Guild Wars Wiki talk:Projects/Featured pages/Archive 2

Proposal

As this project was not getting much attention anymore, I decided to take matters into my own hands. I archived the old discussion, and drew up a system which I think would work pretty well. Let me know what you think of the changes I made to this project page. The details of how featured pages will be displayed are still (more or less) being discussed here: Talk:Main_Page/editcopy#Latest_in-game_activities_box_with_Featured_article. I hope I did not tread on anyones toes by overhauling this project without prior notice, but I thought it was the best way to reinvigorate it. — Why 19:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I might have made a couple of spelling/grammar errors on the page by the way, feel free to correct them. I'm bad at such things. — Why 19:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Order of featuring

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Suggested Featured Pages

We need some sort of system to determine which accepted pages will be featured after a featured page has been on the main page for more than one week. As I rewrote this entire project I decided simply to take the date on which a page was accepted to mark the order in which they would be featured. This might not be the best system, but we needed something we could work with. So, what other options have we to determine which accepted article will be featured before which other accepted article? The chronological way makes most sense to me, but I don't mind doing it in another way. Actually, I have been quite surprised with the lack of discussion on the procedure of featuring a page, a procedure only I was involved in writing. So, comments about this issue and anything else that has to do with featured pages are welcome :) — Why 18:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding some nominated articles

I have noted that there are some articles that could be featured that are nominated, but first needs to be cleaned or expanded. A suggestion for those articles that are deemed as featureable once expanded and/or cleaned (such as the Kurzick, Luxon, and Gods of Tyria articles that are currently up in the Nominated pages section), could those such pages (the three listed and any others that fall under the same issue) be placed in a section such as "needs revision before feature"? Just a thought to keep the Nominated Pages section from bustling with "yeah this article needs to be cleaned/expanded first" or the like. -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 21:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right, but perhaps moving discussion regarding the rewriting of those pages to their associated talk pages will be enough? Huge parts of the discussion regarding the Animal Companion page could be moved, and the Luxon/Kurzick things aren't such a big deal imo. But if you prefer making a seperate section for such pages, sure, go ahead :) — Why 22:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

For the Kurzick/Luxon section, I was referring to the possibility of them expanding because of that. Moving the discussions to talk pages would reduce any clutter on this page, but it would also spread the discussions too much. Which is why I didn't suggest that instead. I'd rather not do anything until more than one other person says something, so for now, I'll just revise the lore-based articles. :) -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 22:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

A new idea, which is actually a tad bit more logical. Once pages are accepted or rejected, move the comments on the articles into two different archives (one for accepted, one for rejected) and just list the article names. This will actually prevent the page from eventually being too big. And might as well start now since it's near obvious that these should go into archives or something eventually. -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 11:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. — Why 01:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

how offten?

how often are we going to switch the featured articles and maybe we need to add a sub page as to what the featured box is going to look like be fore we push it live?-- Zesbeer 02:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You should look here and here. -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 02:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks azazel, i didnt see a link to that page on the project page ill link it.-- Zesbeer 02:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have created Main Page/featured article/next so that layout and images, etc. for the next featured article in the queue can be completed and agreed upon prior to the time it is to be posted. Ok, so I'm once again posting without reading everything first. -- Wyn 08:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

lol Sorry that I beat you to it Wyn. :P -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 08:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Reminder

Hey guys! Just wanted to remind you that anyone of you can move pages to the Accepted or Rejected sections, when you feel consensus has been reached. Atm it is pretty much just me who is moving the pages, and while I don't mind doing that at all, I sort of feel I have a little bit too much power in the process. While that is of course not something I would abuse, I think it would benefit the project if you guys went ahead and moved stuff before I come by and review it all myself. — Why 14:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

I think it is time we implement some sort of archive for discussion regarding pages which have been rejected or accepted, as the page is getting, well, really long. I think the easiest way would be to create a subpage containing all Rejected pages and their discussion, and a subpage containing all the discussion about pages which have already been featured. Any suggestions? — Why 14:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, subpages for rejected and featured sounds good; maybe just leave the most recent featured page there.. poke | talk 16:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with the subpages idea and what poke said - leaving the most recent/current featured article on the main page. -- Azazel the Assassin/talk 17:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll set up an archive when I'm awake again! (it's 3:42 in the night here :P) — Why 01:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you still not awake yet? :D poke | talk 16:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Tsk tsk, Poke, you should know that Why stays awake for 3 weeks then hibernates for an entire week. Of course Why is not awake yet. -- Azazel the Assassin/talk 19:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Lol. I actually sort of forgot about this. I'll see if I can find some time to do it before I leave for Greece. :) — Why 14:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

protection

this isn't a suggestion so much as a question. do u guys feel it would be beneficial to protect the featured pages while they're actively featured? the reasoning would be similar to the reason we protect the front page. --VVong|BA 18:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The page that is shown on the main page is protected. The actual article isn't. I haven't seen much vandalism yet so I don't really see why we should protect pages while they are featured. — Why 19:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The Hall of Monuments was multipully vandalized just today. So it wouldn't be a bad idea, imo. -- Azazel the Assassin/talk 19:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that is necessary though, if it continues over multiple featured pages, then it might be an option. poke | talk 19:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

They were all reverted pretty fast (including one by the vandal? O_o), I don't think it's a big deal. Freedom Bound 19:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

I was wondering what the real criteria for a featured page was. I believe somewhere on the page it needs to say what a nomination should have. Details on requirements such as interested player base, amount of lore used on a page, images for featuring the page, and others that are not listed anywhere but nominations have been rejected for.--Venture 08:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the only things needed for it would be: Having plenty of info (no stubs) - which includes any lore on it, all game mechanics regarding it, and/or walkthroughs - based on the type of article it is; the article being pleasing to the eyes - which usually means a good, but not overuse, of pictures and well formatting; and finally being interesting - an article may be full of information and may be formatted well and easy to read, but not all of such articles will be interesting to read. If it meets those three things, I personally have nothing wrong with it. Though, that is me. -- Azazel the Assassin/talk 08:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

When I did my massive overhaul on this project, I purposely did not include any requirements for pages at all. One of the reasons this project died before is that we had a massive discussion about requirements which really did not progress at all. Besides, it all seems to work fine now, without requirements but consensus-based. Hence I very much oppose formal requirements for pages to be featured, as the current system seems to work great and in the past requirements have done more harm than they have contributed. — Why 14:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I was just speaking my previously unspoken opinion on what pages should go up. :) -- Azazel the Assassin/talk 17:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

what azazel said and also good grammar and spelling(lol that's ironic coming from me a dyslexic). but i think you could copy and paste exactly what he said for what is needed to be an approved page.- Zesbeer 21:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hurry!

We need to accept more articles :) poke | talk 10:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hard to do when very few people put their views. :p -- Konig/talk 20:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggested pages has gotten quite crowded of late. — Why 23:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but how? ♥ Ariyen ♀ 23:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that is because people are more intrested, so am I, I only dont want too vote because I have no idea what is important and what would make a good article. can someone plesae explain this to me!--Wysth 18:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't have any rules. Just judge the articles by your own standards, explain to us why an article should be rejected or accepted. Also we're not voting, we work by consensus just like the rest of the wiki ;) — Why 21:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

okay thx I hope it was okay of me too move the alliance battle into the accepted part of the page, because after reading everything I had the feeling that it was rdy for featuring.--Wysth 06:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

New article

I think it is time too feature the next article can someone do this or explain too me how I can do this.--Wysth 06:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Changes are done every other Monday by Poke. I've already reminded him for this change on Monday. -- Konig/talk 06:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok thx--Wysth 12:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Reading through

Hey guys, before an article is featured, could someone please read through the page and ensure there are no spelling mistakes / grammatical errors in it? I would do it myself but I don't have the time, at the moment. — Why 12:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, when I look for articles being feature-able, I look for grammatical and spelling errors. Of course, being human, I will overlook some things. -- Konig/talk 13:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Rejection/acception

I noticed that the last couple of weeks there has not been bery much attention to this project (also from me). And that the list with nominated pages was getting very long without someone posting anything. I suggest that a page that has not been posted about with in 2 weeks should be moved to the rejected page because then obviously there isn't enough intrest in it to feature it, or if there has been an agreement about featuring it move it to the accepted page. I would be very interested in someones opion this.--Wysth 17:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we could use a time limit on things, though those which need revisions shouldn't get placed in either until a revision is done (for instance, the Gods of Tyria - a worthy page, but not as complete or accurate as it could be). Though 2 weeks isn't that long, I suggest a month. -- Konig/talk 17:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think 2 weeks is long enough because if you reply on something after 2 weeks you wil probaly wont get a answer.--Yours faithfully Wysth 07:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily, there are cases on the wiki where comments don't get a response until a year or more after being posted. I say a month because that is two featured articles' being featured and taken down, and at times, people could be too busy to comment on everything they usually due (due to a deadline or end of the school year or something) for a month or two. -- Konig/talk 11:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand, lets make it a month, I hope you agree with me on taking the 2 articles to the rejection part and one to the accepted section please revert it if anyone thinks this was not supposed to be done.--Yours faithfully Wysth 16:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

ok. — Why 21:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

i think the main thing right now is that most of the people who are from the usa its there school year right now i guess its school for people in europe and Asia as well... ( i dont know cuz i dont live in those places) but that might be one main factor.- Zesbeer 21:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It is also school time in europe and I suppose also Asia, but I think most people can find the time to check wiki once in 2 weeks (thats 2 weekends).--Wysth 13:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I added to the procedure that a article wil be removed if not talked about for 1 month--Wysth 18:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

dude your rejecting everything... we need not to be rejected. just because nothing is being done doesn't mean that they should be.- Zesbeer 09:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Archive

Can someone please explain to me how I can put Article into the archive or give me a link where I can learn too put things in the archive.--Wysth 17:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit the page, cut the section you want to archive out of the page, edit the archive, paste the section there, save both :) poke | talk 06:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

OK thx, I tought there was a easier way but ok--Wysth 07:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

i dont think archiving pages waiting for approval is a good idea. i mean we dont have that many aproved as it is...- Zesbeer 07:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm just wondering what are you talking about? I just archived the rejected pages and the Featured pages. Wich is a good thing I think since the list was getting pretty long.--Wysth 14:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I was dearing through the archive of this talk page and noticed that ther is a list with things a good page is and is not. Maby it is a idea to put that list as an Idea list on the featured pages section?

OOPS forgot too signe--Wysth 20:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yea, when this project was started, there was a huge discussion about requirements for featured pages, it became so long everyone lost interest in the project altogether. After some time of total inactivity I decided to archive the whole bunch and redo the entire project the way I envisioned it, and everyone sort of went along with it. I'm not particularly fond of reviving the "requirements" discussion as it has already killed the project once, but if you wanna write a FAQ or some guidelines go ahead. — Why 20:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok I might do that wenn I have time (that will probaly be christmas time or something)--Wysth 20:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

On Rejected Pages

After a page is rejected, if it were to get a rework and thus becomes something which is more likely than before to be featured, should it be re-nominated when it is reworked? Or should we make sure that what was disliked before is fixed first (that is, in case the article was reworked but the disliked portions was not changed)? Just thought we should clarify this. -- Konig/talk 09:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

imho articles that need to be reworked need to go somewhere other then rejected.- Zesbeer 10:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Pages that are rejected because they need a minor rewrite shouldn't be lumped in with pages that are rejected for being wholly unsuitable for being featured.--Pyron Sy 11:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree too, should we make another Headline with needs rework or something like that?--Wysth 18:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

To bring this conversation back: When a rejected page is to be brought back, how should it be done - removing it from the archive and putting the whole previous discussion back into nomination, or just starting a brand new discussion and leave the previous case alone? -- Konig/talk 05:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

well first i think we need add a rework section, in which we would move link to the article and put the discussion on the pages talk page when we feel its ready to go we make a new discussion.- Zesbeer 06:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

When a previously rejected page is suggested again, simply make a section like for all other articles, but also put up a link to the previous discussion, so people can read why it was rejected earlier. --Xeeron 11:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Page rejection on 30 november

I will put a lot of pages too the rejected part on 1 december because of lack on interrest please leave a message wenn you do not agree --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Wysth (talk).

as i already said don't do this because we don't have enough approved articles now that i have done some stuff in my personal life i will come back to working on the wiki.- Zesbeer 00:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Mere lack of consensus shouldn't be a reason to reject them. Though I also think that if we have no good articles, we shouldn't force acceptation on inferior pages. (Also, welcome back Zesbeer!) — Why 00:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

thanks why also agreed but i dont think they should be rejected just because they need to be worked on.- Zesbeer 00:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Rejection doesn't mean we can't feature it only not now feel free to put them back to the nomination list after they have changed of course.And because I put so much pages on the roll too be rejected, we got, I think it was 2 discussions, about pages and one has been Improved so much that it can be featured I think--Wysth 18:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 2

my thought is that we add another category a kind of not rejected but cant be featured until worked on category so people can see what needs to be worked on, this is so we can work on pages and not reject them to never see the light of day some pages only need a little bit of tweaking to be featured. also the amount of pages we feature is very small so with this added category we can get more pages into the to be featured section. OR we could just not do the hole no interest bs. also a (simple) list of what has been rejected should be somewhere on this page so we don't go thew duplicates. - Zesbeer 00:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see the urgency of that, as rejected pages can just be pulled from the archive and put on the page as suggested again. But I won't object, I guess it has it's uses. — Why 00:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I really think we should stop calling it rejected because it sounds as though it means never feature. :p But as long as we make note and remember that Rejected does not mean that, I don't see what is wrong with archiving the long discussions that go dead (like the Gods of Tyria discussion) until the article has been edited and more feature worthy. -- Konig/talk 00:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Suggestions for a better name? — Why 00:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

How about not ready to be featured?--Wysth 18:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Littel question about this proposal. How about it can we add this section or is it not necesarry?--Wysth 09:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If we do rename the Rejected part, it would be just a rename of that. However, as long as we make it stated and easy to understand that pages which were rejected in the past could be renominated, I don't see the need to do such. -- Konig/talk 10:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Added a small note in the Rejected section, though if you feel we need one at the top of the page too go ahead and add it. :) — Why 15:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I dont think we need another section was just wondering about it because the discussion had been be a bit low for a while. I think if we make it clear that rejected pages are not rejected for ever but after improvements can be re-added again it will do.--Wysth 05:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Been wondering, for returning an article to nominated, should the discussion that had taken place be put up, or should it be a "new slate" kind of deal? Wondering so that we get this cleared before an article gets put in there (I am thinking Gods of Tyria is near feature worthy if not already, though working on all of the gods currently). -- Konig/talk 12:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's easiest to make a new entry and provide a link to past discussion, not to clog the page with walls o' text. — Why 19:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Was thinking that, but wanted others' opinions. -- Konig/talk 00:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that is the best way of dealing with it. Because a article that is re-nominated will probably have been re-written too. So that will give a lot of space for a new discussion.--Wysth 20:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

list of tips

I am writing a list with tips/guidelines for people that want to writ a article ready to be featured and I would like everyones improvements here. It is not mend as rules and if it has been written like rules please change it to a better form.--Wysth 05:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

oh god all i see is a wall of text...- Zesbeer 06:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you're wanting out of the page still with how you set it up, but I made it into lists and not a giant wall of text. -- Konig/talk 08:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The top part of the article is just a discussion I took from the archive and was re-writting it on the bottum of the page but then had to get on my flight home. so did not really had the time to finish it. But what i want with the page is, trying to make a list for people in helping them to make better pages so we will have more pages to be featured and on the other hand also making a list where people could see he the page I want to nominate doesn't have any of this "tips" maybe it isn't such a good page after all. So we won't have loads of useless discussions. but that last part is just a side thing it is mostly for the first reason.--Wysth 20:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Signpost

I've made this, for distinguishing ex-Featured pages, and current featured pages.|Killer demon 20:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

To big and distracting, imo. It should be something the size of Template:gw2w, though the star that is at the upper right corner of the article is enough, imo. -- Konig/talk 03:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I never noticed the star on the featured pages before. I think that is enough to mark them as special, but if a box is needed, something a little smaller might be in order.--Pyron Sy 04:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This a Featured Article.

My suggestion. → –alistic 04:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If we expand it, I go with Balistic's suggestion. It doesn't detract from the article with big icon and irregular colors. -- Konig/talk 05:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I like Balistic's idea. -- Lacky 07:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the small star is good enough, perhaps replace it with File:Main Featured.png. But if you guys realy want a box on the page, I won't stop you. The whole point of the small star is that it doesn't distract from the content of the article. And if you want to know which articles have been featured, check the category. — Why 13:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

no that box is huage and ugly but i agree that the star of transference should be the star icon for featured pages.- Zesbeer 22:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This a Featured Article.

→ –alistic 02:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Balistic's idea is much better.--Pyron Sy 02:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the original Featured Article star. Looks better imo. -- Lacky 10:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

eh looks like 2d crap to me also there is no connection with guild wars were the other one has.- Zesbeer 07:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a Featured Article.

dose anyone disagree with this design? - Zesbeer 11:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC) -->

It's missing 'is'. ‹Lady Chani› 11:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

fixed- Zesbeer 11:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Appreciated. I think it looks good, better than the other option, if someone not on the project is allowed a voice. ‹Lady Chani› 11:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

everyone is allowed a voice...- Zesbeer 11:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the simple star is enough. poke | talk 15:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

what the hell...

how did Tyria (world) get featured? it had not reached a consensuses...- Zesbeer 23:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't know how it got featured either. Kaisha 00:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Wysth moved it to accepted. Also: For: 4 Against: 0 - Even you (Zesbeer) said you were for. The only against was the IP which said "once Geography is fixed." Since being accepted, Pyron pointed one issue, which was fixed, and then there is Kaisha who posted today. It very much was a consensus until Kaisha objected which was today and according to the times of edit (Kaisha's comment; Poke featuring the article), the time frame was literally six minutes between the two (edits being respective). And apparently, Kaisha's disagreement has been taken care of via his edits (removing the spoilers to EN). So to you, Zesbeer, there was consensus until the very last minute which was far too late to really change said consensus to be honest. -- Konig/talk 02:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

my problem was the image and that didn't get change all that happened was that it got removed i also had a problem with the fact that it some how ninjaed edited it and moved the section with my watch list not being informed.- Zesbeer 09:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry Konig, but I don't see 4 for it. I see objects, even in agreement and I wouldn't call that for it. I only see 2 and out of all that, like Zesbeer said, it wasn't fixed with the suggestions. I fixed a few of the problems, but were not eotn spoilers, more so towards gw2 spoilers, as it's more so at the END of eye and also in gw2. Objections as I have noticed, usually go for the against as well, so is put in the "not counted". It's just I don't know where you got "consensus", you or whomever moved it. Poke didn't notice, because he just placed it up there seeing it was in the accepted and not really seeing that it wasn't. Usually, it's asked for it to be okay for a move. I did see that, but I only saw one yes there and I don't count that enough votes or more so consensus to move. What's done is done and I and IPs have had to fix a bit here and there, but It needs more.

Sure we need more articles to display, but we shouldn't display them without real consensus. I hope that this will be a mistake to be noted that next time to make sure you have consensus, before a move. If we don't have any accepted to be displayed, I don't see a problem in one page being displayed a bit longer or one of the older pages to be re-displayed. Which, I wouldn't see as being a bad idea to do at all. Kaisha 17:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Me, Wysth, Why - point blank for (that would be 3, not two), IP, Zeesber - issues that could be fixed: IP's issue was fixed, thus then for. Zeesber's initial issue of two images was fixed, he wanted an image that wasn't of Tyria on the article, i.e., he wanted an irrelevant image on the article, of course it wouldn't have been fixed. So how is 3 initial and 1 who's issue was fixed and anothers' who's issue wouldn't be fixed because it wouldn't be contributing to the article be "2 for" or "one yes"? Since then, one issue was added which was then fixed, therefore 4 for and 1 with an irrelevant issue. Then you posted a disagreement - the first real disagreement - 6 minutes before it was featured. You're starting to make something out of nothing here, since there was, in the very least, a majority (5 of 7 for, 1 of 7 against, 1 of 7 in between). I know a majority is not a consensus, but honestly I find consensus being more or less silly when taken in the context of unanimous, as there will always be people who disagree. -- Konig/talk 19:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You didn't add in Pryon to the non accepting ones, besides you aren't to count the one that suggests it so it wasn't that the move for it was outnumbered greatly, but verily rarely by a small margin. So no, not consensus. As per that page it's 2 for, 3 against.I don't know where you're getting the other "2" from either to make your "7". As I am told, It takes 5 to make a consensus to move it. As for it - it's just you and Why. Kaisha 19:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not a static number. Also, Wysth's nomination of the article to be featured does count, as it does with any nominating system we have on GWW. I've read through the discussion and we have Konig and Why without any reservations at all. We have an IP and Pyron wanting to see a few changes...Konig changed the concerned sections, and nothing was heard from the IP or Pyron after that, assuming they were in agreement with the changes. Zesbeer was not against the article, but for the image that was to be used. It was moved into the Accepted Section 18 days after the suggestion and has sit in the Accepted Section for 2 months without any more opposition. Besides Zesbeer's complaint which was not resolved, there was more than enough time for someone to dispute this article's acceptance. — Gares 20:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Kaisha, I didn't add Pyron to the non-accepting because he was accepting since his one issue was changed (as I said before, and as Gares stated), just like the case with the IP. -- Konig/talk 21:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see anyone saying accept after asking the question of the move, except for one. And if the one requesting the move is added, then why are we knocking them out on other pages requesting moves? Also Konig, the site wasn't up there 3 months, honestly. And it was only in the accepted, the two weeks I was banned. Not that anyone could do much about it. I'd moved it back, stating the same notes. As I said, what's done is done. You're the one, Konig, making the bigger deal by dragging it on out. Instead of realizing that hey there were mistakes, not every one agreed, didn't bother looking at what real problems were there. That's what you get for skimming as so many do, especially even in this project. I look at the page, read the pages. Fix them as to how so many pages are. (yet, you revert going "consistency" and like we have that everywhere, we don't. You fail to look at GWW:BOLD and want it all your way instead of things for the actual better. I'm not the one making this into a bigger issue, just stating facts as Pling fixed in the small article that's displayed and that I fixed on the page. We don't do speculation or in other words informatin that shouldn't be shown for those who have not completed the game. In other words, some pages don't need spoilers, while it's okay on some of the others, because it pertains to that information. Just let it go, Konig instead of you and Zesbeer and all are wrong. I did not see anywhere where Pyron said he was for it. His words, tbh, look against, but let's just take things out of context and not add that teh consensus really wasn't completely decided, but by what a few? who just want to rush things to display? As it looked like at that point. Not unlike a few of the other articles on there. We need more people participating and I can say that with few like you and your let's blame these for they have issues. I can see why some won't. I looked saw things for waht they were. Pointed them out, fixed what I could and asked why things weren't seen to sooner. Not tried to make the issue, that it was turned into. As I have stated AGAIN, "What's done is done. Let's Not have this again." As I am sure we don't want to mislead users on misleading information on pages, etc. If you feature a page, make sure it's good to go and actually looks good (with little to no flaws). I use many different browsers and I will fix those problems again as it does make a difference how some links look and have been fixed on some pages. Kaisha 21:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If people don't comment on anything, they will be moved based on standing majority - this is stated in the procedure section: "Articles should be moved into their respective sections (accepted/rejected) when there has not been comments about it for a month or longer." True, a whole month didn't pass (just a half of a month), but it was vastely in agreement (despite your arguments against) - when people's issues with something is taken care of, they tend to either state that they are still against it, or they don't state at all because they have no complaints. You'll find that there tend to be few people who comment on things they like after a problem they had has been fixed. As for the length it was in accepted, it was moved December 19th, and was put in nomination on December 1st - Hell, you even knew of the nomination before it was accepted]. I'm not trying to drag things I'm - I'm trying to correct you. You say people were against it when they showed nothing to be against it after their issues were fixed, and you say it isn't consensus when it is. Besides, you could very well drop it yourself, you know - it is never one person dragging things out. And now you're accusing me of things I don't do (skimming for this case, I even went into the article's history to find things out, even on the first response).

If you're going to follow the same path as everyone else with calling me egotistical and whatnot, I have nothing more to say to you. But it is funny that you think I care about how the article is or was before featuring. Who ever brought up spoilers? Who brought up speculation? This discussing is about the article being "featured without a consensus" which is incorrect, as I've proven several times, even over here. I won't bother talking about the links, as that discussion is elsewhere (once more, you take one issue and bring it to places where it is irrelevant or unneeded).

My point in this discussion is that there was a consensus, that the IP and Pyron showed no disagreement after their issue was fixed, that you had chance to discuss long before and even knew about, and that your claims that it wasn't a consensus or that there wasn't time is completely false, facts proves this. -- Konig/talk 00:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Assumptions, Assumptions. Yes things were fixed, but that wasn't a month after the suggestion for the actual move. So, no consensus. I only added the Unsigned Ip, not paying attention to the Article. 1. I was multitasking. 2. I was busy in real life. And at this point I feel like cussing you out, because of such idiotcy I see. You have disrespected me and Zesbeer without cause, WITHOUT an appology for doing such. You're making it all seem like it's Approved, for, when I am saying after the question - of how many ACTUALLY said in their own words if they wanted it moved or not, I do NOT see any thing that said they did, those you said did, that I say didn't. The only ones to agree where 3, not 6 or 7 or whatever you want to claim. The ones to have disagreed (before the fixes) were 3, but not enough chances for them to have their say after the fixes (so many may not KNOW that, duh, we usually say when things are fixed.). As there was a question again and then one answer and the move. It wasn't a month. I feel it'd been better respected if It was a month. Obviously, someone can't count. Also, I can say there is no proof on this site it's self of anyone saying the "Article" was fixed and so therefore lacked communication aka people's responses as they may NOT have known. My ordeal is some, and even Zesbeer stated, didn't know all that you're stating now. So rather late. Make sure not to do that with the next article. Kaisha 01:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting how your memory is so good that you recall so much about when you added the unsigned template. And I haven't disrespected Zesbeer. I have no reason to discuss this with you anymore, since you can't be civil. But I do love how you continue to say that three months is "not enough" - no, it wasn't in nomination for three months, but it was three months until the article was featured. Doesn't matter if it was moved down, it can still be commented on. They didn't state any more complaints despite having ample time to do so, and Pyron even posted since the change. -- Konig/talk 02:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You did over on User talk:Wysth‎. Funny you don't recall claiming "If it is anyone's fault, it is Kaisha's and Zessber's for not noticing the article in the accepted area until it was too late." Which is disrespectful. Also not noting that it was Not said on the projects/featured pages - which is where you guys went wrong before asking for the move. Also since asking for the move. And between that and the move - was not a month. Asked on the 19th of December by Wysth, was moved on Accepted on 22:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Is that a month? I don't think so. Even the opposite - asking After it was "supposidly" accepted and "moved". Rather stupid I think. That's my problem. Acting before asking, before actually getting consensus. Does this make sense? not to me. I prefer this to NOT happen again. Kaisha 02:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm honestly wondering why this section is so large considering the topic is relatively pointless. – Emmett 03:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Kaisha I really think that you are blowing up a problem. You may be right if you say something went wrong so let us look at the facts: I moved the article to accepted on 19 december. The article had been there for 2 and a half months. Everyone who has a problem with the article kan move it out of this section if he doesn't agree because consensus has not been reached. Zesbeer had a problem with it could move it back to nomination. (I personnaly thought the problem was solved wenn I didn't hear anything about it anymore.) In these 2 and a half months nobody moved it back. Just before the article was featured you came up with a problem you had 2 and a half months time for. And now you are complaining about mistakes beeing made by us. I personally think it is not our fault but yours you have had over 2 months to look at the article and move it back! as for the consensus I might have made a fault but I think that if we want to feature articles at all we can not get pages featured were everyone agrees because nobody has the same taste. I suggest that we let this subject rest know because we wont find a sollution. Have a nice day.--Wysth 07:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

All I see are and have been with that particular page is... Assumption. You assumed and moved it, Then asked if you should move it the next day. That's not consensus and you should have moved it back. If it's anyone's fault. It's your own for moving it in the first place, then asking as that was stupid. Ask, wait, then move. Not move, then ask. It's clear. Yes it's been sitt over three months in the accepted, where It shouldn't have been, until after your question was answered as you use to do on several other pages. I think you made a mistake and neither of you would hold up to it. The problem or issue is not mine and I am not blowing it up. I am showing the facts and showing that hey look before you act. You created the problem and no one said a word, because they didn't pay attention. We trusted in you apparently in moving the article to accepted, after a clear consensus. I'd suggest to let someone else do that. Don't assume, move, then ask. I don't trust either of you to move those pages, I'd suggest to let sysops move the pages from now on. So, I'd think Why would be better suited. That way we can have someone who does participate, but can also clearly see the reason for the move, ask. wait a month after asking, then move. I'm only having a problem with it, because the last few months have actually been busy for me. I have participated here and there, but not that much. Accuse al you want. the facts still remained that it was done moved, then asked to be moved. Silly, don't you think? Usually you ask for the move. Wait over a month, then move it. Just clearly showed you jumped the gun. I'm pointing that out, as well as the article, etc. that as I said is fixed, but Look before you leap. I think for us to "feature" articles. We do have old ones that can be re-featured, if we can't "pick" out more, not just to move one like that.

The solution: 1. Ask for an okay to move, wait a month to get consensus, then move. 2. If article is needed in featured and the ones above do not or have not met #1., at least over a week (maybe two) before next showing Go to #3. 3. Select an article from previous featured and ask all if it would be alright. get consensus. even a few should be suffice. I do not see a problem in reshowing some articles. After all, you'll have repeats of events, etc. I feel this would help and I would like to suggest and this leads me to... 4. Suggestion: A section for old articles to be re=shown - get consensus to get accepted area (so to speak) - above accepted, below the new ones. 5. Suggestion: A page with the list of all featured articles, not category, but I think this would be nice to look at - not detailed, but a list of each actual page and can be searched in previous featured page category to be displayed again. 6. A list of contributors who participate in this project. Just a nice little thought there. Opinions? Kaisha 10:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

@Kaisha solutions:

1 If consensus has been reached you can move it. The only reasson I post move it back if you dont agree is to make sure that we don't have this kind of useless discussions wenn a article has been featured or is beeing featured because someone doesn't agree. Siriously everyone can remove a article from that list, so I suggest you do it next time.

2 We have lot's of articles I would be ashamed if we feature articles again because we can not find any good articles anymore and! articles that have been featured could be worse then a new article due to updates and stuff.

3 Same as 2 or you might want to explain this piont because I dont get it.

4 What do you mean with this? You mean a archive or another section?

5 We allready got this section it is called the archive. We have it for featured pages and rejected pages with discussions.

6 Why do we want a list of contributors! EVERYONE is free to participate wenever they want! I think suggest a list will scare people away.

--Wysth 14:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

1. If you look at the timestamps of when you placed your single disagreement (7 minutes before it was posted) and the last comment by Konig (2+ MONTHS prior) I think even you would agree that you are being unreasonable in claiming that it didn't have concensus.

2. There are 18,419 articles on GWW and only a very few have been featured, I am totally against the idea of recycling previously featured articles for a LONG while yet.

3. See ^^

4. See ^^

5. Main Page/featured article about covers it.

6. I agree with Wysth, everyone is welcome to participate. It's not that difficult to see who the active users are here.

You are blowing this way out of proportion Kaisha, stop trying to place rules on everything. -- Wyn talk 16:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Kaisha, if I had a problem with the page being accepted, I would have said so. My only concern was the sentence fragment at the end of the article, which wasn't noted until after consesus had been reached and the Wysth asked if it should be moved to accepted. This one problem was fixed, and I had no further issue. If I actually had a problem about it, I would have said so at some point in the last three months. I may not be active on this project, but I do watch it for changes, and add my input where I feel it's needed. If I didn't want it to be accepted, I would've said something. If you had a problem with it, you should have said so at some point between when it was accepted and when it was featured, not after it was already on the main page. If you want to keep using me in your examples of how there was no consensus, how about you actually ask me what I thought. For the record, I thought then (after my one issue was fixed) that the article was ready.--Pyron Sy 11:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Running low on accepted articles

Looks like the accepted section is getting a little thin. If the plan is to feature Miniature the week of the birthday event, then we need three more articles to get cleaned up and ready to accept. With what's already proposed, it seems the Guide to hard mode is the only page that looks ready to go. Guide to PvE was glossed over, but also looks ready. Other than Ariyen's opinion that the article is too new, Dhuum is also ready. The other pages either need too much work for quick acceptance, or need to be moved to rejected (I'm looking at you Utopia).--Pyron Sy 03:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll go look through for more good articles to feature right now, but I think we could move Guide to Hard Mode and Guild Wars Utopia to accepted and rejected respectively. Mursaat just needs another comb through with the Background section to make sure it is only stating necessary information, and Dhuum, I would think could go for just before the Miniature page. The Abaddon article is in a tricky one, to be honest, thanks to Erasculio (who's been causing some other unnecessary issues as of late...). -- Konig/talk 04:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on talk page of Wysth

Moving Articles in featured without a consensus is pathetic. Need to leave them in the discussion until you get more okay. I don't know who moved Tyria, but it was NOT ready to be featured. I and an Admin had to do a couple of quick changes to get the damn Speculation and other info that did NOT belong out. Please, whomever goes to move next one, needs to make sure MORE than just one says fine. I am against the move and I hope this does not happen again. Kaisha 00:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, there was a consensus - everyone who commented at the time (four people) had agreed to feature it. In fact, you are the only person who has stated a disagreement, which was six minutes before poke featured it. Also: how is one line equivalent to four people? As seen here, the people who point out agreed with the featuring was myself, Wysth, and Why. Along with that, an IP and Zesbeer had one issue with them (each), which was taken care of, thus their comments would be taken as agree to feature. And at the time, which was 17 days of discussion, everyone was in agreement to feature it. Since then, only two people commented - Pyron, who's issue was taken care of (thus making 6 people in agreement), and as said yours which was posted 6 minutes before featuring. And even then, the reason why you disagree has been taken care of (that is, spoilers to EN, you bring up GW2 but there is none of that). -- Konig/talk 02:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit: Just to note, one person in disagreement does not mean that everything should be stopped. -- Konig/talk 02:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Konig! But can I ask what this is about? I did not have the time to do anything on this wiki for over 6 weeks(at least I think it is 6 weeks), and did not move any article's for that matter I think this discussion should be posted on the talkpage of the feature page project (althoug I'm flatterd to see it at my talk page).--Wysth 13:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It is there, but apparently Kaisha thinks this is a huge problem when it is hardly even a problem to begin with (this seems like a repeat of Erasculio and the issue of where to separate lore between the two wikis) and decided to post this in multiple placed. There was consensus when it was moved, back in December, but that consensus was lost at the last minute, literally. If it is anyone's fault, it is Kaisha's and Zessber's for not noticing the article in the accepted area until it was too late. -- Konig/talk 19:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Konig, take it easy and don't point fingers. That's how drama starts. - Reanimated X 19:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You failed to notice that I have been banned, right? Secondly, don't expect everyone to check it as often as few of you do. It's not our faults and I don't appreciate you putting blame on others, when it's clear of the real consensus. I posted here, because I know who moves them usually, before it went all over. I didn't post it but in the places it was needed to show there wasn't honestly consensus, even before I said anything. Zesbeer brought it to the projects page. So, please don't be pointing fingers. Just accept that it went wrong and I just hope that the attention is to not let this happen again. I don't want to see repeats of Lacky, Erasculio, and this. I'm sure you guys wouldn't either. Kaisha 20:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

@Reanimated: Don't intend to point fingers or start drama. Apologies. @Kaisha: I don't keep track of people who get banned, and I see no reason why I should - I'm not an admin or sysop. As for "checking often" - How is it needed to "check often" for something that's been up for 3 months - 2 and a half in accepted at that. As for "Zesbeer brought it to the projects page" yada yada, That was well before you posted here, and in fact you posted on the projects page before posting here. There was no need for you to post here as well. As for "consensus": "Consensus is defined in English as, firstly, general agreement and, secondly, group solidarity of belief or sentiment."The general agreement was very much done when it was moved: 3 against 1, which went to 4 against 1 and now it's 5 against 2. This includ Wysth, but not including it is 2:1, 3:1, and 4:2. Double is for than against, it's the general (read: a greater majority) agreement to feature. I honestly don't see how it went wrong when there was a consensus for three months.

To clarify my stance: There was a consensus for a three months and no complaints, even if you don't check often a person can notice such. Just because you don't agree with the article after it was featured doesn't mean it was done wrong. -- Konig/talk 21:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Wysth, Why, and you said go for it in so many words. Pyron was neutral, but slightly against (really read what he says please), Ip was against it, Zesbeer was against it on account of wanting the photos fixed, not as to what was assumed. That would be 3/3 three against three. It's moved during those three months, no consensus. Now that's my problem, you guys moving something that doesn't show clear and I do mean clear consensus. I was pretty well busy, but I see it wasn't noted. I didn't get on that much to really check out a lot more. at this time I did and when I saw problems, pointed them out during of which Poke puts it on main page. It got fixed by 5 people and you undoing a fix that is done on many pages "consistency". Eh, does it look right to see this, (As I did on more than one browser) example: "Testing" ? No, so it looks better to have the whole word linked as I have seen on tons of wiki pages, even here. Some just for some reason puts it opposite (aka as I just showed you). I have fixed a few pages to show full word linked with no complaints, except you. Also, let's fail to see my above words, "Just accept that it went wrong and I just hope that the attention is to not let this happen again." Kaisha 22:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Pyron's comment: "One problem with the article. It stops mid sentence." - his issue was fixed, thus not an issue and showed no other case against (which means for); IP's comment: "Conditional for. Once the geography section has been cleared up (to be fair there's not a lot wrong with it, it's just a bit wall-of-text and rhetorical, it's also not really to do with geography and more to do with Tyria in general, maybe shuffle it about into a different section or something?), I think page will be good for the front page." - his issue was fixed, he even said after that is fixed, he'll be for it, so not against. Zesbeer's comment: "looks good to me though i would rather they use a screen of the in game map instead of one of the user made images but that might just be me, also if i had to choose between the two user made maps i would say the one made by SuperCobra." - his issue was partially fixed. If any of those could be said to be against, it is just Zesbeer. You can't even argue that it is otherwise. Won't comment on the linking thing as that is covered elsewhere. -- Konig/talk 00:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok guys, for one thing, stop counting numbers.... this is mostly pointed at you Kaisha, since you seem to constantly fail to understand the concept of consensus and try to turn it into a vote. If indeed the Tyria (World) article had been on the Accepted list for 2.5 months (which I have no reason to doubt, and less desire to check) there is absolutely no problem with it being placed on the main page. I completely trust that any issues that had arisen during that amount of time would have been resolved. Creating this much text over something that is A) a done deal, and B) a temporary addition to the main page, is just over-the-top drama. While I have not been involved in the featured article discussion/process since making the initial proposal at Emily's request, I have read everything that has been posted regarding this specific issue and I am amazed that you are letting it get so out of hand. Kaisha, I would have thought that after skirting a perma ban for drama mongering, you would have learned something. Step back, take a deep breath, and go do something else. -- Wyn talk 11:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Note on the nominated page

Maybe it is a good idea too make a not on a the pages that are beeing nominated so people who see the page can also give some input.--Wysth 12:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason why not. Depends on how it is done, of course. -- Konig/talk 18:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Some kind of template like the stub notices, I think. Though I have no idea how to make templates, else I would do it. --Kyoshi (Talk) 18:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

yea anyway to get people involved with this project would be a good addition imho- Zesbeer 23:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Time to change

I think it is about time we changed the featured page to Guide to Hard Mode, we have had the miniature page for ages --San Darkwood 16:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree Sam :) --Nick123 16:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

first off his name is san not sam secondly i believe the featured page is changed on a weekly up date (ie with all the other stuff that is changed like the traveler)- Zesbeer 21:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It i changed every two weeks. And we've gone past that two weeks. Poke needs a poke. -- Konig/talk 21:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

We should extend the duration to 3 weeks or something, imho. — Why 11:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Poke said the same thing, and honestly, I agree. But the 17th was the end of week three. Just change the current one on monday, and go every 3 (or 4) weeks from there. This project is slowing down now, and soon we'll run out of accepted articles. -- Konig/talk 15:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll feature Guide to Hard Mode tomorrow, if no more alterations are made to the /next or if another admin doesn't beat me to it. — Why 16:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)