Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Featured pages/Rejected pages

Talk:Ancestors'_Rage#trivia

Rejected 01:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Does not need further explanation AIG 23:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I very much oppose the featuring of any talk pages, and stuff like this in particular. :/ — Why 12:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Obvious Troll is troll and obvious. -- Salome 00:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Mhenlo

Rejected 11:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Everybody loves or loves to hate Mhenlo. ^^ Sarifael 15:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's just one big list, would need substantial editing before I would be in favour of this page. -- Salome 15:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Salome. While henchmen would be helpful for people to look at (to know their skills, to laugh at some quotes, etc.) just putting up the Henchmen page would be more viable than individual henchmen, as each page is just long lists of locations, levels, skills, and their dialogues. -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 19:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Though Henchmen's more helpful than Mhenlo or any other henchman's page, it's got very little to look at and it's for the most part just filled with an ugly list. If the Mhenlo article gets buffed up a bit to show his relevance as a character and not as a henchman, I think it'd look much better. Until then, I'm against this being on the front-page. --Alex Eternal 21:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah imo it needs some lore too as right now you just have those triva notes, and he's quite an important character story-wise too. Also it has an unfinished section. I mean that's pretty minor but for a featured article it ought to be done. 86.24.115.34 16:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. What Salome said. --Xeeron 22:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

should we just change this nomination to the henchmen article?-- Zesbeer 22:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

No as its all just lists. Either someone needs to research the henchmans lore properly (and their is alot of it) and put that in the relevant articles or I really just don't see the point in featuring these articles. -- Salome 13:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

ok so vote to veto? -- Zesbeer 00:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I vote to veto this. Also, Salome, your main argument is "not enough lore for what we know" - just a fyi, that would go towards a vast majority of the articles because lore was mostly only put in lore-only articles like Category:Unseen NPCs articles and not any article that deals with lore like many important NPCs and races. Of course, this is more towards the older articles and I'm slowly working on expanding the lore articles. x) -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 00:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

point of order. u aren't voting to veto b/c no one here has veto power. u're voting no/nay/against/oppose or some other negative, but not "veto". and yes, i'm against this being featured. --VVong|BA 06:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

/dont care-- Zesbeer 06:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Basicly this article is just one big list. I'd like to see more background info on the character before this is featured. — Why 12:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

its not that I think everything needs lore, but if we are to feature an NPC, then yeh I think it should be lore focused otherwise it seems a bit odd. NPC page with Big lists = dull and boring. NPC page with Big lists, a crap load of game lore and story and possible game mechanic chat = good. EDIT: so is it agreed, this one is rejected? -- Salome 01:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Was more of a joke since most of your complaints are lore-based :P But I agree with your point, if we intend to feature a page that could contain lore, it should. A simple 2-3 paragraphs would suffice since there is the manual entry. Just a mention of him studying in Shing Jea, the Kurzicks believing he was dead, etc. Wouldn't make the page much longer and would add a few things we know of Mhenlo (and the same could be done with the other henchmen articles). -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 02:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I was quite inspired by the discussion above me and decided to dig deeper into the history of the main characters; Devona, Cynn, Mhenlo, Aidan and Eve. If you combine every clue and hint of information that is given through various sources there is actually quite a lot of information given about them and their lives, and even more for you to fill in after reading through the lines. I've started exploring the childhood and youth of Devona, and intend to continue with the rest. After 1070AE their paths meets though, and I guess it would be more adequate to keep these stories together in one article. I was thinking about making a "lore-article" about all five; differing from the current articles by telling about their characteristics and history rather than their game mechanics. Head over to User:Titus The Third/Heroes of Tyria and tell me what you think about my idea. Of course; the final article should include pictures and so forth... -- Titus The Third 09:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Cinematic

Rejected 22:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Need something to draw attention to pages most people dont know exist. — Seru Talk 22:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

True but the article's tiny with very little information. It'd need an overhaul before I'd consider voting for it. --Alex Eternal 15:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Contains 0 info, would need soooooo much work and even then not sure the article will ever be appropriate. So a nay from me. -- Salome 01:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Pick one of the better documented cinematics then? — Seru Talk 04:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

For what purpose? A cinematic is just that, a wee clip relating to a very small part of the story at that time (which most people skip). I don't see why it needs featured, as firstly the content isn't informative to the user, none of the pages currently fit the standards for the featured article and really their is a reason why they have such a sparse amount of hits. -- Salome 13:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Only purpose I see in featuring any Cinematic page would be what Seru first said: "pages most people dont know exist." No other reason. As such, I disagree with this as a feature. -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 07:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to feature this article or a cinematic article, because of all the hard work I put in that project, but other than that, I don't think they'd make much sense on the front page. There isn't really anything to show. :( — Why 19:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

So is it agreed, that this one is rejected? -- Salome 01:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless someone can think of a way to spruce the article up... a lot... I'd have to say, yes, rejected. (sorry Why) -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 02:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. This is good, actually, it proves to me that this project is working as it is supposed to ;) — Why 22:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Shiro Tagachi

Rejected 01:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Great page, good decription, has all it needs to have. Worthy?--DAVA 07:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this. All it has is the manuscripts entry, quotes, locations, and skills. With a little trivia. The lore can be expanded very nicely, being a main villian. Put in a paragraph or two under the quote about him bringing the Kurzick and Luxons together before going mad (mentioned in "An Empire Divided"), how the Fortune Teller corrupted him, and him being a general of Abaddon in Nightfall. Or something like that. -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 07:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Currently, it's a big list. So no. — Why 19:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Azazel -- Salome 01:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Per Azazel and the reasoning used at Mhenlo. --Xeeron 22:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Canthan language

Rejected 14:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Well researched and interesting. --86.26.110.119 19:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. While I do find it interesting, I don't think it contains enough information or would be useful to enough of the wiki community. Freedom Bound 20:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Well researched, kind of, interesting, yes, worthy of Featuring? Not until we start running out of articles, which will be a while. I'm intending to fix up the Languages of Tyria article and then put that as a featured nomination, which would be able to cover this as well. So for now, I say no. But in a long while from now, it wouldn't be bad to feature. -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 21:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

another thing i would like to point out is the one image says it names all the professions in factions but in the table it dost have all the professions in factions.-- Zesbeer 22:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That is because the table's pictures are derived from a table that was taken from Anet's building itself, and the banner was deemed to be saying as such by the location it is always at, with the Prophecies Henchmen banner, and the known characters. The article can be expanded, it would seem.-- Azazel The Assassin\talk 00:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

While I think this is a very well researched article, it is poorly fleshed out, primarily because of simple lack of information about the subject. Hence I oppose featuring this page. Also, as consensus does not seem in favor of it, I'm moving this to Rejected. If it gets expanded, feel free to move it back to Suggested. — Why 14:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Interrupt

Rejected 02:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

A very informative and well-researched article, which is worthy of being featured. It has some great tips and hints on how to properly interrupt your foes, and how to avoid being interrupted, exactly what would be expected of this article. — Why 19:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice article but incredibly technical and wordy and I just dont think most of the player base would be interested. -- Salome 00:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Most of the player base? This is generally a PvP related article (Since, let's face it, interrupts aren't a concern in PvE really). PvP has at least half of the player base, if not more. I think a lot of people could find the information contained in this article quite useful, both as a way to learn to interrupt and as a way to learn to prevent it from being done to you. ~ Ryuu[ Talk|Contributions ] 16:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all interrupts are essential for many areas of PvE, secondly it's utter rubbish to say that half of the play base is primarily PvP, the PvE population in GW is huge, just because they aren't quite so vocal in places like the wiki doesn't mean they don't exist. Garrett 19:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If the PvP community contains half of the GW community, then the overall community is tiny. The PvP community is just the loudest, and whiniest. >_> No offense to anyone who is fully PvP. And Interrupts, as Garrett said, is highly useful in PvE areas as well, and are estremely effective on Heroes (and yes, should be mentioned because I have seen people who don't think of putting interrupts on heroes ever because "they suck at interrupting" - so should be mentioned). -- Azazel the Assassin/talk 20:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, interrupting is a lot more vital and there's a lot more pressure to make a successful interrupt in PvP, imo. Yes, interrupting is used to certian areas in PvE in order to make things easier, but the fact of the matter is (as you have stated), most trust heroes to interrupt in PvE. That being said, there is little to no pressure for a ranger, or any other class to interrupt, because they simply have heroes for do it for them. However, in many areas of PvP it isn't possible to bring a hero to interrupt for you. (Yes, you can do it in HA. Yes, it's somewhat "high end", no I'm not taking this into consideration.) Lastly, a vast majority of PvE players also play PvP as well; I suppose I should have categorized that as PvX, but anyway. Certain things in the game, such as zaishen quests are beginning to encourage this PvX trend, and although it is existent, the population of guild wars players who NEVER play PvP is a probably a lot smaller than half. This isn't saying that 50% regularly plays PvP, it is simply the fact that at some point of time we have all PvP'd. Even if you don't frequently do it, you may find this article interesting as a curiosity factor. That being said, the majority of the information listed above is irrelevant to the point. This article could indeed be found interesting by a notable percent of the player database—even though most PvE'rs rely on heroes for interrupting now. Personally, I play a dshot ranger in RA and yet when I PvE (I do both quite equally), I use heroes to interrupt for me. Even though I never even worry about interrupting in PvE, I still find this article interesting due to both my dshot ranger and monk professions in PvP. Preventing interrupts, learning how to cause them. Two birds, one stone. This article could in fact be featured. ~ Ryuu[ Talk|Contributions ] 18:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

In reply to Salome; we really shouldn't focus on how interesting articles could be for the players; we just want to highlight very good articles with this project. Otherwise I really couldn't find a reason to make Profession a featured article, because we can be sure that nearly all of the players already know what that is and as such won't be very interested in it. poke | talk 18:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

In other words, look at if the contained information is good or not, not if you're interested. If we focused on interests, featured articles would become biased and a huge warfare to simply pick what's interesting and what in fact isn't for most people. At least, I think that's the basis of the decisions for featured pages. ~ Ryuu[ Talk|Contributions ] 18:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the featured articles should be both interesting and well-written. More of the later though, because as said if we just go by interesting, it would be biased. If we got by interesting alone, I'd just want to feature any well-written lore article. That would leave game mechanic articles, location artcles, and NPC articles pretty much a no for featuring. As such, I say that the article needs a revision for both a PvP and PvE viewpoint instead of an "basics of interrupting" viewpoint. Doing this is out of my area so I won't bother. :P Though, the lists of skills could probably be turned into a table (each column being a different section) to help shorten the length of the article. After a revision and expansion, I am for this article being featured. -- Azazel the Assassin/talk 01:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

While this article has important information it is more or less a list of skills and some additional information. So I don't think it should be a featured article. Balwin 17:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Henchman

Rejected 16:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

An important and almost unavoidable part of Guild Wars. Good and short explanation of what Henchmans are, and a link to all henchman, with more good links in see also. Titani Ertan 15:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I am on the fence on this. It was semi-discussed before in the Mhenlo section, and it was a "no" to that due to being mostly just a list. But I myself am on the fence. -- Azazel the Assassin/talk 17:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a list, so I'm not supporting this until it gets a major content buff. --Alex Eternal 07:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't like this page to be featured by the same reasons as above :/ - J.P.Talk 19:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is just a list and should not be a featured article. Balwin 17:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't apply yet, but I think it would be a great idea to feature this once the PvP henchmen are added to the game, as it's going to be a very common thing for people to come looking for. --Freedom Bound 17:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a nice page, but not one of the best pages on this wiki. — Why 02:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Going to the rejected part on Sunday 18 oktober at 17:00:00 (UTC) --Wysth 17:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Gwen (Eye of the North)

Rejected 16:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Many like Gwen and some follow her story line. I'm figuring this page would fit her best. ♥ Ariyen ♀ 11:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to feature a page because the NPC is so adorable. Still, the page itself isn't bad. I do believe we have better pages on this wiki, however. — Why 13:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There's history behind her that fits Tyria, Eye of the North, Charr, etc. More than just her being cute, she's a helpful npc turned into a mesmer hero, has her own story like Togo, etc. 72.148.31.114 21:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Not really, the only reasons her page is better than any other henchman/hero is that she has more lines and a piece of concept art. Tidas 21:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

@72.148.. I'm not saying Gwen isn't special, I'm just saying this page isn't special. Which means I oppose featuring it. — Why 22:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

agreed with why i also think that if we ever want to feature a hench or hero we need to be ready to feature all of them. and that we need a lot more beef to there articles.-- Zesbeer 22:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion, Feature each Hero(Heroes you use, Togo, etc.) /(Major Henchman like Cynn, Menhlo, (those featured on all continents), etc.) every other week or one a month. Obvious henchmen are wanted. This thought might could be something considered. ♥ Ariyen ♀ 23:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Gwen's page is just a bunch of quotes, skills, and a couple concept art. It is complete, but it doesn't really show any lore and can definably be worked on. Same goes with many other NPC articles. -- Konig/talk 05:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the Konig des Todes, it is not really a article. It doesn't really contain stuf about Gwen except what lines she says wenn something happens to here. interesting for some but not for everyone. I will move this page to the rejected section at sunday 18 oktober 17:00:00 (UTC) if nobody gives a good argument why it should stay in this section.--Wysth 16:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)\

Animal Companion

Rejected 11:55, 03 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Party

Rejected 11:56, 03 november 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nicholas the Traveler

Rejected 11:59, 03 november 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gods of Tyria

Rejected 07:53, 15 november 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reset intent Until the page as been rewritten we can not feature it. Thats why I have moved it too the rejected part. --Wysth 19:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Henge of Denravi

rejected on 16 november 08.45.03 (UTC)

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

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

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

I moved this page too the rejected part because it does not contain enough info and needs a lot of work before it can be featured.--Wysth 08:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Title

Rejectes on 02 december 12:18:15 (UTC)

rejected due to lack of interrest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(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)

Attribute

Rejectes on 02 december 16:5:21 (UTC)

rejected due to lack of interrest

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

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

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

(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)

Dance

Rejectes on 02 december 12:21:15 (UTC)

rejected due to lack of interrest

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Reset indent) Due to lack of interrest in this page I will move It too the rejected part on Wednesday 2 december 2009 --Wysth 20:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorrow's Furnace

Rejected on 09:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Reasoning: not enough text, not great for display, not enough information; Feel free to add the page again if it has improved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

that's alot question marks in there! --neyira = ? 19:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean with a lot of question marks?--Wysth 13:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Allied NPC's HM levels. -- Konig/talk 13:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I dont think a lot of people have been there since the introduction of HM because the area has died a bit I believe--Wysth 20:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I am currently working on reworking the god pages, after that, I'll see what I can add to this article. -- Konig/talk 23:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

ok shall I put this article in the rejected section? And you add it after you did youre work on it again or shall I leave it here?--Wysth 06:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't matter to me, it'll probably take about 2 weeks so go ahead and archive it for now. -- Konig/talk 09:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

OK I put it in the rejected section for now if you are done please re-add it again.--Wysth 09:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Guild Wars Utopia

Reasonably complete, interesting subject matter, well-illustrated. --94.171.77.82 14:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

disagree. it might be reasonably complete for something that was never released, but it was never released. no point in featuring something that has never existed in the game. --VVong|BA 14:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) It is rather interesting and well-documented, but the huge amount of stub notes is appalling. If the information was more complete I'd be perfectly happy with featuring this page, but the greatest part of this article is mere speculation. — Why 14:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

While the article looks nice and well formated and is an interesting read, it is about something, that is NOT part of the game. I don't know, if we should feature such kind of articles. Balwin 19:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not part of the game. I don't think we should feature this. -- riyen ♥ 19:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless a dev comes in and does the article so that it is not 99% speculation, I am against it. Too many stubs and too much speculations. -- Konig/talk 23:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Konig.--Wysth 17:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

any objections to reject this page? - Zesbeer 09:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It was really exciting, for me at least, learning about Utopia. I think it's pretty relevant to the history of the game, despite never being released. Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 01:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"learning about Utopia."Seeing how most of that is speculation, you're not learning about Utopia, you're learning about speculation about Utopia. Thus, not that relevant. Maybe if, as I said above, we get a dev to remove the incorrect thoughts with facts, we can feature it. -- Konig/talk 03:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I would reject it, too. I will always be against it as a featured article.Balwin 18:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone ever approached a dev to ask about Utopia, out of curiosity? I'm guessing they wouldn't say a thing, at least until GW2 has been out for a while depending on how much Utopia supposedly lent to it. Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 20:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Dhuum

Along with the new updates and stuff. could encourage more people to try uw, although i don't want to pug with noobs. so, is this page goes through, NOOBS LEARN BEFORE YOU ATTEMPT UW!!!! --Jrhsk8 01:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a nice and interresting page, Well written and indeed interresting for people who never finished UW. But before we can feature it the banner must be gone. We can only feature articles that are complete.--Wysth 08:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Too turbulent. Try again in half a year when the page is stable. — Why 01:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

IDK what's so "turbulent" about it. but whatever it is, i can clean it up because i really think n00bs have a right to know what's happening in uw too. --98.145.73.93 03:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

^ i wrote that. --Jrhsk8 03:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

They sure have, but at this moment the page is being edited (almost) daily. I think it's best if we wait until there is a stable version of the page that we can show off. If people want to know what's happening in UW, we have the Underworld article for that. The Featured pages project is not about informing people, it's about recognizing pages that are of very high quality, and as it is now, in my opinion this page is both too short and too unstable. — Why 04:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

@why i thought a part of it was about informing people about stuff in the game that they wouldn't normally see but also to show off pages that are well made, and not normally visited- Zesbeer 04:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Zesbeer. This page is visited often. -- riyen ♥ 04:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

By the time this page gets featured, it will be 5 weeks - as we have two before it. By then, the article should be full. Pages do not have to be long for them to be featured - don't know why you say that Why - so the Dhuum article is not too short if it has all the info we have on it. Which the only thing missing is anything unnoticed in the battle with Dhuum (for now). By the time it would be featured, anything currently unnoticed will most likely be noticed and put onto the page. I'd say we could probably remove the stub on that page soon, as so many people have been doing him and updating the page. Give it a week, this page should be stable and complete - so in 5, definably worthy of being featured. -- Konig/talk 09:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I do no think this page should be featured...yet...let it become more complete. -- Lacky 10:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm perfectly OK with featuring pages that are interesting and relevant to the current hype in game, but that doesn't mean we should lower our standards for accepting pages. What I'm missing on this page is tactics on how to defeat him (either write some skill suggestions, see talk:Dhuum for instance, or refer to the quest. A "Tactics" section would be most appreciated), a map on where to find him, some more details on his combat stats (estimated health, damage on 60 armor, innate health regeneration, I've heard mention hexes have their duration halved on him so which boss characteristics does he have et cetera) and other references in the game (if there are any). If those things are added, I'll support this page to be featured. Also, please keep further discussion on how to improve the page on talk:Dhuum. Sorry guys, you must find me pretty annoying by now, but right now this is just an article about an NPC like any other, with some minor lore information added. — Why 15:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Tactics? See the quest to kill him. We do not have a walkthrough on Mallyx, or Abaddon, Shiro, Kanaxai, or other major bosses which are dealt with in a mission or quest exclusively. Nor do they link to the quest/mission's page. Most of those stats are not common place or anything, heck, they are on only like 5% of the NPC pages. Having them acceptable to be featured doesn't mean 100% complete - past pages, such as Lore, Charr, and the like were not done to their fullest either. What your asking for is something which will take weeks - perhaps month - for a full dedicated team of people constantly doing the UW and not doing it to win it, but to study it. The only people I know who'd do that is the lore community, but they are not interested in game mechanics in the common sense. What you're wanting is something that won't occur for any article - ever. Unless you get Joe or some other anet employee who can find/know these things. I'm sorry, but that's just illogical. :/ -- Konig/talk 16:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not that hard. Have him hit a caster and document the damage. Cast a high-damage spell on him, record the damage it did, see how many pixels you blew off his health bar. I said estimate, not exact values. Could do it in a single run. Same goes for testing which boss characteristics he has, and making a map.
Also, the walkthrough on that quest page is very limited. I'd love to see a couple of skill suggestions, either on the Dhuum page or a link on the Dhuum page reading something like "for suggestions on how to defeat Dhuum, see <link>." Also, Dhuum lacks a Quotes section, a thing which many other bosses have.
And yea, it's true that these data are missing on many other NPC pages like the ones you mentioned. But don't think I wouldn't have said the same about other pages. NPCs have little info to share, but that just means we should try to document as much of it as possible, instead of just saying, "hey, this page has an awesome image, let's feature it!" And of course the pages will never be complete. But let's at least try to flesh it out a bit more. — Why 17:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I hardly doubt having accurate numbers would be just one run. And I, at least, am not saying this should be featured because of the image (it is true, lot of people are more interested in links, images, and there being something more than lists), I think it should be featured because it is accurate and complete to known lore, its lists are complete, and except for minor things which people hardly focus on (natural regeneration for example) it is pretty much as complete as we can get at the moment. It is really only minor things - some of which doesn't requiring to go and fight him, and those that do, it is a lot of work and people will probably not bother to record it unless they go there specifically to record the information (which is highly unlikely). I still see no reason to not feature this article (and maybe after re-writing some other major boss articles, feature those as well). -- Konig/talk 18:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have too agree with Why here. A article has too be complete before it can be featured and I dont think we can accept a page just because it might be better by the time we feature it. I hope evryone agrees with me on this point. I really have no problem with this page but it has too be full and I dont think a page is ready too be featured if it is only a week or 2 old.--Wysth 18:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

yes, the page isn't very stable right now, but i'm going to try and push it to be alot better. maybe an administrator could monitor stuff and make sure the picture doen't change every hour and stuff. anyways, i'm going to work on this article because it needs cleaning up anyways. also i improved my signature. ------> -- Jrhsk8 talk 23:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

omg this might be a while, just checked the page, and it says, direct quotse here, "Rv is a noob." wtf is that supposed to mean? i better get to work. Jrhsk8 talk 23:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: the page says now, "Rv is a noob. Chucks is awesome though, so it's all good." LOL Jrhsk8 talk 23:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Just minor vandalism. Welcome to the wiki. ;) — Why 00:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a little question do we keep the page in this section or is it better to move it and add it too this section later again we the page is as good as it will be?--Wysth 19:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no consensus, let's keep it here. Besides, while this project isn't meant to discuss how to improve the pages we're talking about, it's what usually happens anyway, so meh, removing it would only cause discussion to be fragmented. — Why 00:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

"Just minor vandalism. Welcome to the wiki." what would be major? anyways, i think it is a little bit more stable now but we probably have to wait. Jrhsk8 talk 23:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Major vandalism would be late night (for us americans as that is the least activity of the wikis) full page/big edit vandalisms. I still don't think the page can get any better due to the requirements to get to Dhuum (those that go just to "study" Dhuum will have plenty of issues with the quests, I'm sure). Hmmm, perhaps getting the stats Why wants is something the Test Krewe can do for the community. Would make things plenty easier. -- Konig/talk 17:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Also, [1]. Shame we can't just copy it. Also, the dance part is interesting. :P — Why 00:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I think now all the information able to be gained that isn't trivial (boss hp for instance) has been noted and documented, and vandalism is down to a normal pages' vandalism. I think now it is ready for featuring. -- Konig/talk 23:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

/agree.-- Jrhsk8 talk 22:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok. — Why 23:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

k... do i move this to featured articles now? -- Jrhsk8 talk 02:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the feature. I still think it's too new and gets visited enough. I agree way up above to wait a bit longer. I am not for this to be featured at this time. After all, many know about it and I'd wait until things died down a little bit more. -- riyen ♥ 04:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Since there is no consensus lets move it to the rejections section.--Wysth 14:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hero behavior

Rejected 12 March 08:27:10

Page is a list and not a good page to show

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

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

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

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

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

Abaddon

Rejected on 20:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC),Can not be featured until edit war/dispute is over

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guide to making a build

Rejected on 13:59, 06 Mai 2010 (UTC),None of the issues have been resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can I move this page to rejected? or accepted since nobody is making some comments about the article.--Wysth 12:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be moved to rejected. None of the issues have been sorted -- San Darkwood 10:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

White Mantle

Rejected on 20:31, 21 Mai 2010 (UTC),no response for over a month and no positive advise

i think with some added info about whats going on on the sub pages and this page would be good to be featured.- Zesbeer 00:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering we don't know what's going on, I recommend against it for the time being.--Pyron Sy 01:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

we should still be documenting the changes in the images.- Zesbeer 01:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely they should be documented. But the very fact that the images are new, coupled with the fact that we have no idea of how far the hints will lead, means the pages will be in a state of flux. In my mind, that automatically disqualifies them from being featured, since the accepted rule is not to feature pages that aren't fully settled in their content.--Pyron Sy 02:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Pyron. It's the same reason we didn't feature Dhuum - it was in a state of flux and was constantly updated. I say wait. -- Konig/talk 03:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Pyron — Why 00:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

let us move it to the rejected section for now. But with the note that it can be moved back if the dust has settled--Wysth 13:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Shining Blade

Rejected on 20:31, 21 Mai 2010 (UTC),no response for over a month and no positive advise

i think with some added info about whats going on on the sub pages and this page would be good to be featured.- Zesbeer 00:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You like these Krytan things, don't you? It's a little much to feature them in succession, and I think this one has one too many images. You don't need to show the "before and after" of the propaganda, I think the first one should be enough. --Kyoshi (Talk) 22:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The wiki is all about documenting the happenings of the game i dont know why you wouldn't show both.- Zesbeer 23:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC)There's an ongoing discussion about the images here, Kyoshi :) as for the article as a feature, I can see a lot of changes being made to these pages in the near future as ANet is hinting at something big, so it's probably best to just wait and see for now. --Santax (talk · contribs) 23:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Santax — Why 00:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I agree. I hadn't seen the discussion, but I'll leave it be. --Kyoshi (Talk) 01:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the "unraveling" that Anet has in store for the White Mantle and SHining Blade - it might be best to document all those (and both propaganda images) on a brand new page, once that has a more definitive name (perhaps we can call it the "Krytan civil war" - since that is what it is), and only edit the Shining Blade and White Mantle pages with a summary of any in-game events we see. -- Konig/talk 03:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Great idea, Konig. That keeps the original pages intact until we actually know something concrete.-- Pyron Sy 13:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The Catacombs

Rejected on 20:31, 21 Mai 2010 (UTC),not a good page

Pretty complete, nice images. Reaper of Scythes** 19:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this page is not what it could be it has a short intro and nothing else only a few rows with things that are in the catacombs I would not vote for this page. Not in this form.--Wysth 15:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Very limited information. (Introduction text wouldn't be enough for even a section to include on the main page), and a majority of it is merely a list of NPC's, aside from the small notes section. I'm against it unless it's cleaned up significantly. Ryuu - Meow~ ♥ 16:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Dragon Festival

Rejected on 14:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC), Page subject to change and not complete

This page does need a lot more in it, but I think it will good to have as the festival is starting soon. It might be possible to add some more lore and expand on the paragraphs. And it will definatly be possible to get and image for it. --San Darkwood 10:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

you know at the time the mini pet page was a good idea, but i think that it was a mistake waiting until the 5year birthday because all of the new pets needed to be added. I have a feeling the same thing would happen to this page. - Zesbeer 10:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, in that case perhaps we could have an article that we already know all about, such as the Dragon Arena. I doubt this will change this year, and it is still related to the Dragon Festival. --San Darkwood 10:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

yes that would work better.- Zesbeer 10:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

DA was already featured. I'd rather have Rollerbeetle Racing. However, if we feature this the week before the Dragon Festival. Not as a "this is what is happening" but "this is the minimal of what we'll get" instead. As said, it needs work - I'll look into it this week - but I would love to see this featured at the end of June (another article, then this one?). -- Konig/talk 21:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I went looking through the four major events in GW, and I think all four should be done in the style of Wintersday - that is, each event (CNY, DF, Halloween, and Wintersday) should hold all information of the event that reoccurs (i.e., don't include 09's halloween quests or that tombs was decorated for 05's wintersday on their respective pages) and have the year pages be more of holding the historical content - including what hats were released that year along with other non-repeating event. So for this, we should have information on the plays, a list of all NPCs, the finale dialogue(s), etc. And basically, except for hats, this will be the same with Dragon Festival 2007/2008/2009 - 2006 being different as there were no plays. -- Konig/talk 21:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved to rejected for now --San Darkwood 14:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to note, I would like to get this fixed up and featured for next year's Dragon Festival. -- Konig/talk 14:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)