Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Featured pages/Rejected pages2

Fast faction farming

Rejected on 09:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC), Page has been merged and is up for removal

this will help a lot of new people, the fast faction farming part will be REALLY helpful, due to the fact that a lot of new people who join guild often ask,"What's DTSC? (or MTSC)" then when the guildies explain it then they will get asked, "whats a good build?" this will save a lot of time! (i know there is a merge, but i think its better seprate) Zoomylong 17:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I HATE IT when noobs do this, very helpful page! vote to feature YoMamma 21:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This article should be getting a merge into the Allegiance Rank page. So no, since it won't exist. -- Konig/talk 21:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If you make sure the article wont be merged we can talk about featuring it. As long as the merge singn is there it wont be featureable. Samething happend with the title survivor. So start a discussing why not to megre it.--Wysth 05:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I posted a removal tag on the page since it has been merged already, so it wont be featurable,--Wysth 09:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Scam

Rejected on 21:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

ive heard so many people who fall for these, this will help people avoid them, very helpful! Zoomylong 21:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

agreed, i like this one it has helped me out a lot.

vote to feature YoMamma 21:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No image, no reasonable paragraph for the first page (imo). So I say no. -- Konig/talk 21:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Konig.--Wysth 05:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I third this. Also, I would be kind of worried about what kind of image you could give this, if any. --- Ness Hrin | 22:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Image would probably be easy to figure out. Text of a common scam or an open trade box containing a common scam, utilizing text underneath both to do a quick explanation of the scam. However, I think that featuring this will just create more people attempting to scam another. This is as much of a "how to avoid scam" as much as a "how to do scam." -- Konig/talk 01:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Konig I again have to agree with you, second I dont think this page adds something to the mainpage if it is featured (as the menageria now).--Wysth 09:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with konig :) --Nick123 20:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Allegiance rank

Rejected on 17:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

since some noob is removing the changes i made to MY OWN COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS im just gonna make a new one this will help a lot of new people, the fast faction farming part will be REALLY helpful, due to the fact that a lot of new people who join guild often ask,"What's DTSC? (or MTSC)" then when the guildies explain it then they will get asked, "whats a good build?" this will save a lot of time! and the allegiance rank helps a lot and explains it Zoomylong 16:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC) JonTheMon is a noob rage comment deleter

Based on the history, it wasn't you. Perhaps you should stop using multiple accounts to change things. -- Konig/talk 17:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

okay i did something stupid, but im serious about this im trying to stop u stupid lore stalkers and get something HELPFUL featured Zoomylong 18:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all stop using bad language. Second I think someone els also explaind it to you this project is not about Helping people it is about giving good articles, articles that have a good writing, nice pictures a good structure and so on, more appreciation, because the people writing this articles spend a lot of them writing them. Third you may not find lore interresting other people do! If we feature a page that is not because it is based on how helpful it is it is because the article is good. If we feature a helpful page that is just a coincidence, for example guide to PVE. Zoomylong, and all the other people that think we need to feature pages just because they are helpfull, I don't want to insult you or give you the feeling your opion is less valuable then mine or anyones but please so acting how you are because it is very insulting to me and other lore interested people.--Wysth

(Reset indent) To comeback to the article, It is indeed a interresting article what I miss is a nice paragraph for the front page or enough text to make a paragraph we can not use all the text from the faction farm section. Furthermore the article looks really like a list.--Wysth 09:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry about my past actions, but im serious about this page (read above, total agree)Zoomylong 15:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Since I didn't give feedback on the page itself before: I agree with Wysth. It's a good article but lacks what's necessary for the front page: a decent sized amount of text without being a list. So it needs a bit of rework until it can be featured. -- Konig/talk 00:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If no one other than Zoomylong has reason against it, I'll move this to rejected on Monday. -- Konig/talk 06:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hero

Rejected on 17:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Very nice page, nice to read, complete and it contains a lot of information that is interresting for players.--Wysth 14:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I quite like the page but i think it needs more pictures and possilbe a pic of all heros other than that its good :) --Nick123 18:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Feels too bit like too many lists. But I think it is good on pictures. I, however, suggest merging Hero flag into Hero#Movement - it isn't a long page and would make Hero seem more complete than it is. There is, however, one major let of: Hero#Selection strategies is a section stub. Until that section is completed, I say no. -- Konig/talk 21:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

very useful, love this page! konig the stub can be easily solved... look forward to hopefully see this on the front page :D Zoomylong 23:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know the stub can be easily solved. But until it is solved, no featuring. -- Konig/talk 00:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

agreed with konig, its true for any page if there is a clean up tag or disputed tag or merge it wont ever get featured until whatever the issue is is resolved.- Zesbeer 01:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont know how i missed it. But I agree as long as it has the tab it cant be featured.--Wysth 18:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If you press edit, and look through the article (I'm currently editing it to reduce overlinking and expand that section-stub bit), there's a lot of places where there is <!---something about needing an expansion---> thus meaning that there is a lot more section-stubs than noted with the template. -- Konig/talk 20:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

thanks to the guy (I think Konig) who reworded what i wrote in the stub, i didnt know how to word it lol Zoomylong 03:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to say yes, very important part of gameplay, and also an interesting read that can help people understand how the Heroes work. ~Farlo Talk 07:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

While that page is a worthy target to make featured, currently it is also a mess. Some points:

• Header "PvE" should be changed, since there is no longer a distinction from PvP needed
• The article lacks some kind of "order". Eg. hero equipment is discussed at 3 different places (customization, kitting out & cheap equipment strategies). This needs to be merged.
• The table under recruitment order is big, ugly and lacks explanation
• The selection strategies section is severely lacking. It only discusses with heroes to get for new *first* characters, not for characters on an account with already unlocked skills. Also completely missing is a discussion of which heroes to take into your party (e.g. problems with melee heroes and pulling, the abundance of necro heroes, etc)
• Only the nightfall heroes are shown in the image galery --Xeeron 10:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If there are no disagreements, I'll move this to rejected on Monday. It can be re-nominated once things pointed out above are resolved. -- Konig/talk 06:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Canthan Culture

rejected 15:05, 26 September 2010

I cannot find the exact page I was looking for, this was the closest I could get, but it was a page about the Canthan empire and the history of the rulers, etc. If this page was editable to expand upon and add images to, it would even be worth putting up there, but sadly, Anet wrote it :(.
If we can't put up this page, or I can't find the one I was looking for, someone else could suggest another page that has a lot of Canthan lore, that'd be great. I hate the x-pac itself, but there is so much awesome lore that most players don't know about through the short storyline, and it'd be cool to get some up on the main page. ~Farlo Talk 17:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Needs a picture. Reaper of Scythes** 18:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean An Empire Divided? I disagree with featuring any kind of official document. Of course those will be "well written" and accurate - it's from ArenaNet's mouth. Pictures for these are sometimes hard to do (mostly in "where do we put them?" not which to get). I think Featured articles should be limited to fan-made articles, not official lore documents. -- Konig/talk 22:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

well until today i didn't even know there were thous articles.- Zesbeer 02:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is surely a great article, but I could have swore there was one that was written by the community, and yeah, it'd be weird to feature an article written by Anet... Oh well, haha. I'll be on the hunt for some other good articles with Canthan lore :D ~Farlo Talk 05:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

its nice just a bit dull really --Nick123 10:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Statue of female Warrior

rejected 15:05, 26 September 2010

While I think it needs a name change (I prefer the name found in the gw.dat, "The Lonely Vigil"), I think this is a great landmark page and could easily be featured. -- Konig/talk 08:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The lack of text vs images makes this page very unbalanced and ugly. --Xeeron 09:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

yea the article is rather boring.- Zesbeer 10:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

it has got anything really in it so id say no :) --Nick123 10:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that's true. Didn't consider that (then again, it was really late for me). -- Konig/talk 19:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Halloween

rejected 04:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

As per Guild Wars Wiki talk:Projects/Featured pages#annual event articles?, since I expanded it, and though it may be needing a little bit of sprucing up (I'm sick and edited while I was getting sick, I probably made some typos), I'd like to nominate it to be featured from October 18 to November 1st (second to next featured article slot as of this post, with the next starting tomorrow aka Oct 4th). -- Konig/talk 05:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I cant see anything wrong with featureing it as long as this halloween isnt to diferent to all the others :) --Nick123 07:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

neutral. still reads mostly like a long list. lots of facts but little of it could really be called interesting. --VVong|BA 10:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm against this, as there doesn't seem to be enough non-list text to even fill out the teaser paragraph on the main page. Besides, the major event pages themselves will already be featured, in a sense, by the usual redecoration of the wiki. I recommend another Halloween related article for that time. Perhaps a fleshed out Mad King page, or the Dhuum article.-- Pyron Sy 18:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Dhuum has little to do with Halloween, it was just added during Halloween that's it. And it's set to be featured tomorrow (unless someone gets snappy and changes the preview page. There really isn't enough on Thorn's article, imo, that isn't a list - just an entry paragraph, images, and dozen+ notes (which I realized deal more with the finale of Halloween and have just moved to its proper page). Though I suppose it could be expanded with lore on Thorn (and should be).

As I said, it could probably use some improvements as I was sick while writing it (still am, bleh! I hate these coughing fits). I'd like to add in a lore-behind Halloween section, much like Dragon Festival#History, but couldn't think of enough to validate the section (only saying it's the celebration of Thorn's return...).

@"as long as this halloween isnt to diferent to all the others" I don't see the point in this. Whether or not it'll be different won't matter. For starters, every festival will have some differences, even if it is as small as the hat (well, except CNY). Then there's the fact that every featured article gets a good number of edits no matter what - look at the Mursaat article, it was constantly revised while it was featured (no thanks to the new War in Kryta content, though few info on the mursaat came while the article was featured). I really don't think we should worry about whether the article will get lots of changes while being featured because it will - even if it is just in the form of grammar corrections and rewording sentences. -- Konig/talk 19:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

well my augment has been not to feature any event has always been that the even always changes and thus so dose the article. also to back up konig's clam about edits after its been featured the hole point of the feature tag is that it brings attention to the article so spelling ect gets fixed before its featured, maybe the tag needs to stick around until the article is actually featured. as for this artical i think it would be fine to feature dhuum he is undead and that's holloweeny enough for me.- Zesbeer 22:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

That is the point of the tag, but that doesn't make a fact a claim (a claim is not a fact - just look at any feature article history, compare to when it is featured, and you'll see that even after the tag's addition (as part of the procedure), there are plenty of edits). The article will get more attention when it is featured than when the tag will be added. It does more for bringing discussion about it than editing it. Though with the lack of attention to the project, that tag is loosing its usefulness...

As for Dhuum - it really isn't linked to the Halloween event, at all. I'd rather feature Dhuum tomorrow and refeature Costume Brawl the next time - or something else that is actually linked to the event. -- Konig/talk 00:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Rethinking this: None of the actual holiday articles are that good for featuring, and even with improvements, might never be. Also, if we're going to go with 52 featured articles with 1 article a week (or so?), then we could feature a poorly-related article this year, and once we get 52 (or more) we could do the cycling and have Costume Brawl for all future Halloweens (and other chosen festival articles for the others - coincidentally, which would be all the PvP formats). So I wouldn't mind Dhuum featuring for Halloween (this year), but not in the future - and if we want to keep the 2 week feature, since we have enough for nearly 2 years, I suggest getting a second Halloween-related article (again, while Dhuum was the focus of one year's Halloween quests, he isn't really Halloween related). -- Konig/talk 20:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

bump. i don't think anything has changed w/ the event articles, so i say we go ahead and feature the costume brawl. --VVong|BA 23:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

um no just because nothing has been announced doesn't mean that there isn't something in the works. lets wait until anet puts out there Halloween post. also i thought we agreed to do dhuum.- Zesbeer 00:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Moved to rejected. Also, Dhuum should of been featured yesterday. Sent a message to Poke for the changing. -- Konig/talk 04:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Team roles

rejected 04:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Completely reworked and expanded! ^_^ --Falconeye 00:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

it looks good but i am not a huge fan of how big the image is.- Zesbeer 01:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest using a different image if/when we feature this, as that image was used when we featured Profession (same size on the article as well), which means needing a new better image, as the weapon images don't really add to the article, except in making it a bit more interesting to the eyes. Also, as long as those 3 section stubs remain, no. -- Konig/talk 01:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

didn't notice the tags in my once over and agree so no feature until the tags are dealt with as it says in the procedure part of this article.- Zesbeer 01:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The PvP sections could use some... help. — Raine Valen 2:04, 27 Sep 2010 (UTC)

I am not particularly happy with mixing PvE and PvP on a "per role" base. Some stuff is just too different. For example, the whole "trinity" idea does not really adapt well to PvE. Would be better to have one big section (or article) just about PvE and one just about PvP. --Xeeron 09:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I think this article should be de-nominated: (a) it's been a month since it's nomination, without anyone endorsing it, other than the original editors; (b) it still has stub tags and needs substantial revamping; (c) it still is a very basic article about the terminology.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 03:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't ever endorse that article to be featured, and I wrote the entire thing at about 3 in the morning at a campground via a netbook and bad wifi. Ryuu - Matters. ≡ 05:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Tis called "move to rejected" - you can do it to and I agree, so I'm moving it down. Also, went and turned your manual resent indent marker to the template. -- Konig/talk 04:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)