Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Featured pages/Featured pages3

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

Gods of Tyria

Accepted 10:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC), Featured 06:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Another previously rejected article which has gotten a lot of rework. I think it would be nice if we can replace that image with one of these five avatar images combined. I would do it myself, but didn't work last time I tried. Aside from that, I see nothing wrong with the article. -- Konig/talk 21:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

i agree to that image and ill see what i can do might be aids thought because of all the white space that would need to be cut down, but also isn't there 6 gods now?- Zesbeer 21:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice page, I agree with the image change. I am not sure if the 6th god should be added, other then the fact that it is spoilerific, I don't think she plays much of a role in the Pantheon in GW1 --San Darkwood 14:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

We have no concept art of Kormir as a god. So it would be out of place to add a render into a pictures of concept art. We also only have images of the dervish avatars and the avatar NPCs - Kormir only has the later, but we have an image of the avatar NPCs atm, which doesn't look that good. If we're using concept art (as that looks better), it will be of dervish avatars and thus we cannot add Kormir. Just make it a thumb image with a sentence saying "Avatar forms of the gods except Kormir." -- Konig/talk 19:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Also the current caption is wrong, they are not the avatars of the gods, some, such as balthazar or melandru, are spirits serving the respective god. --San Darkwood 10:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Uhh... *cough*. I'm sorry, San, but those are avatars. Technically, all avatars appear like spirits, three of which use models of spirits - the one you missed would be a Rift Warden or Phantom model, which are also spirits (well, ghosts by mechanics). -- Konig/talk 18:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

How about this for an image?

-- Chrono (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I like that, a lot. I say we use that image. -- Konig/talk 00:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

very nice good job chrono- Zesbeer 02:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

that is a really good image well done :) --Nick123 15:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) It looks great where did you get it?--Wysth 16:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I created it from the original images (as suggested/posted by Konig). (Also, thanks for compliments.) -- Chrono (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Chrono you should add to the picture that you created it. But anyway I think the page is ready to be featured isn't it?--Wysth 15:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I already added it. And I would say so. -- Konig/talk 23:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved to accepted due to no opposition. -- Konig/talk 10:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Scarab Plague

Accepted 21:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC), Featured 19:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the few fully documented major events in lore. Has an image and all the information that could be added (at this time, at least). -- Konig/talk 12:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I like that page and have never heard of the scarab plague before gj on finding that :) --Nick123 15:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of thing that would look wonderful featured. A little known, well filled out article.-- Pyron Sy 23:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

There's actually quite a lot of these kinds of articles, however most of them don't have images hence why I haven't nominated them. Flameseeker Prophecies is one such article. -- Konig/talk 00:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I say nominate away. Images can always be found or created for pages if we need them. But what makes Scarab Plague so special is that I'd say 90% of players have no clue about it.-- Pyron Sy 00:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think only those who read the manual and/or did a handful (like 3 or 4) side-quests in Istani (thus meaning NF-made character) know of the Scarab Plague. And that's if they paid attention to the quest dialogue beyond A Sticky Operation's sexual contexts. -- Konig/talk 00:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The questline becomes available after finishing Jokanur Diggings, but it starts in the Astralarium while the primary quest leads you to some other place so it's to be expected that players who rush through the campaign don't know about it. Even so, the quest dialogues are pretty long and most would say "tl;dr". That being said, I would've liked to expand the article even further with things such as how the Scarab Plague brought the end of the Primeval Kings and how the two queens, Nahlah and Dahlah, were blamed for the plague, but there's very little reliable info (mostly a few phrases squeezed out of gw.dat) about these things and absolutely no info regarding its effects on the mainland. I'm not against it being featured (since I brought it to its current form and it would make me feel warm and fuzzy inside XD) but at the same time I think it could be improved further. It's your call, though *shrug* - Mei Fen 08:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If you add the quote and iformation abd pic of the statues to the bottom of the page it would be good :) --Nick123 15:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If I'm correct, the line about the queens being blamed is only from the gw.dat; if that is so it isn't confirmed to be canon lore and thus can only be put as a note - if that. I thought the article did state that it brought the end of the Primeval Dynasty - that should definably be added to the main part. As for affects on the mainland, it's just one of the many things of the plague which is still unknown but based on dialogue it seems to me that there was little - if any - effect on the mainland and that the plague centralized and originated from Fahranur (based on said place being the first to be abandoned; and last to be looked into when resettling Istan). I also think, looking over the article more closely (and after a much needed nap!) that the line about the player's involvement should be removed as we don't know what extent the players involve with any of the side stuff. -- Konig/talk 16:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I've did the changes of what I said above, though I wonder about the trivia. Do they have any significance to the article? It sounds like three random facts about scarabs in general, nothing connected to the Scarab Plague. -- Konig/talk 16:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) They're not exactly random. The plague is thought to have been magical in nature, thus the trivia about scarabs being mystified in Ancient Egypt (one of the sources of inspiration for GW:Nightfall); one of the biblical plagues can be interpreted as being a plague of scarabs and lastly, in media scarab beetles are often portrayed as being flesh eaters when, in fact, they are not so I thought it would be nice to clear up this common misconception. Perhaps we should take this to the discussion page? - Mei Fen 18:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Stronger trivia was removed for that (see Talk:Shiro Tagachi#Japanese trivia), and besides GW isn't really portraying the scarabs as flesheating (digging out of flesh is not eating it) - nor is GW media. But aside from loosely connection of names, what does scarabs being mystified and a biblical plague have to do with the GW Scarab Plague? This is what I mean. Is it actually having any impact on the article? (and as I see it, so long as it is including a way to improve the page, discussion is fine here). -- Konig/talk 20:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, trivia means insignificant information so I don't think it should have an impact at all, but if trivia is restricted to the GW universe, then by all means it should be removed. It also means that many articles need to be purged since they're practically leaking pop culture references. Aren't there any general guidelines regarding trivia? (btw, I'm starting to hate this word -_-") - Mei Fen 21:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

the only guide line i can think of off the top of my head is if anet says no that isn't a reference then it should be removed.- Zesbeer 21:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The trivia section is meant to be related non-gw information. If they aren't related it shouldn't belong there. And, apparently, a simple generic name doesn't cut it. The only guidelines is that it has to be related and has to be reasonable for a reference (or relation in some cases). But most (not all) trivia are references or influences. -- Konig/talk 23:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

In that case let's keep only the one about the biblical plague since it bears similarities (divine being angered -> sends plague of insects -> part of the population perishes). There's probably more to it than that but there's just not enough reliable info. *crosses fingers for GW:Beyond* - Mei Fen 11:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Shall we move this to accepted then? :) --Nick123 10:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

in my opion, reject, because when is this ever gonna become useful? simply pointless Zoomylong 17:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It just has to be a good and interesting article. Lore, Tyria (world) and others that are "not helpful" have been put up. And it isn't pointless - there are people who enjoy the lore of the game and articles like this, which you call pointless and not useful, are interesting, useful, and helpful to those who enjoy reading/learning the game's lore. -- Konig/talk 18:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of lore-buffs, myself included. However, even if a person isn't a lore fanatic, articles such as these are still good stories and actually enhance PvE gameplay by making an individual feel just a tad bit more connected to the world in which they are playing. — Gares 19:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with zoomylong, the featured page should be useful to new people, not just something to read, vote for reject YoMamma 21:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet account much? This article is one interesting historical article because most people have no idea this happened. I'd rather read this than the usual festival featured articles. Markus Clouser 21:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured pages are not meant to be "useful" they are meant to be something to read. Even "useful articles" are articles meant for reading. With how old GW is, and how out of place the wiki is, there are not likely to be many new people. Featured article is meant to be interesting and well made articles not "helpful." -- Konig/talk 21:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) User created within hours of the first one, agreeing with the same person in the exact same places, using the exact same typing... looks like a sock to me! But I digress. Featured articles should be, as Konig said, well-written and interesting, not necessarily useful. Lore is a big part of Guild Wars and shouldn't be overlooked, unless someone is one of those players who C -> space through the game without bothering to read anything. - Mei Fen 21:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

YoMamma aka Zoomylong, stop sockpuppeting to sway this argument. --JonTheMon 01:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You forgot to call him/her/it by the IP: 71.123.181.178 -- Konig/talk 01:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I vote accept, I think we need a lot of these "useless" lore articles, because they are mostly good writen and are mostly nice and long to read.--Wysth 05:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

i still say decline due to the fact that these should be of some use to players, not just a little artice of useless stupid lore Zoomylong

You've already made your point known. stop removing comments. --JonTheMon 15:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Dude ur the one changing MY COMMENTS so stfu Zoomylong 16:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

So sorry that one of the two biggest things in the game is "useless" and "stupid." Zoomy, you're the only person who says that lore articles are useless and the only person who says that featured articles must be "helpful" to people. And you've been removing my comments as well as editing your own (with multiple accounts, I might add). And besides, you're not supposed to remove your own comments as well. -- Konig/talk 17:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Uhmm I dont see any problems with article anymore so I suggest featuring it.--Wysth 09:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree :) --Nick123 20:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well.-- Pyron Sy 12:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Dhuum

Accepted 14:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC), Featured 11:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Since it was rejected last time, the only unfixed and non-trivial issue was that it was too new - it has been 7 months, I think it is high time we reconsider it. -- Konig/talk 21:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is substantial enough, yes it is a good page, but doesn't have that much information on it, I believe the same issue was raised last time, and contributed to it being rejected. --San Darkwood 14:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

May I ask what information you think is missing? A guide to beat him is on the quest page, we have his lore, his skill bar, his quest he's involved with, a nice list of notes about him. The only thing we're missing is one of the armor charts (which I highly dislike how they are done, but meh). It can be featured without the armor listings. -- Konig/talk 19:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It isn't that it is missing info, it is more that it is well...tiny. I just don't see the point of featuring a page that is so small. It might meet all the standards required to be featured with flying colours, but it doesn't mean that it is a feature-worthy page... well that is my opinion anyway --San Darkwood 19:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not that small... Nothing said feature articles have to be large, just complete. Small is something where you don't even scroll, and you still scroll here. Short is the Great Dwarf, the Great Destroyer, etc. Besides, Tyria (world), Mursaat, and Dhuum's pages are all about the same length. -- Konig/talk 19:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not talking about length, I am talking about density. pages like Tyria (world), and Mursaat are very dense. while the Dhuum page is quite sparse, admittedly, it has all the information required. But is it really featurable information? I agree, there is no set rule about a featured page needing to take more then a minute to be read entirely, but I think if a page is to be featured, it needs some substance to it. A page should be featured due to merits like it being well written article, a substantially dense (theres that word again) page of information, or a hidden gem of an article. I don't think Dhuum is any of these things. But once again, in terms of the agreed featurable criteria as posted at the top of this page, Dhuum does tick all the boxes... but should that be all it needs to do? --San Darkwood 20:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Accually I just realised that "There are no requirements". But I still think my point is valid. --San Darkwood 20:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I get what you mean now - sorry for the misunderstanding. But I would still disagree. Pages don't need lots of text to be dense. Density refers to the amount of information on the article and, to be honest, this has more information that the Mursaat page. Especially information the average person doesn't know. -- Konig/talk 20:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

i have to agree with konig. - Zesbeer 23:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be good to see what Wysth and Why say about this (as they seem to be the only other regular "featured pages" readers), and if they have no qualms then it can be accepted. (yes, I used the word qualm) --San Darkwood 10:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The article is a bit short but I think it is featurable. And may I add that I'm honoured you value my opinion so much but please don't see me as a must accept person or it won't get featured.--Wysth 05:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As much as I like Dhuum the article and page itself is way too short. The better alternative is the one below except instead of five it should feature all the gods and have a bit of info about each one. But I don't think that page even exists. O.o The Emmisary 02:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

thanks for joining us. but i must say we dont really care about how long a article is we care about the quality so think about if the dhuum article is a quality article. because you can have a really long article that doesn't give any useful or good quality information.- Zesbeer 03:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that the Gods of Tyria page is just about the six (not five) human gods - with a bit on Dhuum and Abaddon. Information about individual gods should be on their page and information about deities/religions that isn't part of that pantheon either goes on its own page or on the Religions of Tyria page, which I think is what you're thinking about. -- Konig/talk 04:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Ok I think we can feature it? Anyone oppose (please do so in the next 48 hours)--Wysth 15:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Since there was no opposition since San and Emmisary - who think the article is too short though that's not really a demeaning quality for featuring - should this be moved to accepted? -- Konig/talk 10:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be :) --Nick123 11:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Margonite

Accepted 22:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC), Featured 21:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Some of the coolest looking creatures in my opinion. Lots of interesting details about them and lore without spoiling much. Also, pretty sweet pictures :P Although there is a list at the bottom, it's not that big and to anybody who plays the Nightfall campaign, it could be useful. Rach 05:41,25 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This is probably one of the best race/group/creature type/affiliation pages there are on the wiki, alongside those that were already featured. -- Konig/talk 07:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

i see no reason as to why not.- Zesbeer 10:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

i agree with this one :) --Nick123 10:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, some of the best concept art and a very interesting affiliation group - Malc 20:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll move this to accepted in the middle of the week. -- Konig/talk 05:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I concurr :p Rhonin Soren 19:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Religions of Tyria

Accepted 17:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC), Featured 09:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It's complete, accurate, holds info people easily overlook, and it is hardly noticed. Only issue is the lack of an image, but that can be figured out, I believe. -- Konig/talk 21:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I like it, as soon as we have an image for it, I don't see any problems with this getting featured. --San Darkwood 14:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

i think a good image could be shots of the shines/ wall murals - Zesbeer 23:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I added two images (the avatar image chrono made for Gods of Tyria and the concept art for the Great Destroyer), I will go get a screen shot of the stone faces in Zehlon Reach and add that to the bottom. I think this will be ready for being featured with that (and I suggest using the image of the stone face instead of the other two, as it will be the least seen image and easiest to connect with a general-topic kind of article). -- Konig/talk 10:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks good now but does need a picture for the bottom half i think :) --Nick123 11:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Added an image of the Stone Face - not sure if there is a second one (I recall going further into Zehlon Reach for the quests...), but this is the only one I could find. -- Konig/talk 00:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

i was talking about the stone shrines in the Consolata dock mission... but if you are going to go that direction i think the sunspear shrine would be best.- Zesbeer 22:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by stone shrines in the consolate docks mission (do you mean the murals? If so, those are too separated and large to really work). And the Order of the Sunspear isn't a religion so it would be irrelevant to the article. -- Konig/talk 23:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

i do mean the murals. also the Tomb of the Three Worthies is the exact same image as the guy you already have up there.- Zesbeer 00:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the Tomb of the Three Worthies uses the same model but different location. The Cult of the Stone Face is located at the stone face statue that I took an image of. Not our fault they're idiots. :P -- Konig/talk 21:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I like the article (I like lore in general but w/e ^^). Would merging the faiths mentioned in "other religions" into the main article make it too cluttered? Seems a bit pointless to have such small articles when they could be integrated, but that's just my opinion. Vote to be accepted, regardless. - Mei Fen 21:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say no simply because we could learn more about these faiths in the future (primarily though GW2; which we've already learned more on the Eternal Alchemy from interviews regarding GW2 lore). And the pages already existed so I didn't bother with a merge when I made the Religions of Tyria article. -- Konig/talk 22:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Konig would you please shut up unless you know what you are talking about, these featured pages are supposed to help people vote yes Zoomylong 15:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I do know what I'm talking about. They are not meant to help people - you're the only one who says that is the sole purpose. If you look at the previous featured articles, then you'd know this. This is a group project not a "whatever I want goes" project. -- Konig/talk 17:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Then whats the fucking point u son of a bitch Zoomylong 18:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Entertainment. The featured articles are meant to be interesting to read. Doesn't matter if they are helpful or not - if they are then that's an added bonus. -- Konig/talk 18:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent)

1. Read GWW:NPA and please stop acting contumaciously, nothing good will come of it, trust me.
2. Read the requirements for a featured page. Does it say anywhere that the respective article must be helpful? No, it does not. They are accepted based on consensus, thus based on common sense. It's called democracy. You should look into it.
3. The entire main page is full of helpful guides for every aspect of the game. They are "featured", so to say, 24/7 so there's really no need to put one of them in the spotlight unless the article is exceptionally well-written. Find one which is and maybe it will be accepted.
4. People actually read the quests and are interested in the lore (granted, to various degrees). If you don't like it and just follow the shiny green star on the map without reading and spend your time farming, it's your problem. You're fighting a losing war.
5. JonTheMon is a sysop so you had better watch that temper of yours.
6. Have a nice day. - Mei Fen 19:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

How about a section on the afterlife? There are different faiths concerning this, for example Canthans believe in Eternal Paradise which is assumed to be Dwayna's realm and Canthan depictions of Dwayna show her alongside revered ancestors. Grenth, on the other hand, sits on a mountain of enslaved souls, thus the Underworld could be a representation of hell in their culture. I can write the section but I wanted to see other opinions. - Mei Fen 16:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't that belong better on the pages of those deities? -- Konig/talk 17:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to a section about the afterlife in various cultures. The article already links to the "Eternal Alchemy" and the "Sky Above the Sky" so I figured they could fit into an extra section to expand it further, and the part about Dwayna and Grenth is pure speculation anyway so I would've compressed it into a simple sentence to add a extra flavour. It's your call though. - Mei Fen 18:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I know what you were referring to. I merely meant that it seemed that a section on each faith's particular afterlife would belong more on who/what that afterlife belongs to. But thinking on it more, it wouldn't be too out. But do note that the Eternal Alchemy is not an afterlife. -- Konig/talk 18:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

My bad, I didn't mean that the Eternal Alchemy was an afterlife, rather a cycle. I've added the new section so you can check it out and edit as you see fit. - Mei Fen 14:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there something symilar for the Kurzicks like the luxon gods for the luxons?--Wysth 19:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No, they only worship their ancestors (like the rest of Cantha) and the five (though probably now six) gods. -- Konig/talk 21:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Ok, there is a picture near the paragraph about the six gods, on the picture are only 5 gods. Shouldn't we have a picture with six gods?--Wysth 05:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You know, we would, except the fact that there is no Avatar of Kormir and no godly depiction of Kormir aside from the NPC and statue - both of which would not work for the image created. I think we've been over this when discussing whether or not to feature Gods of Tyria. -- Konig/talk 06:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think so wenn i asked the question something came up, But shouldn't we write something that kormir is missing in the picture or something?--Wysth 07:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

One should be able to figure out "oh, that's five of the gods, not six" - we aren't making a wiki for 2 year olds and retards (no offense to anyone who is technically retarded but not that unintelligent). We shouldn't have to dumb things down or state the obvious. -- Konig/talk 21:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

A person would think so but, everytime I think that there is a not so intelligent person asking questions about it. But I agree we can expect some intelligence from people.--Wysth 11:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for all the posts I'm about to do here, read this article and it's progression as entertainment while doing missions, and thought it was about time I actually participated in teh GWW community after having an account for so long, and this place seemed like a decent place to start.
Anyways, I absolutely love Gods lore and anything of the sort in any MMO. Not sure if you guys have played WoW, but that had some bad-ass lore. I'd love to see this page get featured and maybe see more people learn about it and help them truly understand the background of the Tyria world as a whole and the influences it brings to GW and GW2 ~Farlo Talk 06:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless there's disagreement, I'll move this to accepted on Monday. -- Konig/talk 06:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

@Farlo: I think most people here agree with you but a lot of people sadly just dont care.--Wysth 17:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this should be accepted :) --Nick123 20:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Wysth, sadly I have to agree. I'm just glad that it's accepted, and I'm also glad the majority of the wiki isn't as aggressive and heated about "helping noobs" as Zoomy/YoMamma/Mr.178. Can't wait to see it up there. ~Farlo Talk 06:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Abaddon

accepted 04:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Since it's previous rejection, the issue (dispute in content) has been resolved. As such, I think that this is worthy of being featured. -- Konig/talk 02:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

looks good to me we just need to make sure the part on the main page doesn't contain any spoilers.- Zesbeer 02:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

seems good :) --Nick123 15:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the article is great and the pictures are definitely cool, but which part of the text would be featured on the main page. Obvious, none of the spoilers should be shown, as it just gives away the whole Nightfall campaign, and parts from other campaigns. The inscription is interesting, but it doesn't really talk about Abaddon. The main focus of the inscription is how the Margonites were formed... -Rach 04:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph doesn't hold spoilers and nothing says that we have to have the main page be a copy/paste from the article. Abaddon is known since mission three - and the first quest for non-NF characters - so that itself isn't an issue. -- Konig/talk 05:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Languages of Tyria

Accepted 10:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC), Featured 00:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I support this article's featuring, given it's usefulness so far in helping us find the Shining Blade camp pages :P --Santax (talk · contribs) 12:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The article has been merged now. Any current standing issues with this article? -- Konig/talk 01:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

it feels kind of list-esk, other then that i think its ok it could use some more info but that would be info we would need to get directly from anet.- Zesbeer 01:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it is "list-esk" so much as it is "not walls of text" or "has no big paragraphs" like many other pages. -- Konig/talk 02:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I moved this back to nominated as per this. On a related note, thanks to new GW2 information, we have a translation of the Krytan language, which is seen in game in a couple spots. However, the Krytan language doesn't translate into anything eligible (at we can tell) in GW1. So I am unsure if it should be added to the Languages of Tyria page. -- Konig/talk 19:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it is okay to use the knowloge we learned in GW2 to use that in GW1 if it is about language translation.--Wysth 05:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I know this has been accepted already, but due to an increase in knowledge on the languages since the acceptance (thanks to Matthew Medina), I'm wanting to do a bit of an expansion on this to include both new information and unrecorded runes, so I'd like to hold off on the featuring of this for a while. -- Konig/talk 19:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Human

Accepted 17:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC), Featured 12:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

After having finally finished reworking the article, I'd like to nominate the Human article for featuring. -- Konig/talk 23:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

seems pretty good but could do with 1 or 2 more pictures :) --Nick123 08:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

wording is really awkward in places. i don't have time to fix it right now. i've noticed this w/ several nominated articles before and corrected when i've had the time. --VVong|BA 16:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

this article is long. let's not hurry on acceptance b/c there is so much rewording still to do. --VVong|BA 20:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

the problem i have with this article is that some parts have a see also link and it links to a very small artical that could be merged into that one.- Zesbeer 07:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Either I misunderstand you, or I do not see where any article linked via a "see also" can be merged into the Human article. If you mean the other way around - most likely so, as the human article is about history and nations, mostly (would like to expand on the culture bit, but I haven't a clue how to put in any additions) and most of the human history comes from documents (from manuals and other), which are all on the wiki, and obviously each nation/group would have its own page. I merely made summaries and had a see also (which could be changed to use the {{main}} template) to link to the article that should go in depth into the topic (not all do, due to relying on quotes alone, and needing expansions like so many other articles, sadly). -- Konig/talk 08:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not the "most richly illustrated articles" project — Why 02:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

@konig i am talking about the International Groups section all of the see also pages that links to are small pages. @why wtf are you talking about?- Zesbeer 03:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I do believe Why is responding to Nick saying there's in need of more pictures. As to the International Groups section, the only "merge" I see possible is technically just going to be a removal of the entry on the Human page, as merging those into the human page would be pointless and incorrect and those entries are just summaries of what's on the pages already. I only kept those mentioned due to them being the largest non-national human groups - if we included more, it would get pointless. I wouldn't be against their removal though. -- Konig/talk 03:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I know Why but that page is mainly just a huge block of text and if i think most people will be like eakkk if they click on the link to it :) --Nick123 16:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if the history portion gets cut down a bit - so long as the links to "History of Tyria" "An Empire Divided" and "History of Elona" are emphasized enough to be a "go here to learn much much more" kind of link. I would of included images, but I couldn't really find any human-related images that are relevant to that page... Especially so for the Cantha section. In my opinion there are only two potential issues (that is, they're not really "we can't feature because of" but "we can improve" situations): History and Culture. The former could be reduced, the later should be expanded. -- Konig/talk 20:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

finally read thru and changed what i didn't like about the wording. --VVong|BA 19:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) There's one opposition to this, which seems to me to be more of a preference for expansion of other pages than a disagreement of this page. Anyone against moving this to accepted? -- Konig/talk 21:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

If there's no opposition, I'll be moving this to accepted to be featured after the current's run out (unless Interrupt is accepted in time). For reference: That's Monday. -- Konig/talk 21:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)