This is the page for nominating articles for addition and removal from the featured articles list. The current list of featured articles can be found on WoWWiki:Featured article/Articles.
Previous nomination discussions can be found on WoWWiki talk:Featured article/Articles/Previous nominations.
Please add new nominations at the end of the page, and link the article in the title!
The article itself needs a bit of work, but I think it could be a good FA =) --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 | ) 03:02, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
- 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. 22:51, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
- An update on this - the only problem is that too many red links makes this unusable atm. 13:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Support. Comprehensive and tidy - though could do with more of an introduction.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). -- 10:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Remarking as support - there's now an intro, and the page is pretty tidy. 17:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
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. 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.--User:Sandwichman2448/Sig 20:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral: needs to be cleaned up and reworked in some areas. -- 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)
- Support: The article has been improved massively since I last commented on it. 17:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
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 Tecnobrat t/c 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 | ) 05:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment - note that this page is already linked on the sidebar.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. -- (talk · contr) 7:10 PM PDT 24 Oct 2007
- Support: I agree, it is useful and would make a good FA. -- 10:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support: Switching to support, due to the new way features articles work. It's pretty clean and concise, even if a lot if just links. 17:13, 12 November 2008 (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. -- 19:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose: - Fanfic, silly, and speculation articles do not belong as featured articles, regardless of quality.--User:Sandwichman2448/Sig 20:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I like it, but I worry that it could become a focus for vandalism. 20:01, 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. --User:Sandwichman2448/Sig 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. 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.
- Oppose Not exactly the type of article WoWWiki would want as their feature article. Silly articles are nice, silly articles are funny, but WoWWiki isn't about silly articles... Vampyrefyre (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
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 | ) 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? 16:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support: Seems like a fairly appropriate time to add it. It's pretty well fleshed out, though could possibly do with a bit of cleanup. 17:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
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?--User:Sandwichman2448/Sig 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.--User:Sandwichman2448/Sig 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)
- Temporary Oppose :Just not Enough Game Info lets wait until it comes out K? Dragonnagaofthewater 21:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support: There's not a huge amount of info, but there's only so much you can say. It does however, importantly, link to and describe the various types found in the expansion. 17:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
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". 22:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not good supporting reasons, for one, and two, not really enough to feature it with. --Sky (talk | con | ) 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.
16:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: To expand on the above, the "Information" section is waaay too many unrelated bullet points. 17:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
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.16:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support: Features are now on a rotation, so I don't see a problem with including this now. 17:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
WotLK is a hot topic now. Look at all the citation on this page!--User:Sandwichman2448/Sig 00:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose until we have more info. Great choice when it's filled out :) 16:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Why on earth is this featured? Its barely any tekst, it doesnt look all that great and its about something unreleased! It seems more like paid advertisement then a really featured article, as much as I want it to be released... --Pimmeh (talk) 05:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agree Removed from FA rotation. -- ( •
) 21:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: The reason was that Playxpert supports Wikia and WoWWiki (we are a built in default option). 17:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very good idea, it has great information and I have often refered to it, well...sometimes... :)--Pimmeh (talk) 08:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support: Agreed, it's pretty good. Lots of images, easy to read and not a common topic. 17:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
It is one of the first dungeons in Wow for many Horde players co it should be mentioned.
- Weak support: It's fairly short, but it covers everything it needs to. The instance itself is just ugly and boring though :P 17:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Weak support:Only cause I can't think of a reason not to oppose it.SuperN (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Everyone's favorite monster to encounter, also Blizzard's mascotte, murlocs deserve a reference on the homepage!
- Support I agree that this page should be added to the FA. Also please sign your posts. SuperN (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The article starts with a 'Cleanup' tag. That's never a good sign. Alltat (talk) 13:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Good topic, but cleanup tag needs to be dealt with first. 17:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)