:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The last paragraph says something about HM missions.--Wysth 06:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you are thinking about Guide to Hardmode. This page doesn't have anything about missions -- San Darkwood 10:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You are right sorry my mistake.--Wysth 10:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

@Zesbeer: Although hardmode is a big part of pve the tactics do not really change. We could add a little paragraph about HM but I don't think it will bring that much.--Wysth 17:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

@wysth what are you smoking?(and were can i get some?) i never said anything about hm"wait i just realized that this page says nothing about missions.... and they are a huge part of pve imho- Zesbeer 00:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)" as you can see this article the guide to pve says nothing about missions.- Zesbeer 21:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "nothing about missions"? Don't you use a team build in missions? Don't you pull? Don't you bring res sigs? All of that is already in the article. Anything specific to one mission is not, but that would make the article overly long and belongs on the mission page.

@Wysth: HM is different due to the AI changes. The only part in the HM guide that overlaps with this is the tiny section about tactics, the rest is all about describing the different AI/difficulty level and how to deal with it. While we could add the HM stuff here, that, again, would make the article very long. Personally, I dont want one single 500k article describing NM, HM and all missions on one page. --Xeeron 09:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

We need to keep in mind what the purpose of this page is. That's to inform new players about how to overcome the challanges of PvE. Definately not what PvE is, since we have another page for that. It's perfectly OK if this page says nothing about missions, or hard mode for that matter. — Why 20:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this article should have more images to add interest because this page looks so boring that I would never read it.Sarifael 15:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

What, do you only read comic books or something? The wiki is here to document the game and, in the case of this particular article, to inform newbies how to get started. It's not here to entertain people. (Well, trolls aside, I suppose.) --Kyoshi (Talk) 17:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers, just honestly saying that the page, since its text is so long, is a bit overwhelming without any images to break it up and make it seem less like a textbook.Sarifael 22:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I suppose images that explain front-, mid- and backline and general positioning and pulling are relevant, however just pictures of random PvE situations are not. Feel free to include the former. — Why 00:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, Sarifael, it's information. If, as Why says, the pictures actually contribute somehow, then sure, add them. But if they're just there so that it looks less like a textbook...it's kind of a silly reason. --Kyoshi (Talk) 02:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that adding pictures for the sake of pictures is silly, but this would be a featured article; and , in my opinion, featured pages should be the best in terms of content and spiffiness. I'm registering for summer classes at the moment, so it may be awhile before I can add any images.Sarifael 11:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I added the nice courner block animation, which illustrates pulling, tanking and terrain use all at once and should make the page a bit more lifely to read. --Xeeron 16:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The tanking animation is just fine. As far as extra pictures, as long as they're pertinent to the section; we don't just need more pictures of players fighting devourers and the like. --Kyoshi (Talk) 17:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) (Edit conflict) What i mean by not mentioning missions was that the article doesn't link or say something to the effect of "missions are a major part of pve so much so that certain towns are the starting locations of missions. missions are what bring the main story arc along. for a guide and were to start see Missions"- Zesbeer 10:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why this page needs a section about missions. The pages explains what pve is and how to handle it. Since missions are a total different way of handling then normal pve and it doesn't explain anything to the page. So let us finally except the page.--Wysth 20:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

because missions are the main focus of pve? what other things are there to do in pve besides missions? there are quests yea but missions are what drive the story.- Zesbeer 21:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that while missions - along with explorable areas, dungeons, and quests - are a part of PvE, there is no way to make a guide for them as a whole. At least, none that I know of. -- Konig/talk 21:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

ok but being a guide to pve i think that we should at least say something about thous areas and then link to the appropriate articles this page is suppose to be a guide to pve not a guide to random shit.- Zesbeer 22:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I wrote a little piece about missions and PVE it is very global you can see it here please make changes in the text and if you think it is good add it to the page.--Wysth 09:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

that is perfect and was exactly what i wanted added to that page.- Zesbeer 18:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Then please feel free to add it.--Wysth 21:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I was going to add a bit on missions, quests, explorables and dungeons - as all are a part of PvE - but as I wrote it out, it was more of a description than a guide to... -- Konig/talk 00:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

you are right we need to talk about thouse other aspects as well.. i just wanted to get this going so we could get another page featured. - Zesbeer 01:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, what I was doing was ==The world of PvE== <explanation of the various types of PvE> ==Explorable Areas== <typical kind of Explorable Area and what one can expect, including the resurrection shrines> ==Quests== <typical kinds of quests (excort, fed-ex, hunting), and the best/most common ways to go about doing them> ==Dungeons== <typical layout of dungeons, that they require a quest to do, and what one could expect to bring> ==Missions== <Short bit on what separates missions from the rest and how people tend to set them up>

But as I said, that was turning a bit too descriptive and not guide-like, so I stopped editing. -- Konig/talk 09:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think if we add that the article will get very long and will lose his function beeing a guide for startng players. I think this guide has everything we need.--Wysth 06:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

i think we could get away with adding it but just keep it short it doesn't need to be a 10 page essay- Zesbeer 07:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

A single paragraph would be enough on it. PvE has two aspects: Preparing to do stuff and actually doing stuff. The guide before only covered the first, longer, half. -- Konig/talk12:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Really a detailed explanation on what PvE is belongs in the PvE article. A small summary is fine but really don't go overboard. — Why 16:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

1) I said a paragraph each, which would be a "summary." But thinking over it, I, at least, can't figure out a way to make a section on those aforementioned bits while keeping it a guide - every way I can think of wording it makes it a description of it. If we can't make it to be a guide itself, it doesn't belong in the guide page and we should just have ==See also== *[[Player versus Environment]] *[[Explorable Area]] *[[Dungeon]] *[[Mission]] *[[Quest]] at the bottom. Which would actually probably be better than having a summary, or what we have for missions atm. -- Konig/talk 20:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

i fell like it is not much of a guide to pve with out it.- Zesbeer 20:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue is, what does a description about PvE add to a guide about PvE? A guide is how to play PvE, a description is what PvE is. A guide shouldn't have a need for a description. Descriptions go onto the PvE page, as Why said. You need to remember: Guides are only half of an article - the other half is the article which the guide is for (in this case, PvE). That's the problem with guide pages - they can't give you everything. But besides that, it rather does cover missions - it tells you about how to play through PvE - all of PvE. -- Konig/talk 21:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's safe to assume the reader has a basic grasp of what PvE is, the guide is meant to explain how to face it. And if they don't know, it should be made clear they should read the respective pages explaining PvE aspects. I think a good See Also section would do the trick. — Why 12:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I rewrote that section into a short description of each form of PvE, including specific tips. --Xeeron 14:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

That looks good, best that could be done to make it still guide-like, I think. I'm all for featuring. -- Konig/talk 14:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it is perfect lets feature it.--Wysth 15:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Rollerbeetle Racing

Accepted 14:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC) to be featured during the dragon festival. Featured 06:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC).

Looks good to me - I suggest we feature it for during the Dragon Festival. -- Konig/talk 12:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That looks good to me aswell :) we do need some pages like that for during events --Nick123 15:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Gets my vote.-- Pyron Sy 00:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

i agree with this being featured though i think a see also section would do the page a lot of good.- Zesbeer 22:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

+1 vote. lets leave it a day, just to make sure everyone has said their piece and then we can move it --San Darkwood 23:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

See also including what though? You need to be more specific Zesbeer. -- Konig/talk 23:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

a link to rollerbeetle, Rollerbeetle Racer, the gallery that is seen on Hokusai's page - Zesbeer 00:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The first one is a redirect, the second one was already linked. Added a See also including Hokusai's gallery. -- Konig/talk 00:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

by rollerbeetle i meant just beetle- Zesbeer 00:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Until an actual beetle page is made and it isn't just a redirect to Insect, I'd have to say no. -- Konig/talk 01:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Would be great for the Dragon Festival (as Konig said), although a "Guide to afk-ing" would be more appropriate as this seems to be the highlight of the event (unfortunately). - Mei Fen 11:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

wouldn't it be better to feature the dragon festival page? during the dragon festival? but it is a nice page--Wysth 11:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hardly. It's incomplete and I disagree with it being nice. It lacks a lot of information. Technically, it's a stub. It can be turned into a nice page before the DF, but not as it is. -- Konig/talk 11:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with you that the page is not good enough to be featured. OK let us feature this page during the festival.--Wysth 14:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved to accepted. To be featured during the Dragon Festival --San Darkwood 14:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Zaishen Menagerie Grounds

Accepted 20:22, 21 Mai 2010 (UTC), Featured 07:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

a lot of the dust has settled and the article looks rather good imho.- Zesbeer 01:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Nice page with a good combination of text and tables. --Xeeron 16:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh, Interesting that this was accepted with one comment... (though I hold no qualms) -- Konig/talk 10:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

haha ive never noticed it down here :) it is a good page though so i got no problem (it probly got accepted as no1 questioned it) :) --Nick123 13:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Really nice picture on the front page guys.--Wysth 09:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Tank

Accepted 20:30, 21 Mai 2010 (UTC), Featured 14:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looks good, might be one of the very few wiki pages with an animation. And definitely a concept that more players should know about. --Xeeron 21:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we should accept this page.--Wysth 12:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Seconded -- San Darkwood 10:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Survivor

Accepted 15:19, 28 Mai 2010 (UTC), Featured 21:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i think we need to have some standardization for this and other title pages i think every title page should have basic info and a walk threw of how to get the title.- Zesbeer 00:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If we want to make such standardizations I think we can take this page as a good example. Is it okay if we move this page to accepted?--Wysth 15:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

no wysth that's my point i think that we need to go in and reevaluate all the title pages and find out if we need to split all of the pages with a title page that has info on just the title and a guide page that has info on just a guide on getting the title or we need to merge the pages so all the info is in one place because it repeats. and i think until we do that title pages should not be featured.- Zesbeer 22:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, based on the discussion above, those of us of the featured project helper pretty much say "merge em!" I suggest making a section on the Title talk page and we can post our thoughts there, and hopefully get others to comment. -- Konig/talk 00:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

@konig done. please go comment one and all.- Zesbeer 00:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we could start a project on this subject?--Wysth 16:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Getting back to the subject can we accept this page or not? I think we should accept the page. but that is just me.--Wysth 12:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Before we accept, I think we should get the consensus on whether to have title pages split or not. Though of those who commented, it seems to be in favor of the later. In which case, this page would be featurable. -- Konig/talk 18:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Since most people are in favor of the page as it is, I will accept it on 10 of Mai.--Wysth 14:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Mai? :P -- Konig/talk 18:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

no you wont move it seeing as that the hole issue of the guide and title page hasn't been decided yet. the guide to pve shouldn't have been moved nor should this. nor should guide to hard mode seeing as someone added a merge tag.- Zesbeer 20:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The merge tag was only on the PvE article, so you can't blame him for not seeing it on the HM page. -- Konig/talk 21:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Since the merge is not going to be solved very soon you people can vote now move it to rejection or acception but dont let it be standing here! I say accept because the page is great as it is--Wysth 20:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Since the general agreement is for a merge, I'd say that this is good to go since it is one page already. -- Konig/talk 20:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

seeing as no one has commented on it i will go threw and add merge tags. someone else check my work plox. i didn't notice but it looks like you beat me to the punch from reading the discussion for some reason i didn't read what you wrote, konig did you not?- Zesbeer 23:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't - was busy - doing so now. -- Konig/talk 00:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

@Zesbeer: Do you agree with featuring this page or do we wait until the discussion about the guide to and title page have setteled if so I will move this page to rejected(for now until the problem is solved).--Wysth 05:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

yea it can be feature now konig went threw and merged all the pages. also feel free to nominate more title pages now.- Zesbeer 08:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The Allegiance and Maxed Titles weren't merged by me - not sure if they got merged since I last looked either. -- Konig/talk 14:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Shiro Tagachi

Accepted 12:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC), Featured 06:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a prime example of what an NPC article should be. It has lists of dialogue and the like, but it isn't just that. It also holds all information relevant to the article. It was previously nominated but has received a massive upgrade since. -- Konig/talk 21:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read the previously rejection but for me it is good to go.--Wysth 15:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This seems alright, It is definitely better then the Dhuum page. --San Darkwood 14:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Wysth, it was rejected because it was only the quote and a ton of lists. Since then the few paragraphs were added. -- Konig/talk 19:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok the page has improved a lot and looks good, lets feature it.--Wysth 09:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. --San Darkwood 10:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we get this moved to accepted now? (oh, and someone really needs to teach me how to do it :P) --San Darkwood 10:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

a bit late but third :) --Nick123 11:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

San Darkwood I put a very explicit manuel at your talkpage. I hope I have not insulted you.--Wysth 12:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Wysth, the simpler the better xD. I didn't know if there was a way of automaticly putting the date and time or not. --San Darkwood 13:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Not that I know of but it pretty easy, what I mostly do is copy the date and time from another page that is already accepted/rejected and just change the time and date.--Wysth 15:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Five tildes (~~~~~) puts the timestamp; three tildes puts just your signature (no timestamp), and 4 puts both. -- Konig/talk 19:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

so like this <|small>21:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC) ?Wysth 21:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)