Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Featured pages/Rejected pages3

Dwayna

rejected 05:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

i am unsure if we have many wintersday articles but this would be a good one to feature around that time... - Zesbeer 14:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It can use a lot of expansion. Until then: no. -- Konig/talk 16:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Grenth

rejected 05:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

same as above...- Zesbeer 14:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It can use a lot of expansion. There's no mention of the reapers - his servants - no mention of how they helped him usurped Grenth. No mention of his role in the Underworld, the bit on Wintersday and Dhuum can be greatly expanded. Overall, not enough non-list, non-quote text for the front page, lacking a good amount of information, and the majority of the article is far too listy. It could become a lot like Dhuum or Abaddon, but it's not there yet. (Same amount of expansion could be given to Dayna and Balthazar's articles, at least). He has the most information out of all of the six gods (not counting Dhuum and Abaddon). Far too lacking for what we know. -- Konig/talk 16:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

yea i would just like to point out that we desieded that something being to "listy" was not a valid reason... any how we should fix up these pages so we can feature them... i would do it my self but dont know lore like u do konig... - Zesbeer 15:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

"Listy" and "full of list" is different - what was said as not being a valid reason for no feature would be a large series of paragraphs. This is... a list. Does that mean it isn't feature worthy? Hell no. We just need it to be expanded before we can because unlike "listy" (or "list-esk" as it was called in the past) they're bulletpoints, not paragraphs. -- Konig/talk 03:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Wintersday

rejected 05:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

same as above...- Zesbeer 14:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this would fit into the reason why Halloween was rejected. My opinions: It's lacking a "history" section, not enough paragraph text for the main page, the current intro text info could be expanded upon (there's not even a mention of it being a battle between Dwayna and Grenth until the finale section!), and it's simply just a bunch of lists. -- Konig/talk 16:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Lyssa

rejected 00:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know, Dwayna and Grenth have already been rejected. Lyssa, however, does have more information than the other Tyria Gods (including areas of interest), and maybe a little more than Dhuum who was featured already. Also, in my opinion, one of the nicest looking articles on this website with some of the best pictures. -Rach 00:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Lyssa has the least amount. There's a four sentence paragraph, then quotation, quotation, quotation, Festival of Lyss (should be moved above the quotations - which I shall do alongside a quick rewording to fit my personal tastes), list, scripture passage, list, list, list. Like Dwayna and Grenth (and, for that matter, Melandru and Balthazar), this page can be improved. Disagree with feature. -- Konig/talk 01:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Made minor changes that I said I would above, but there's still much needed room for expansion before it can get considered for a feature imo. Also, there's a section-stub (same as Grenth, Balthazar, Dwayna, and Melandru) for the statue's location section. -- Konig/talk 01:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Well you took out the area of interest which could have been incorporated into the locations. Also, in my opinion, the Festival of Lyss could have been it's own section if a little more information was added instead of adding to the intro paragraph. Don't see how you could disagree on this when Dhuum has maybe a little more info and a pretty bad layout compared to the colorful Tyria Gods articles. -Rach 01:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't take it out. I moved it to the bottom into a see also section because, really, that's what it is. "Area of interest" is typically used for large locations and a god is not a location. Unfortunately, there isn't any of that "a little more information" - and it already contains a majority of what's on the festival's actual page. And honestly, Dhuum has much more original and non-list information. Lyssa has 2 paragraphs (95 words), everything else is quotations and lists - neither of which can be used in the front page. Dhuum has 4 paragraphs (198 words), and then lists mandatory for NPCs. Lyssa might be longer but its information is lacking in comparison, especially once you remove the non-front page stuff. And personally, I dislike the look of the quotation template, especially when piled on top of others. Not to mention that half of the quotation stuff is repeated, and Dhuum lacks a scripture that the other gods have. -- Konig/talk 02:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Moving it doesn't mean taking out all the info and putting in just the names. The descriptions of the areas of interest weren't bad, and removing the content and just putting the names into the "See Also" section is kind of degrading to the article as a whole. And I never said a god is a location, but if all of the major Tyria gods have no actual "location" in the game (if I can remember), then why just leave a stub for location? Also, why would you not count the description? Just because it's italicized and taken from manuscripts doesn't mean that it's not interesting. The whole intro paragraph for Lyssa is basically just a rewording of the description anyways. The description is 4 paragraphs with 345 words not counting all the other parts of the article. If we're going by word count alone, Ascalon (pre-Searing), an accepted article only has 107 words which is an insignifcat difference from Lyssa. The inscription, as well, is interesting in my opinion, but you're treating it like it's not even there just because a user didn't write it... -Rach 02:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

1. I didn't remove "all the info" - it was unnecessary information and half of it was commentary. "It's easy to see the influence of Lyssa in the shape of this area." is hardly lore unless you can provide a source which states that's an in-universe observation and not a player one. And "The Font of Lyss is a holy site for the priests of Lyssa" is better placed at the top rather than in a area of interest section. Not to mention that the list was ugly in how it was set up with "a name (next line) a name. commentary. (next line) a sentence." Any importance they had is, as I stated, better at the top. This was just a minor revision I did.
2. The locations section is for the statues and it's unknown (or uncertain) where all the statues are. I never said you said it was a location, I said that "Area of interest" is something used when talking about a location - i.e., the section that I renamed made it seem like a location.
3. The description is just repeated stuff with an alteration for the different culture. You just proved that Lyssa has even less than what I said. And I'm not treating like the scripture excerpt isn't there. As I said before "everything else is quotations and lists - neither of which can be used in the front page" - guess what, that scripture is a fancy looking quotation.

Bottom point: There's not enough original and well written paragraph-formatted text for the front page. Add the section-stub, and it just isn't feature worthy. Not that I wouldn't want to see this featured, I just think it needs a major overhaul, all five primary god articles do. And it's on my list. -- Konig/talk 03:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, some of the info in the points of interest was commentary, but that can be easily changed in a few minutes. Anyways, that section may have looked a little out of place, but you can hardly call it "ugly" compared to other articles not as well made as this one. Yes, quotations and lists can't be used in the front page, but that doesn't mean that it's not there. And of course the scripture is a quotation, that's why it's called a scripture. That doesn't change the information. It's not that difficult to find enough information on Lyssa for the front page. I don't see how that'll be a problem considering how much is known about Lyssa compared to other obscure articles. -Rach 03:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I can call how the section was "ugly" because it's my opinion. And nothing says I wouldn't call other articles ugly either. "Yes, quotations and lists can't be used in the front page, but that doesn't mean that it's not there." Apparently you have selective reading, because no where did I say it wasn't there or that it's unimportant. Though it doesn't look good to stack three of them on top of each other - as bad looking as Ascalon, if not worse. Though again this is my opinion. Fact is that it isn't enough for the front page. If you looked, we take the text that goes onto the front page from the article. That article is lacking said text.

And something I missed previously: "If we're going by word count alone, Ascalon (pre-Searing), an accepted article only has 107 words which is an insignificant difference from Lyssa." - word count is irrelevant. Size is irrelevant so long as we got enough original and well written paragraph-formated text for the front page. Lyssa, as I stated countless times now, lacks this. Last comment on this matter since you clearly either are not wanting to listen to what I'm saying or are incapable of doing such, considering every comment of mine has roughly been the same with the same point emphasized. -- Konig/talk 03:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it can also be your opinion to say that pie tastes bad, but that doesn't stop me from disagreeing. And I never said that you thought that quotations weren't there, I was just stating that we shouldn't ignore them... Also, seriously, now you're saying that I have "selective reading?" Dude, I've spent at least half an hour on this and now I've apparently developed some reading disorder. I've been reading the featured pages projects for a while now, and I know that if you disagree on something, then it's definitely going to be rejected since you're pretty much charge of this project. I'll stop arguing my point, because obviously, I'm wasting my time and should probably be fixing my reading problem. -Rach 04:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Humorously enough, it is my opinion that pie tastes bad. But point being that I was stating it was my opinion because you said "you can hardly call it "ugly"" which was basically stating that I cannot state my opinions because something else is more extreme than the topic of my opinion. But back on topic... There's a difference between ignoring them for front page text and ignoring them for feature-worthiness. I was doing neither, it's just that in that line of thought I was ignoring them because I was talking about front page text only. And I'm not the head of this project. It's just that no one else is interested in it. Though I honestly cannot see how anyone can think any of the five main god articles are not in need of improvement - whether in the sense of featuring or not. -- Konig/talk 04:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

yes konig ur the only one who dose anything in this project OH WAIT.- Zesbeer 05:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It was an exaggeration - more like "I'm (next to?) the only one who's actively doing things (I'd argue that even you're not active, Zesbeer). -- Konig/talk 06:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

before u moved them all to rejected the only nominated pages were pages i nominated with the exception of gwen- Zesbeer 08:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Untrue but irrelevant. What be your opinions to this article? -- Konig/talk 20:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

i felt i didn't need to post what my opinion were on this article because you already sated them my main issue is the "this area needs to be expanded" tag.- Zesbeer 23:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Moved to rejected due to the section-stub. -- Konig/talk 00:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Guide to modifying in-game graphics

rejected 07:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This may not be the exact page to be featured, but I think there should be a featured article for the program as well as the modding community. I know it isn't officially supported, but it is also allowed under the idea that Anet isn't liable if you break something. I think it'd be cool to see a rise in the modding scene, although anyone who doesn't take part in it may disagree *shrug*.

If a modding page were to be featured, I think we'd either have to redo the page above A LOT, or create a more feature-friendly "starting page" that would have links to the page above, more user-friendly descriptions, maybe a "featured mods" column, links to the complete database we have, to the Guru forums, etc. If we got a page made, it would take a bit to get enough text on the page without making a huge list of redirects (if it's even possible). Any thoughts or suggestions/ideas for making such a page or featuring it? ~Farlo Talk 09:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There's not enough paragraph-form original text for the front page. Most of it is lists, and the only decent/good sized paragraphs are quotes from Anet saying it's okay to have such. Features shouldn't be used to cause a "rise" in anything, just increase traffic/attention to particularly well written wiki articles (plus the "modding scene" is pretty big from what I last noticed, it's just that people don't tend to share their mods on this wiki - if at all - or tell others they're using mods because it's unnecessary to do such). This, I must say, is not such. Informative, yes, but well written, no. As you said, it would need a lot of work - the fact you said this means that you should of tried reworking it before nominating. -- Konig/talk 19:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

i don't feel "good" about featuring this because it is a gray area for anet as they have said. and i have even heard (key thing is its second hand info so i don't know how true or false that is) of people getting banned for using text mod. i also agree with what konig said. but i wont appose it if there is enough of a change to that page/ enough support, but i will not be the one changing that article or be active in support of it... - Zesbeer 00:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this should be featured. I feel that we have other more worthy articles of featuring. Though I do use this program, I don't think it's really worthy of a front page article to support something that can cause issues. Kaisha 03:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Aidan

rejected 14:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

konig nominated but was to lazy to list them.- Zesbeer 00:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I did not and was not - I said if Keiran is accepted, then I would. -- Konig/talk 01:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm "unnominating" this article (as according to Zesbeer I nominated them) due to their shortness in comparison to other NPC articles (and we're getting enough NPC articles to feature) - it wouldn't create an interesting enough read for people. -- Konig/talk 14:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Cynn

rejected 14:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

konig nominated but was to lazy to list them.- Zesbeer 00:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I did not and was not - I said if Keiran is accepted, then I would. -- Konig/talk 01:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm "unnominating" this article (as according to Zesbeer I nominated them) due to their shortness in comparison to other NPC articles (and we're getting enough NPC articles to feature) - it wouldn't create an interesting enough read for people. -- Konig/talk 14:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Player versus Player

rejected 23:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Going through the featured/rejected pages I saw that not a lot of pvp has been given attention. Though (looking at recent changes) the average sctive wiki-editor leans towards PvE, PvP is part of the game too. It once was a great selling feature of the game, but lately have been lacking active pvp-players. a feature like this one would atleast might give players the idea to try it out and hopefully give a little boost to the amount of people playing it. The page looks ok to me (maybe a little bit of rework, but not a lot). so please comment. Rumian 09:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

right off the bat the red links stick out to me. other wise i don't think i see any clean up tags. feel free to be bold and clean it up in areas that you feel are lacking.- Zesbeer 10:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

removed the red links. Thanks for pointing them out. Rumian 11:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

no problem but i noticed on a second look thew that there is a incomplete tag at the top of the page. no feature until that is resolved.- Zesbeer 12:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Stub must go before featuring (also, there's not many PvP articles to feature, let alone well written ones - the best we get is tactics like Snare). -- Konig/talk 19:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Due to the lack of work on removing that stub from the article over the past month, I'm rejecting this. -- Konig/talk 23:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't active on the wiki during the past 2 months or so, but what is that stub exactly about? A quick glance at the whole thing doesn't show anything important missing? razor39999 09:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't know personally, I don't PvP. I was leaving it up to someone who does to determine whether it's still a stub or not. -- Konig/talk 10:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

War in Kryta marketing

rejected 17:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You can't deny it, it was a great time in gw history if you paid attention to forums or the wiki. It seems good for putting in the feature rotation to me. -- Konig/talk 05:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The article itself is nothing but a huge list. Or possibly several long lists. -Auron 06:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see this featured, but imo it suffers the same issue as any article with endless lists: it's long on data but short on information. The opening is also a bit tl;dr compared to other articles. There are lots of ways to address this (assuming others agree it's an issue). Some possibilities are:

• Moving the facebook lists into a subpage.
• Highlighting the critical days.
• Associating specific tweets (Ok, technically, not tweets, but same idea) with the gallery.
• Pulling out a portion of the top paragraph and creating a timeline section, which combines some of the above ideas.

I wasn't around when this was happening, so I'm glad to see it documented.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 06:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I personaly think its a bit to listy to be featured --Nick123 20:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

While this could be potentially a feature-worthy article, it is a long way off. For me the question is: Why try to feature this, instead of War in Kryta, which seems the more obvious target? --Xeeron 10:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The difference is huge. Featuring "War in Kryta" would be like feature Guild Wars Prophecies in my mind. The viral campaign is easily overlooked even on that page.

@TEF: I disagree with moving the facebook lists onto a subpage, personally, since the viral marketing page is already, in a way, a sub-page. I can agree with a timeline idea though, unsure for the "associating specific tweets with the gallery" part. Perhaps condensing the facebook lists since that seems to be the major issue people have. -- Konig/talk 19:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with any idea that turns the page from looking like a copy of facebook or twitter into something that presents an informative restatement of what happened. I don't think there's enough value in printing the long list in the main body of the article; perhaps it can be hidden (as we have done with NPC locations). Then we can focus on the key ideas for the article, using a subset of the tweets to illustrate.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

looks good to me:p naloj 10:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Community events rock, and I think it should be featured. I wasn't around to see it either :(. If a decent solution for shortening the lists is found, I support it. TEF's idea of collapsing them is alright. ~Farlo Talk 23:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Cantha

rejected 17:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

good page.- Zesbeer 01:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see a change to the "After Factions" section but on second thought maybe that could be kept and merely expanded when WoC comes about. -- Konig/talk 01:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

There's too little text to feature this imo. -- Konig/talk 22:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It needs some more work done to it, than that of which it has. Kaisha 00:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Cantha is a great campaign, I totally agree that this should be featured. ‎ Scar 03:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Konig, why is this moved here? It's between positive and negative, not enough to determine either. I'd like it moved back. Kaisha 22:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

i am glad someone else see's my point....^- Zesbeer 03:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki talk:Projects/Featured pages#A state lowering quality and Guild Wars Wiki talk:Projects/Featured pages#top 2 rejected..... Long discussion short: For all of these rejected at the same time as this article: There was equal or mostly disagreements to featuring and discussion has stagnated indicating that without altering the article said discussion would not remain. Likewise, after about 3 months there were no such improvements to this particular article. Alongside this, based on previous discussions as of late, discussions would only resume when it is represented rather than someone making a comment in the discussion.

That said, 2 against, 2 for, stagnant; I rejected. Keep in mind, rejected articles can be renominated at a later date (preferably after improvements). Konig/talk 04:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The Stagnant was not long enough to be moved. Your reject was one of the 4, not reason enough to move. Also, more explanation on the talk. <3 Kaisha 04:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, to clarify, and I'm going to use bold as I said this before: I did not reject purely because I disagree with it. At the time, I was not the only against, as "It needs some more work done to it, than that of which it has." - which was your comment, Kaisha. The stagnation was mainly in reference to the other articles (as I said "For all of these rejected at the same time as this article"). Konig/talk 16:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Tyria

rejected 17:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

an even better page.- Zesbeer 01:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see an improvement to the intro paragraph for front page featuring. -- Konig/talk 01:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the World page would be a better feature, and even if we just do the continent, I propose using This image, or at least a chunk of it. It's really well made, and is a bit different from the map we see every day. ~Farlo Talk 23:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Tyria (world) was featured, before it had its history section removed (due to it basically being the same as History of Tyria, which is what a good portion of Lore and is within Human (both features - though the later wasn't at the time) and is only a history of the continent). -- Konig/talk 23:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense. I should have checked that, haha. I wish there was more original writing, because I think the World article is a lot more interesting than one area, but if it's been going like that, then I guess there' no point changing it. ~Farlo Talk 00:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Many articles have been altered after featuring - in fact, I think all of them have, the question just remains at "how much were they altered?" Charr, Lore, and Tyria (world) are three I know which got heavy alterations. And they will again (or rather, the later two will). -- Konig/talk 05:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There's too little text to feature this imo. -- Konig/talk 22:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

If the main beginning paragraph had some more to it. I'd be a bit more for it, but it doesn't have enough that says "feature" to me... Kaisha 00:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Elona

rejected 17:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

same as above.- Zesbeer 01:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

May need an additional sentence or three for the front page, but otherwise good enough for me. -- Konig/talk 01:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at this again, I think this, and the other 2 continent articles, can and should be improved before feature. The intro text is too small for front page for this and Tyria, and I'm sure we could fit in a better format for geography (that bullet-point "major regions" always seemed like a placeholder to me, it just doesn't look so great). -- Konig/talk 05:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There's too little text to feature this imo. -- Konig/talk 22:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this page could use some more work, before being featured. Kaisha 00:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ascension

rejected 17:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

i feel like this is something a lot of people dont know about and need to know because i mean 200 skill points are pro.- Zesbeer 08:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

THERE'S 200??? HOW'D YOU GET THEM? /noob This would be a good feature, but it needs a lot of work. If it was expanded with a history of those who tried, their failures, etc, it would add a lot to the article and be a good branch for other lore and civilizations.~Farlo Talk 00:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks for joining in on the discussion, also nice trolling.- Zesbeer 06:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't troll too much did I? lol. Although I fear the same would happen with this as Tyria (world), any thing added that would be informative and helpful already exists elsewhere (and probably featured). ~Farlo Talk 09:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's the case, actually. The lore behind it could probably be expanded a bit, but I don't think there's been a feature on anything that is or can be on that page. -- Konig/talk 19:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There's too little text to feature this imo. -- Konig/talk 22:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)