Guild Wars Wiki talk:Projects/Featured pages/Archive 3

Suggestion for the project rules: 1 alteration, 1 new

As per above, I suggest we change the 2 weeks to either 3 weeks or 4 weeks (or simply one article a month). I prefer the 3 weeks because it will get dull eventually.
A second thing I want to bring up is an idea for when/if we run out of accepted articles. What I suggest is to create a new list for should this happen. This will be a list of articles that were once featured but got a major overhaul. For instance, Lore got an expansion and by the time GWB is done, it will be bound to get another expansion to summarize those events + to add a link to a bigger summary of said events. We could, technically, feature this two more times - before and after GWB finishes and it gets an update. There are articles that were featured which could use a rework - namely Tyria (world) and charr (the former because of new info from interviews which basically retcons "human beliefs" and the second because, honestly, I would never have agreed to feature it if I knew of the project before it went live because the charr article is so inconsistent with other articles in terms of its lore additions (for some reason lore is in the notes section, when it should be above the culture - which, mind you, is lore too, but that was done accurately)), and as such when they get said rework they could be added to said list.
I am sure there are other articles which could use a rewrite and, in turn, be reasonable to feature again but only if we have no accepted articles. So, to make sure people are not confused, this is a failsafe for the project. -- Konig/talk 15:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on #1 (month would be nice), not sure about #2. I guess we could cycle pages we have featured before (and if, at that time, you still have a problem with the Charr page I'm okay with taking it out of the rotation) or re-feature pages that have been expanded heavily due to new content. If the time comes when we're out of pages just throw me a list of pages you want to cycle when we don't get new pages in time and things will work out fine I guess. — Why 16:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me clarify my reasoning for bringing this up. If we don't have accepted articles to feature, we can't just keep the same article up the whole time. So we will - sooner or later - having to feature already featured articles. As such, I am merely stating that those which have gotten a decent rework should get the priority over others - whether they are newer or later. Unless, of course, it was a rather recent feature (read: within the last four to five articles). The purpose of composing a list would be merely to separate the two, to make it easier to pull out the reworked articles instead of having to go through each article multiple times. -- Konig/talk 16:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. — Why 16:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I know I haven't had much time to check this project the last time, but if I look to the nomination list we have enough pages that are possible to feature. What I see is that most pages are not beeing accepted because one persone blockes the article over very minor reasons. Wich makes the project for me not as interresting as it was and slows down the project. Therefore I think we not need to recycle pages but just make sure pages are getting accepted faster. For example Survivor has not been discused about for 2 weeks, Tank has not been talked about for 3 weeks and is ready to feature langues of tyria not for 1 and a half month ready to be rejected, White mantle and shining blade rejected for over one and a half month, same for catacombs and I can go on. My point is there are pages ready but they aren't moved. Maybe someone not beeing me can start moving pages to?--Wysth 20:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

well what needs to happen is other people need to talk about the pages that need to be "voted on" and some times we reach the concussion that the page should not be accepted because of x/y/z i dont think pages should be rushed threw because what will happen is what happened a few weeks ago where a page was accepted before it was ready and it had lots of spelling mistakes and other issues.

as for this suggestion i think our goal for this project should be getting 52 articles in the the accepted "list" that's not very many but it is the amount of weeks there are in a year. that way we can cycle threw an entire year with a article a week and if we can come up with 52 articles then i think the goal could be adjusted to a daily change so we would need 313 more articles 313+52=365 yes that is a big jump but if we reach 52 articles and feel we need more that is another goal that we could set. or we could have a few alternate articles that we swap in the the rotation.- Zesbeer 21:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with that number. I think that, once we get to the point of permanently repeating - if we do (because, you know, we could add and remove articles from the list) - we should keep it at 1 week, otherwise it wouldn't get that much time to be seen and it won't appear for a year! Instead of 52, however, I suggest either 104 or 156 - 2 or 3 years worth. And not always in the same order. I suggest grouping them into groups of 8 (ideally, 1 group is 2 months) and regulate randomly through those groups using a system similar to the Zaishen quests. I prefer 104, not too many, not too few, and 2 years worth. -- Konig/talk 21:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

how many articles do we have accepted right now?- Zesbeer 21:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

to answer my own question 20+ 3 that are about to be featured i think we should shoot for a small goal first and then expand it so we have some sort of reach able goal.- Zesbeer 21:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There is bound to be 100 good articles out of the 18,709 that are on the wiki. We already have enough for 1 every 4 weeks to go through an entire year and then some (as only 13 are needed at that length), and we have enough for every 3 weeks. But with every 2 weeks, we'll need 26 to cover a full year. Past that, the only reasonable number - to me - is 52, which is nice and small enough. -- Konig/talk 22:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

ok so by the end of this year we should shoot for 29 more articles to reach our goal of 52 articles. and then next year our new goal will be another 52 so we have 2 years worth of articles to feature.- Zesbeer 22:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Since there are 4 articles accepted I think we can go back to 2 weeks dont we?--Wysth 05:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Bringing this topic back up: Right now, we have 37 articles featured and 6 accepted - giving us 43 total - meaning we need 9 more (as mentioned in the new subject at the bottom). Due to the project becoming slower and slower, and having more and more troubles with finding featurable articles (at least that's my issue), may I suggest doing two things:

1. Go through the rejected archives, and fix up articles where possible, then reconsider them for nomination (don't necessarily have to nominate the articles).
2. More importantly, I'd like to rediscuss the notion of putting the articles on a cycle. Via above, it seems that me and Zesbeer are in full agreement to eventually put this project on a cycle once we get enough articles - with Why and Wynsth being iffy. With the issue I mentioned above (lack of new nominations), we might not be able to get the 104 articles Zesbeer wants (2 years worth of articles). So perhaps we should start a recycle once we hit 52 articles?
   

Along with this, I'd like to note that I am not opposed to nomminating new articles after the cycling has started - and merely add that article to the cycle if accepted. That way, we'd know we'd never run out of articles and we know that we have enough articles to last a year before a repeat in them. Sounds like the best way to do things with how things are going. -- Konig/talk 22:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Major acception/rejection on 21-05-2010

Today I did a major acception/rejection with articles if someone doesn't agree pleasy move the pages back. I think it was a really needed update on the page!--Wysth 20:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

the only thing i have a problem with is the rejection of Languages of Tyria i am unsure if a page being a long lists is a disqualification and am unsure if there is lore or something else that could be added.- Zesbeer 01:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I share the same thoughts on whether it should of been rejected. At this time, nothing can be done to it unless we manage to translate the Asura text and get a clarification on the translation of the Old Kurzick (as there is no direct translation, it would seem). I see nothing as to why it isn't feature worthy and of all the articles we have, that possibly has the most research put into it. -- Konig/talk 01:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to move it back.--Wysth 19:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

suggestion for rejected pages

Shouldn't we add the clean up tag to all of the rejected pages? or at least a modified tag so we can announce to people that the page had been nominated but failed because it needs clean up or some other change ect, and link them to the discussion ect?- Zesbeer 21:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Not all of them. Some are not featured because they just don't work with our view of a feature page, but nothing is wrong with them in terms of the article itself. In terms of pages like Abaddon, then yes, a tag could be helpful. But in terms of Nicholas the Traveler? No need. And even then, pages like Henge of Denravi - nothing is wrong with it, it could just use something to make it interesting. But what is there to add? -- Konig/talk 22:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

agreed... so should we make a new clean up tag a rejected feature page tag?- Zesbeer 22:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I dont think a new tag will add something to the tag itself. It doesn't matter if a tag says this page needs a clean up or this page needs a clean up because it has been rejected. What I would suggest is a tag for pages that are nominated so more people get involved in the project (if that isn't there already).--Wysth 09:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

they are notice the little star. a few topics up was an idea to change it. also i still think we should put clean up tags were appropriate.- Zesbeer 09:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The star is for featured, not nominated - I agree that we need a template for nominated articles, something that says something like "This page has been nominated to be featured. Please join the discussion over [[GWW:FEATURED#<name of article>|here]]." And go and put the (already existing) clean up tags (or {{rewrite}} tags) on articles requiring such. -- Konig/talk 01:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

konig you seem to be a better judge of what needs clean up then me other wise i would add the tags my self i agree to the nominated tag.- Zesbeer 10:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll tell the big gorilla to add the tags, but I think he'd be better off with climbing towers. :P -- Konig/talk 19:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

what if for articles we are thinking about we put something like this:

This article might be featured please give us your feed back.

i am sure we could have it so it would be a template were we can link to the discussion- Zesbeer 22:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC).

My wiki powers are weak, but isn't something like adding a #{{NAMEPAGE}} to the [[Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Featured pages]] bit? -- Konig/talk 02:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be better?

This article is nominated to be featured please give us your feed back here.

I think that would be better.--Wysth 06:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

why would article be purl? its only one article at a time that would have the tag on it. - Zesbeer 06:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

what about this:

This article is nominated to be featured, please give us your feedback!

- Zesbeer 06:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I dislike the cluttering effect that boxes have on pages. If you really really want this, please place the boxes on the talk page, not the article page. --Xeeron 10:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

i dislike u jk. the hole point of tagging the pages is so people notice it, it defeats the purpose to put it on the talk page only.- Zesbeer 12:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

First I think your second box is the best of al three Zesbeer, Second I think putting the box on the talk page will not bring a thing we wont get the attention people we need/want from the people. If we put it on the page people that visit the page will see it immidiatly and might consider visiting our page and joining not only one discussion but also others.--Wysth 15:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As Wysh and Zesbeer said: Putting it on the talk page is not the way to go. I like the latest one, and we have to be sure that with rejection/acceptance to remove said tag. -- Konig/talk 18:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Imo, the people interested in the project will more likely come via the main page link, not links in articles. But it is not a big deal and the majority seems to be in favor, so go ahead. --Xeeron 22:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As I'm the person who moves the most articles i will makesure the tag will be removed. Dont we need a acception/rejection tag to?--Wysth 05:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No, there's no need for that. Just removal of the tag - if it is accepted it will get the star once featured; if it is rejected, depending on why, it will get a cleanup/rewrite tag. -- Konig/talk 05:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I'm going to go through the rejected works since the project was brought back up (i.e., not going through this) and see what should be reworked or not. -- Konig/talk 05:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a very good idea.--Wysth 06:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Eh, those that were in need of a rewrite have gotten them or I don't think they need it (or I didn't go through the differences enough to think whether it needs it or not considering the time difference). -- Konig/talk 07:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

2 questions then shall we renominate the articles now that they have been fixed up? and 2 which tag is best i like the last one but would love it if we could add the exact discussion link to the feed back link also i have no idea how to make a template page. - Zesbeer 07:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

First question: I think we have to look see it from article to article. Second question that would be perfect but I to have no idea how to do that.--Wysth 12:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it just be copy pasting the above into a Template: page? As for the exact discussion, I think (but not sure) that all you have to do is to add #Projects/Featured pages/Archive 3 to the end of the link. That should, I believe, make it individually going #Shiro Tagachi, #Dhuum, #Languages of Tyria, etc. when it is put onto the page. Though I may be wrong.-- Konig/talk 19:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

i think your right but i dont know how to make a template page. so if you want to go head and do it that would be awesome. then we can start tagging and bagging.- Zesbeer 23:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you simply copy the code for whichever of these you have decided on to a page Template:Featured or something similar. Then you would add it to page by typing {{Featured}}. I personally would prefer that the box were smaller, I mean, at least 1/3rd of it is empty. I do agree that too many of these things on a page gives the page an overall cluttered look. -- Wyn talk 20:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I think this box will get more people get involved in the project. And we really need that because atm there are 4 or 5 people checking the page on a regular base.--Wysth 20:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

@wyn do you have any suggestions on how to make the box smaller? and is there a way to make it direct you directly to discussion about the page? @everyone else which one is best? i think the last one but that's just me.- Zesbeer 21:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Last one is best imo. -- Konig/talk 22:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

also i was thinking the template's name would be Template:Feature seeing as its a page to be featured not a page that has been. if no one disagrees i will make the page tomorrow with the last version we can then edit it from there but i just want to get moveing on this so we can get more pages nominated.- Zesbeer 22:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is nominated to be featured, please give us your feedback!

Something like that. Why are you guys doing it in html and not wikicode? Goofy.... And yes, of course you can have it linked directly to the particular discussion, and you should. -- Wyn talk 04:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Meh.. I went ahead and created the template page. It will place nominated pages into their own category. -- Wyn talk 04:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks wyn that is a huge help! i was using html because i copy pastaed the code from the merge tag.- Zesbeer 05:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Does the tag appear automatically when we put the page in the nomination section?--Wysth 16:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No, you have to put the tag on the page being nominated. -- Konig/talk 23:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

it will however auto link you to the discussion if you started that.- Zesbeer 23:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Listesk pages

Question: are the pages that are long lists or listestk (as i like to call them) good pages to be featured?- Zesbeer 23:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

So long as they are complete and have enough in non-bullet point form to have on the front page, I say why not. Just like how there's no need for an image, there's no need for it to be only or mostly paragraphs. -- Konig/talk 01:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

yea i think your right, and i think its what i said on the page, Quality should be are number 1 determining factor.- Zesbeer 02:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree but a listestk article is mostly a article that graphicly doesn't look very good. Where I think it should not be featured. But I agree quality should be our number one factor.--Wysth 20:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Think of it like this: Shiro Tagachi is a "Listesk" pages and has been accepted, Condition is a list page and was featured. How I see it "listesk" pages are featureable, but it needs a paragraph or two to be on the main page and look nice. Basically it is the same thing as having an image - it isn't necessary, but it makes it nice. -- Konig/talk 21:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay then I have a question what do we do with Languages of Tyria?--Wysth 07:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

we accept it.- Zesbeer 08:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on what I saw, there was one disagreement with it which was, truth be told, a rather silly argument (Xeeron saying that it shouldn't include in-game info with rl information). Everyone else seems in favor, so I say it should be accepted (why was it even put into rejected in the first place?). -- Konig/talk 10:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

it was listesk =(- Zesbeer 10:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

True. Overlooked that. Edit: Then again, listesk was never a problem for me - just list-only has. I'm moving it to accepted (move back if there is a disagreement). -- Konig/talk 10:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

it should be accepted :) --Nick123 10:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Nominating articles

I think we should start nominating more articles! Our nomination list is getting very short (only 2 if dhuum is accepted). How can we solve that problem?--Wysth 11:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Look for more articles? or start looping old 1s? --Nick123 13:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the War In Kryta page its got alot of info now and its topical :) --Nick123 13:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It may be topical, but because it's not complete, I don't think it should be featured just yet. However, I think it may now be time to renominate the shining blade article, since it has settled down. Might want to wait a while on the Mantle article, at least until the war is over and we find out more about Confessor Isiah.-- Pyron Sy 15:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking that aswell :) --Nick123 15:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the SB and WM articles - they're poorly structured (imo - this has been bugging me since Santax changed it, and we did have a discussion on it which was "leave it til WiK is finished then fix it to however is best") and lack WiK lore. I've pretty much nominated most pages I have found which are good, but I'll look around for more. -- Konig/talk 19:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted, however, that while the nominated list is small, the accepted list is large so we do have some time with 3 weeks per article. -- Konig/talk 19:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

looks like we may be stalking the recent change for articles :) maybe a themed event 1? for next few events would be good? --Nick123 20:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I don't really got what you mean Nick123.--Wysth 09:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Proofread

I think that all featured pages should be proofread for grammatical mistakes. If they are good enough to be nominated I shouldn't have to smack my head at the misplacement of commas and missing words. It's just hard to look at. 12.110.38.200 21:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

feel free to do so we add the {{feature}} tag for a reason this is one of thous reasons.- Zesbeer 21:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Not everyone has english as his and/or her native language. And even those who do have english as a native language, they may not be good with grammar. So if you see something wrong, fix it yourself. -- Konig/talk 22:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Images

I believe that images on the featured article need to be protected when it is placed on the main page. Twice now the image has been changed after it's been placed on the main page, with the current one not only being changed, but being repeatedly vandalized. -- Wyn talk 10:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds a plan to me :) --Nick123 10:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

So long as it stays with the image for the protection. -- Konig/talk 12:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to protect the whole page for the periode it is beeing featured. Because the page is a easy target of vandalisme and we do not want a edit that is meant wel to give the page a lower standard.--Wysth 14:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

As evident in all the previous features, the articles are not perfect and are edited while featured (no matter the article) - usually in terms of fixing overlooked incorrect information or grammar. Any vandalism that occurs is very quickly changed and there are more good edits than bad overall. I oppose the protection of the article - but protecting the image that goes to the main page is a good idea, as there (usually) isn't anything to add to that during featuring. -- Konig/talk 21:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Echoed, protecting the image is a good idea, protecting the page not so much. –alistic 21:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok--Wysth 08:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Bad language

Can we remove curse words from the feature page? Since they are offending and unnescarry for the proces?--Wysth 19:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

might be helpful if you pointed to examples. --VVong|BA 19:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't censor the English language. -Auron 20:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont mean censoring just removing the curse words. Since they are offendingnto us but also to other people reading the discussions and they do not bring a thing.--Wysth 05:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

what curse words? i read thru the featured article and can't find any. --VVong|BA 18:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

oh, u mean the project page? dude. get over it. --VVong|BA 18:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

One would think I would be the one offended, seeing how all the swears by Zoomylong were directed at me. It'll all be archived eventually and normally personal attacks are not removed. There's no reason to fret over something simple. -- Konig/talk 21:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok just wantet to make it clear.--Wysth 11:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Rework

idk where to put this, but i would like to make a new section of this page for pages that need more work, but will be featured once reworked, so people can easily see what to work on Zoomylong 15:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That's the rejected bit. Those articles can easily be reworked and once done so they can be renominated. This has already happened multiple times in fact. Also, and this is unrelated to this topic but wtf? Signed in as Ness Hrin and signing as Zoomylong? Isn't that against the rules (having a signature that is confusing for who's commenting)? Okay, I see this and am no longer confused. -- Konig/talk 16:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

We need...

At least 9 more articles to make a full year's worth of features (this is going at 1 article a week). Chop chop people! I've been looking for feature worthy articles, but cannot find any, so in September I'll be working on the most potentially feature-worthy lore articles, since that's my forte. Such list includes human (needs a major change though, has potential nothing more), centaur, tengu, dredge, and grawl (centaur and tengus are the races we know the most about outside of humans and charr - other race being dwarves - we also know a lot more about dredge and grawl than what's on those articles, I believe, but I'm not sure if they're going to be feature worthy after being complete). I hope others work on other articles that are potentially feature worthy - I, for one, would like to have 104 articles, if possible, for the feature article project. Though 52 will be enough. -- Konig/talk 21:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Less spoilers on the front page please. The first paragraph of the main page basically gives away some key points in the plot. Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 22:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

the articles are all made ahead of time see "Propose new featured articles, or propose the text for the next accepted featured article here.", not only that but you can help that from happening by part taking in the project.- Zesbeer 22:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Not only that, but every aspect except the Fortune Teller being controlled by Abaddon is available and shown in the Factions cinematic, which was available before release of the game itself. ~Farlo Talk 18:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

troll more plox- Zesbeer 19:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool it, Zesbeer. It's a valid concern and you're the one trolling if you just disregard it.

Were I more active here I probably also would have opposed featuring a page that had a spoiler tag precisely where text would be sent to the main page. --Kyoshi (Talk) 19:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

nou, also i answered aliceandsven's question with the appropriate response. farlo is trolling seeing as the point he brings up has nothing to do with this project how about you know what you are talking about before you tell someone to "cool it"- Zesbeer 22:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he did have a valid point and was responding to A&S's claim that what's on the main page gives away key points in the plot. The mention of Abaddon is the only spoiler, and it holds minimal sway to the plot of either Factions of Nightfall. It isn't even a reason why he went through the events he did in Factions.

In fact, except for the name "Abaddon" - that's not a spoiler at all. That is, the only spoiler is that Abaddon is the fallen god... but that's known since the third mission of Nightfall so... not really a spoiler. Which was A&S's argument. -- Konig/talk 22:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Even better that it's less of a spoiler, haha. And in all seriousness, most people on this wiki are dedicated players and pretty much know the plots. Also, thanks Konig for beating me to the punch about Zesbeer. You (Zesbeer) should stop throwing around such unhelpful comments, especially when what I said pertains exactly to what's being discussed, you might not look like as much of an ass. ~Farlo Talk 23:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

because my comment was unhelpful oh wait i pointed out exactly where Aliceandsven need to go to make changes for future articles that sounds helpfull to me, your comment dosnt help prevent it at all. i would also like to point out that this is about having less spoilers in the front page paragraph not about what is currently up there.- Zesbeer 00:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Both of your first comments were helpful. A&S's comment is about spoilers on the front page - including the current case. Zesbeer's comment: How to avoid such things in the future instead of QQ'ing. Farlo's comment: Why the current case isn't an issue. Now shut up, both of you, please. Neither of you were in the wrong in the beginning, it's your returning comments which are causing harm, so stop them. -- Konig/talk 00:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Your first one was absolutely helpful and a good answer, I meant the one calling me a troll for no reason, which was useless considering I made a valid point about the only page that has been suggested or accepted that has any kind of spoiler. And sorry Konig :P~Farlo Talk 00:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Images

Images that are going on the front page should be protected before featuring, imo, due to the excessive amount of vandalism to these images. Not sure if this is the best place to post this, but I don't know where else it should be. - Mini Me 14:08, 20 September, 2010 (UTC)

I can't read, nevermind. Jon also posted this on Poke's page so yay - Mini Me 14:09, 20 September, 2010 (UTC)

annual event articles?

so almost a year has gone by since the costume brawl was first featured. it was originally nominated to be featured only during the costume brawl and that time is almost upon us again. are we going to go ahead as originally planned and feature the article during the halloween event? --VVong|BA 18:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

i think it would be good to feature another article like doom.- Zesbeer 20:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm half and half on this. On one hand, we almost have enough articles to start a yearly cycle - which would mean "yes, feature CB." On the other hand, we originally wanted to have enough for two years worth of featuring - which would mean "no, find another halloween-related article." Now, we could stick with 1 article per 2 weeks once we have enough (52 weeks in a year right? So 52 articles for 2 years at 1 article per 2 weeks), which means 2 articles per event, or we could go with 1 article per week, meaning one article per event.

Also, CB is likely to get some changes this year - moreso than other years (unlike other event arenas), as hinted by Stumme in interviews (change of costumes). This would push me to the "find another article" side. But I don't think Dhuum should be a halloween article. Perhaps spruce up Halloween and feature that one year, then Costume Brawl the other. For Wintersday, do Wintersday and Snowball; for CNY, do Canthan New Year and Rollerbeetle Racing (I say racing and not DA due to Greased Lightning); for Dragon Festival do Dragon Festival and Dragon Arena.

I say that if the Halloween article can get spruced up enough for featuring before the appropriate change (in 2 weeks, as the article will change this coming Monday - and that article is currently set for Dhuum to be featured), then feature Halloween, if it isn't spruced up, feature Costume Brawl. -- Konig/talk 23:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

So I noticed that this is becoming inactive...

Apparently a lot of the drive to get this project finished is diminishing. Not surprising. So I just have a few things to say:

• It would be best if we can get an amount that would fit perfectly for a yearly cycle, so that event-based articles can be synced properly (this would not be completely the case for CNY, unfortunately, unless we do something fancier than a mere repeating cycle).
• We have 35 articles both featured and accepted. That makes us short 17 (52-35) articles short from a perfect 1 year for 1 week per article or 2 years for 2 weeks per article set up. It would be best not to go outside of a multiple of 52, and since we already passed the halfway point for that, we should try to get up to 52, then we could probably call this project finished.
• Front page text: Syncing it is already a pain, and will be more of a pain in the future (as new information shows up). So I have a suggestion to alter this:
  • Rather than syncing the first paragraph(s) of the article, we summarize the article. This would reduce the need to sync it and poke said that it would be very tedious to keep syncing the articles (I agree), so it would be best not to bother with correcting the front page outside of correcting incorrect information (which to prevent doing such in the future, I would promote the summarizing).
• For the currently nominated articles, I'd like to get a final say. Both seems to generally get a "yay" - only 1 annoyance was addressed for each, one of which is either a "deal with or remove entirely" situation (Zesbeer's issue with Human) or "where do we stop informing?" (Xeeron's issue with Governments of Tyria - specifically, s/he wants to add in specific names of rulers (which I at least find tedious but do not disagree). I would move to accepted, but would rather get a few more comments...
  • I also think that Governments of Tyria would be a prime article to use a summary of the article over syncing with article text. -- Konig/talk 04:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• I'll also be making a run through articles to see if there's any more feature worthy - if there's not enough, I'll try to push for the reworking of articles in order to meet that 17-minimum article demand. -- Konig/talk 04:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) i think the main thing is that there were a lot of articles moved to the accepted section and i for one haven't been thinking about this project for a wile because i was not worried about another article to be ready for next week. i also think a lot of the wik articles would make good feature articles and if we can get more info on the races we should try and feature all that we can. important toons like verish and the lich come to mind so dose mad king thorn and others like the gods could be featured note i haven't looked at thous pages. lastly i am not sure what you are refering to but ill take a look.- Zesbeer 05:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I was definably considering Mad King Thorn. Varesh and Khilbron/Undead Lich are both lacking in information (whether they can be expanded or not idk) unlike Shiro and Abaddon. I've decided to begin working on Devona, since that's close to being feature worthy. Not really sure of any articles not related to lore/locations/NPCs that are feature worthy though (that is, mechanic focusing articles). -- Konig/talk 05:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

also i always thought of this project as one with no real end-point yes as we talked about it would be nice to have a set number of feature pages for one/two years? i dont remember the number. but i think that this project could stay open so if a article is re-written then it could be added. for example there are going to be a lot of guild-wars beyond articles that will be written and as i already said wik would make a good feature article. some other articles i thought of where quests there are a lot of them in the game and pointing out some key obscure quests/quest chains would be fun imho.- Zesbeer 10:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice to keep it open, but it was discussed to have it automatically updated. This would be hard to do so long as we intend to keep holiday-themed features (and to me, it would seem ridiculous if we end up featuring Costume Brawl during July or something). -- Konig/talk 19:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, unless you intend to reset it (and reset the weekly shift) at a set day every year and account for leap days, it'd be pretty tough. --ஸ Kyoshi 19:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to answer to this some time ago, but I .. forgot, bleh. Anyway, I don't blieve this project should ever come to a point where it could be seen as completed, where no further articles are accepted etc. The wiki is steadily improving (sometimes faster and sometimes slower), so there will be always some new articles that would qualify for being featured. As such, we should not stop nominating and accepting new pages.

Regarding the refeaturing of featured pages, I think we have come to a point where we should seriously consider this. The last nominated pages were I think a bit rushed to become accepted, so that we have new ones in time for the next featuring. As such I would say we should either start refeaturing older pages, or simply increase the timeframe a page stays on the main page to maybe 3 weeks.

Btw. while it might be possible, I don't really want to make some mechanism for the featured section on the main page that automatically selects a new (old) article. Main reason is that this would add an additional cache annoyance to the main page, which I would like to prevent. Further I have to decline the problem mentioned above, that we wouldn't have control about what gets featured when. There is no way using the wiki features to make some algorithm that automatically selects an article every two weeks that wasn't featured too recently; instead we would need to create some cycle-like system for the articles, and then of course we would have control over it. poke | talk 13:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that automatically choosing a feature would not be a good idea. Rather a cycle. Which should, imo, be "lore-related" then "non-lore" then once more lore - as per the topic below this - with only stepping in for events (would it be possible to make separate cycles that would be used for when the main page becomes festive? - if so, we could choose multiple event-related articles for those times and keep them out of the normal rotation).

If possible, I'd actually like to reduce the feature time to 1 week instead, with having an old feature placed between each new one - and if there isn't a new one, then featuring two (or more) old articles in a row. Before we do this, however, we need to make sure the old front page text of the articles are not out of date (for instance, the Tyria (world) and Charr articles got major changes to their respective articles, so it would be best if we make sure those two, at least, are consistent. -- Konig/talk 19:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Too many lore features

As the title says, lately (as in the last several months) there has been too many lore related articles as features. Whether it's because, other than Konig, no one is very involved in this project, or other articles are just crap I don't know. But lore has been way over board, the last 8 features were entirely or mostly lore related. I'll check through old archives and through the wiki in general to see if there's any feature worthy articles that have little or nothing to do with lore. Will post some suggestions during this week. razor39999 13:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't consider NPC articles to be solely "lore related articles" - and we've had plenty of race and npc articles (shiro, abaddon, dhuum, charr, mursaat, kurzick, luxon, and margonite) - but I think it's mostly the later. I just cannot find any mechanical-based articles which are not full with lists. I think we've gone through all the currently well written non-lore focusing articles. I'd love if people can fix up animal companion and hero to remove the disputed/stub section tags (respectively), and I was thinking that maybe a few others like armor rating and damage calculation are near good enough to feature.

The main issue seems that for non-lore stuff, people prefer lists over paragraphs, and we rather need/want paragraphs for the features. But yes, there's been too many lore articles lately. When we go through the cycle, I think we should change the order a bit so that there's no long list of lore articles.

BTW, feel free to go through these two pages and spruce up some previously rejected articles if the reason for rejecting was that it wasn't good enough/had enough text for the main page or for lack of interest. One such article, outside the four listed above, would be Interrupt and Team roles.

I would work on them myself, but I don't think I'm that good with the know-how of all those things. -- Konig/talk 15:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I looked through the previously featured articles and here's the kinds of articles I see featured and the number of them:

• location articles: 4 (does not include arenas - includes Hall of Monuments)
• NPC articles: 3
• creature type/species and affiliation/group articles: 5
• arena articles: 5
• guides articles: 3
• pure mechanic articles: 8
• pure lore articles: 5 (does not include Tyria (world) - included in locations)
• others: 2 (polymock and norn fighting tourny)

Overall it seems well balanced to me, as one could argue the NPC, species/group, and location articles to be lore, while the others are non-lore - thus giving a 17 lore:18 non-lore ratio. So, what I suggest, is that for when we begin cycling through, we redo the order to be lore->non-lore. And unless we get some yays/nays or more nominations with their own yays/nays, we may have to begin recycling next feature. -- Konig/talk 16:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I recon we could keep new ones going for a bit longer before we have to repeat but yup it sounds a good idea to me :) --Nick123 19:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

To see a wider variety of articles featured, there are two basic choices: nominate and/or contribute to articles that involve less Lore and/or encourage others to do so. I think Lore will always be popular because people tend to be more passionate about it than about other things.

For what it's worth, here's my view of the metrics:

• Lore forms a substantial part of the meat of the article: 17 (includes Lore, NPCs, Creatures, Polymock, and some of the locations)
• Training/playing is the substantial part: 18 (guides, arenas, Norn fighting, mechanics)

That also strikes me as balanced.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I know earlier articles had more non-lore stuff. I was talking about the features in the last few months.

Out of the previously rejected ones I'm looking at interrupt mostly. Will check out if I could make a decent screen-shot of someone getting d-shotted/pblocked or something and maybe do something about the general look of the skill list at the bottom, which is pretty huge. razor39999 21:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

We're aware of what you meant, I brought up the list of overallness for when we get to cycling through. Regarding the list on interrupt - we can do what we did with condition. -- Konig/talk 21:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah that thing with show is nice. razor39999 21:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Btw I just did a few screenshots of my guildie getting interrupted and the best one looks as if he's kd-ed (since the interrupt animation is sort of a really fast KD animation basically). So I think that even if we sort out the list, that article will have to do without a picture, unless someone with more skills than I can make a video and turn it into a .gif. Are pics 100% needed for a feature? razor39999 22:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Not 100%, though it's greatly desired and there hasn't been one yet (doesn't mean this cannot be the first!). Perhaps having someone get interrupted via Cry of Frustration or Panic and screenshot the interrupt+quote box. -- Konig/talk 22:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I made a CoF rupt SS, but there were problems... For one spells can't be cast when the interface is turned off, even when I have my target set before turning it off the keyboard hotkeys don't work for spells while the UI is gone. When I tried with D-shot it worked without the interface (apparently attacks and attack skills aren't hindered by the lack of the interface as long as you press their corresponding hotkey). And the other problem is obvious in this screenshot - part of the HP bar can be seen if I want the CoF exclamation to be visible.

I'll try getting a screenshot of my guildies interrupting each other without me targeting either of them later. razor39999 14:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Tried with two guildies and me as the "camera" - when the UI is not off the HP bar is still visible above enemy team members even when not targeted, when the UI is off, the CoF exclamation is not visible, giving the aforementioned KD-like screenshot. :D We gonna need a .gif of a D-Shot/Savage Shot or I'll just switch my attention to a different article, cause it would be a bit meh to have an article without a pic. razor39999 15:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)