Wowpedia talk:Featured article

Template:Featuredarticles

This is the page for nominating articles for addition and removal from the featured articles list. Previous nomination discussions can be found on Wowpedia talk:Featured article/Previous nominations.

Please add new nominations at the end of the page, and link the article in the title!

Start a new discussion!

Netherwing

The article itself needs a bit of work, but I think it could be a good FA =) --User:Psyker7/Sig 22:22, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

• Oppose. This article actually needs a lot of work. It doesn't have a bold title, it has capital letters where they shouldn't be, it doesn't have a picture but does cite one as a source (which by itself is already kinda weird) and lacks a lot of lore info. My three suggestions are: 1) wait until 2.1 comes out watch as more and more information on the Wing becomes available.. 2) improve the article and 3) please don't nominate articles for FA if they 'need a bit of work' (which is an understatement in this case). Featured articles should display WoWWiki's finest work, which this article really isn't (yet).APΘLLΘ^(ZEUS) 02:52, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

• Oppose Stressing what Apollo said: ...needs a lot of work. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 03:02, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Changing my stance to neutral, as it doesn't hold any special importance above any other faction page. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 01:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I've given Netherwing a big update, and merged in stuff from the nether drake article. It needs fleshing out, but should be a readale guide now. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 22:51, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
  • An update on this - the only problem is that too many red links makes this unusable atm. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 13:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Comprehensive and tidy - though could do with more of an introduction. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 19:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Still opposing, but for a different reason. This article now encompasses an awesome guide, however there is no lore information at all. Can't someone dig through all the quest dialogs and come up with something decent?AMBER^(RΘCK) 08:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: I agree with AMBER^(RΘCK). --File:IconSmall Deathknight.gifBuraisu (Talk · Contr) 10:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Teron Gorefiend

This article might need a little clean up, but this is a great character with lots of lore behind him. He is the focus of (imo) the best BC quests, and he is boss in the newly released Black Temple. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mlucero (talk · contr).

• Oppose. The article has no references, doesn't clarify why Gorefiend ended up in service of Illidan, has a section which contains only one sentence and lastly it has images that say "(before patch 2.1)", but doesn't clarify what the post-patch 2.1 situation is.APΘLLΘ^(ZEUS) 17:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Definately needs an overhaul, but could certainly be a future candidate. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 05:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment.It doesn't clarify what the post-patch 2.1 situation is? yes it does. Read the text of the last pic.--SWM2448 20:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral: needs to be cleaned up and reworked in some areas. --File:IconSmall Deathknight.gifBuraisu (Talk · Contr) 10:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not sure if this was what you were looking for, but I fleshed out the biography a bit (based on in-game and book info) and also explained the meaning of "pre-Patch 2.1" and "post-Patch 2.1". Hope this is satisfactory. --Joshmaul 02:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Gem

I am new to the whole FA thing. However I find this article well laid out, and extremely useful. I'm not sure exactly the qualifications required to become a FA, so I thought I would just nominate and see what others think User:Tecnobrat/Sig 14:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Useful, useful, useful. Three hoorays for this article.APΘLLΘ^(ZEUS) 05:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Useful... and not much else. It's more of a link farm than anything that could possibly be improved, except with the addition of more gems, or a patch changing the existing ones. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 05:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - note that this page is already linked on the sidebar. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 05:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The very first paragraph is basically wrong: A gem is generally an item that can be placed into a socket of another item to give that item additional bonuses, powers and/or procs. A gem is not an item that can be placed into a socket, but may be an item that can be placed into a socket. It was supposed to be called a jewel. Strictly speaking, a gem is a raw ingredient from mining or [Prospecting]. --Fandyllic (talk · contr) 7:10 PM PDT 24 Oct 2007

• Support: I agree, it is useful and would make a good FA. --File:IconSmall Deathknight.gifBuraisu (Talk · Contr) 10:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What Wrath of the Lich King is NOT

Feedback? :P --User:Adys/Sig 19:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I am very amused. It's definitely different from the sort of articles I've seen here before, but seems pertinent to the immediate post-BlizzCon 07 WoW fan environment. --Jiyambi t || c 19:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: - Fanfic, silly, and speculation articles do not belong as featured articles, regardless of quality.--SWM2448 20:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I like it, but I worry that it could become a focus for vandalism. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 20:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: Per Sandwich. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 21:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support: Many People Blaming this Game Sucks Its a fun artical and its NOT Vamdalism Dragonnagaofthewater 19:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - He did not say it WAS vandalism, he said because it has no factual grounding it could easialy BE vandalized. --SWM2448 17:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Ok But it Can be become a focus on Vandalism but we dont know yet because it isn`t featured Yet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dragonnagaofthewater (talk · contr).

• Oppose: No. File:IconSmall Deathknight.gifBuraisu (Talk · Contr) 10:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I love this one too much too see it vandalized! Perhaps if it could be made uneditable, to preserve it's originality from random people trying to "improve" it, then I would accept this. -Ose 22:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral Hah! Its great, funny and indeed truthful. The problem: Is it really worth frontpage time and that informative in regards to overall WoW lore or gameplay? I thought not.

Human

The article has a good length, information, and screenshots (though missing a WoW race shot). User:Kirkburn/Sig3 20:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support: I agree with Kirkburn. --File:IconSmall Deathknight.gifBuraisu (Talk · Contr) 11:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Though a picture or two could be fixored, as well as the fair use issues. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 23:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This article has been added to the upcoming new rotation. Kirkburn  talk  contr 15:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Tauren

Less well known info for many, Taunka link renews interest. Tribes need broken link work though. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 20:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support: I agree with Kirkburn. --File:IconSmall Deathknight.gifBuraisu (Talk · Contr) 11:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support: I agree with Kirkburn and Tauren Tribes section now has order. Zakolj 21:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Needs fair use issues done with. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 23:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This article has been added to the upcoming new rotation. Kirkburn  talk  contr 15:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Night elf

Lots of info, well laid out. Could do with one or two extra screenshots though. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 20:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support: I agree with Kirkburn. --File:IconSmall Deathknight.gifBuraisu (Talk · Contr) 11:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support: Night Elves have some of the best lore of all the races. --Ose 17:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This article has been added to the upcoming new rotation. Kirkburn  talk  contr 16:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Death Knight (hero class)

Though most of it is still speculation (and will be until someone gets to the point to make one), there seems to be a lot about the Death Knight (that will be) in-game. I think this is the biggest piece of info since the announcement of Outland and the new races - everyone seems to be talking (and debating) a lot about what to expect...so why not put it on the front page, eh? --Joshmaul 07:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Just not good enough yet by the fact that we have nearly nothing on it; how runes work, what the other spells will be, etc. Iirc, it already is featured on the front page in the news box, just not in the FA box. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 01:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose It seems that, at this point, a lot of information about this new hero class is still in speculation rather than fact. It would be great if there are solid info present. Maybe some time in the future when there are more confirmed information - Constarcy, US: Fenris 2:30PM Aug/28/2007

Comment Revisiting this - the article is much improved now, any opinions on the current copy? Kirkburn  talk  contr 16:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Siege weapon

There have been worse suggestions. It is coming in WotLK. It is one of my favorite topics and I wrote most of it. Who does not like siege?--SWM2448 20:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is not enough in-game info, maybe it will be good enough when the expantion comes out and you know for sure about them and how they are played. It is too much of a bullet-pointed list, too.--SWM2448 20:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• What the fuck? You propose an article, only to oppose its nomination afterwards? I don't get it. Oh, and yeah; naturally I opposse because this article is not elaborate enough.AMBER^(RΘCK) 09:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Temporery Oppose :Just not Enough Game Info lets wait until it comes out K? Dragonnagaofthewater 21:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Roleplaying Age

Roleplaying age - It'd help alot of roleplayers figuring out there Age, Weight and Height for other Races -- Chaosweaver 12:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting - but part of the problem would be the fan-aspect of the article. At the moment it is essentially a personal article - for featuring it needs citations and to be less "personal". Kirkburn  talk  contr 22:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment There's an age article around here somewhere for the majority of the races... Hmm. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 23:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Dragonflight

Why not? They are neutral and have good lore--FireMaster 14:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

What? --SWM2448 22:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A specific dragonflight, perhaps? Kirkburn  talk  contr 22:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course!--FireMaster 13:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support: I would like to turn this into a nomination for all five major Dragonflights. Red Dragonflight, Blue Dragonflight, Green Dragonflight, Bronze Dragonflight, and Black Dragonflight. --File:IconSmall Deathknight.gifBuraisu (Talk · Contr) 11:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support Agreed, those are obvious candidates. --Ose 22:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral Eh... Much as I love Warthok, maybe not... --Sky (talk | con | wh) 23:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Red Dragonflight and Blue Dragonflight have been added to the upcoming new rotation. Kirkburn  talk  contr 16:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Alterac Valley

Seems like one of the better articles. --Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3:43 PM PDT 24 Oct 2007

• Support If we make this one featured, we might actually get some more people to understand this place, resulting in a more fun fight with more honor than "PUSH FW FFS NOOBS!!!111oneoneone". Atleast thats how I feel Alliance on my battlegroup acts :P --Ose 21:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral Needs to be finished with updating since patch. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 23:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support The page seems to have been expanded, and I agree with Fand; perhaps we might get a decent fight out of featuring it, somehow? Melaisis 21:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This article has been added to the upcoming new rotation. Kirkburn  talk  contr 16:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Uther the Lightbringer

Come on, who doesnt think so? He has great lore, he is in WarCraft 2 and 3 and plays a significant role, without him there would be no paladins! He appears in WoW for a time. His page is organized and well put together, it seems a good candidate. -- Melean 03:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support Uther is really lore rich and he is the best paladin ever. Literally. :) -Mantriox/Talk/Contributions 21:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support I agree it is a very good article about a very important character. Zakolj 21:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support: Sounds good. --File:IconSmall Deathknight.gifBuraisu (Talk · Contr) 11:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Uther is made of win, seriously! --Pimmeh 08:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Clean article, good info, good lore, good guy. Got my vote --Ose 20:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Even if the Horde desecrates his tomb, some of us still feel kinda bad about it...heh heh heh. *ahem* Sorry. --Joshmaul 21:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Sure. Seems well written. --SWM2448 23:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support I do support has my vote, my favorite character of humans and he was good till he died, and the information on his page is great tells from the beginning of WarCraft 2 to the formation of the Silver Hand, to his death and his tomb. --Melean 17:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This article has been added to the upcoming new rotation. Kirkburn  talk  contr 16:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Zul'Aman

Quite relevant, as it is "the thing" right now. Seems pretty well organized. -- Ose 20:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support: I just wanted to Nominate it myself. Zakolj 21:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support: Likewise. --Joshmaul 21:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It's listed on the popular links to your left. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 23:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Opposed: Its a popular link, hardly needs a FA. --Pimmeh 20:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • comment: Its hotlinked in the front page as well, btw!--Pimmeh 08:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: The link will eventually be done away with once the Sunwell patch sees the daylight (no pun intended). Besides, the side links and FA serve different purposes. The side links are to provide easy access to popular articles, while the FA shows off WoWWiki's finest work. There's no problem with sidelinked articles being featured.AMBER^(RΘCK) 07:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support: It's a good article, and no longer linked elsewhere. Kirkburn  talk  contr 17:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This article has been added to the upcoming new rotation. Kirkburn  talk  contr 17:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Frostmourne

Very good lore, plus it's going to be relevant concerning the upcoming expansion. -- Ose 21:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support Nicely done page, regardless of relevancy or background. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 23:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This article has been added to the upcoming new rotation. Kirkburn  talk  contr 17:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ashbringer

Very good lore, plus it's going to be relevant concerning the upcoming expansion. -- Ose 21:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Ashbringer is already featured. :) --Sky (talk | con | wh) 23:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm... I was sure I checked the list for these three... not good enough apparently >.< I'll put these nifty little lines over the text then :P --Ose 20:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded an image of the Ashbringer sword itself so we can stop using the inaccurate, outdated, and misleading stat block, but I can't figure out where the image is being referenced in the template for this page. -- Dark T Zeratul 21:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This article has (already) been added to the upcoming new rotation. Kirkburn  talk  contr 17:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Atiesh, Greatstaff of the Guardian

Very good lore, plus it may become relevant when Naxxramas returns in the upcoming expansion- -- Ose 21:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Not good supporting reasons, for one, and two, not really enough to feature it with. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 23:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The way you describe it, you think it will still be there when Naxxramas is moved to Northrend. How do we know this? --Joshmaul 01:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - the information could probably be improved. It also needs a better "background" style section, plus info regarding the above. Kirkburn  talk  contr 16:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Tyrande Whisperwind

I thought it might be cool. She's a very important character in the Warcraft lore, have a great page at wowwiki... please write comment! :) -- Shaera 17:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Support: Very good article, lore and info. -- Ose 12:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Support: Love the idea =D She'd be great to feature, due to her large role in the game -Troy Frostwind ^{Talk to me!} 11:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This article has been added to the upcoming new rotation. Kirkburn  talk  contr 16:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

World of Warcraft Trading Card Game

It would be interesting to show people the trading cards and the ingame loots.... I think... I've even added some more information concerning the upcoming loot cards.

-- Kukkaku 19:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Good article, would be nice with a little variety on the featured articles. --Ose (c / t) 18:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This article has been added to the upcoming new rotation. Kirkburn  talk  contr 16:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Lunar Festival

It's topical. How about it? --Eirik Ratcatcher 17:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - unfortunately missed the boat this time. Closer to the time next year would be a good plan. Kirkburn  talk  contr 16:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Isle of Quel'Danas

It's the talk of the town at the moment, and we're learning more and more about it as each day goes by. So let's put this sucker up on the front page, eh? --Joshmaul 22:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, it is already on the popular tab and the top link of the main menu, we dont need it to be featured, its already there really. Support - It has alot of new lore, I particually like how the Sunwell will turn out for Kael'Thas if he wasnt killed, beneficial for Elves (as he said in trailer sacrifices must be made though) or not, as Kil'jaeden wont let him do so) --User:Melean/Sig 23:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm going to reinforce my comment I made on Zul'Aman: The link will eventually be done away with [...]. Besides, the side links and FA serve different purposes. The side links are to provide easy access to popular articles, while the FA shows off WoWWiki's finest work. There's no problem with sidelinked articles being featured.AMBER^(RΘCK) 07:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC). I hope that clears up stuff. AMBER^(RΘCK) 08:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Well, my mistake, then I now support it being featured. --User:Melean/Sig 19:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Topical, lots of worthwhile new lore which people may not have considered yet.

This article has been added to the upcoming new rotation. Kirkburn  talk  contr 16:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Caverns of Time / Instances

Maybe it's just me, but I really like the amount of lore and cool time travel wrapped up in this place, and the article is extensive enough to warrant it in my opinion. Maybe this would be covered in including the Bronze Dragonflight / Keepers of Time. Other instances like Karazhan are also fun reads, and packed with lore too. These might be old news for you 70s who've been raiding forever, but for new players (or just really slow ones like me) each new instance or faction is a whole new world of stories, characters and exciting backdrops. Decibal 13:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Support as it's a good article in itself and a portal article to more good articles. Kirkburn  talk  contr 16:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This article has been added to the upcoming new rotation. Kirkburn  talk  contr 16:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Justice Keep

WotLK is a hot topic now. Look at all the citation on this page!--SWM2448 00:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose until we have more info. Great choice when it's filled out :) Kirkburn  talk  contr 16:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)