Changes: RuneScape:Featured articles/Delist/Archive 1

Latest revision as of 05:47, 21 April 2014

Delisted

Miscellania and Etceteria

Original nomination: Miscellania and Etceteria

Now that Managing Miscellania has been split from the page, the page is a bare shell of what it once was. It is now also probably going to be split into different articles for misc and etc. It is currently rather a nothing article, and when it is split it will need some serious work to gut it back to AOTM standard.

Support - as nominator _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 10:15, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
Support - It could be good again but it lacks a sense of flow.--Degenret01 06:37, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
Support - They're going to be split (template on page) --Coolnesse 03:30, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
Support - This used to be a good way to make money and still is, but it is under-used.N122333
Support - Agreed, this became article of the month because it lacked other decent candidates, so should make way for other, better articles --Eucarya ^Talk 22:13, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
Support - It's just a list of what one can buy at the shops now. Oil4 ^Talk 21:20, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
Unanimous support, this will now be un-featured--Degenret01 15:12, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Fishing, Magic, Hunter and Mining

Original nominations: Fishing,Magic, Hunter, Mining

I think that all Skill pages need something on the history of the skill, like Summoning history. It would be an important part of the page, and something that few other fansites would have. This would result in Fishing, Magic, Hunter and Mining not being included. I feel that the Hunter page is in need of clean-up currently anyway.

Support - as nominator _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 10:15, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
Support - Per Yanks. --Coolnesse 03:30, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
Support - Per nom. Oil4 ^Talk 21:24, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
The decision was to delist the articles. Lil cloud 9 ^Talk 08:45, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

While Guthix Sleeps

Original nomination: RuneScape:Article of the Month/2009#May

While Guthix Sleeps... it's cluttered with all those unnecessary images, keeps switching from 2nd person to 3rd person, and it makes me feel claustrophobic...

Support - as nominator — ^E n _ig^ma 10:15, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
Support - Lots of media waste, over 32KB limit, etc. --Coolnesse 03:30, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
Support - It needs to be sorted out. Also, it keeps asking me to install a plugin, but when I click "yes", it says no plugins are available Oil4 ^Talk 21:27, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
The decision was to delist the article. Lil cloud 9 ^Talk 08:45, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

Desert Treasure

Original nomination: RuneScape:Article of the Month/Desert Treasure (2)

Needs clean-up. I read through it and found it confusing. The headings make it very difficult to follow with no apparent rhyme nor reason behind them.

Support - as nominator _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 10:15, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
Support - We list too many ways to kill each diamond holders, its so long and tedious that it is painful to read and sort through. Just list one easy method for each holder.--Degenret01 08:29, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
Support - When I started it, it was patchy but pretty clear. Now it's a bit of a mess. --Eucarya ^Talk 22:11, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
Neutral, leaning towards Oppose - It's a bit messy, but it can be fixed quite quickly. --Coolnesse 02:12, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
Neutral, strongly leaning towards Oppose - Per Coolnesse. Oil4 ^Talk 21:22, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
Support - Very poorly written in certain parts. Too many sentences written completely in capitals, lowers overall quality. Needs a lot of cleanuip. C.Chiam^Talk 12:45, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
Strongly support - It's got too many methods and is too large for some computers to edit too, and poor quality throughout, needs cleanup.
Support - Way too long, too many methods on how to kill damis, and thats just one boss. Bob2006ty^{_{(RUNESTORM333)} talk} 16:07, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
Support - Needs clenup. Appoint someone to do it. --Shadowguy547 18:01, March 12,2010
The decision was to delist the article. Lil cloud 9 ^Talk 08:45, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

Trouble Brewing

Original nomination: RuneScape:Article of the Month/Trouble Brewing

Doesn't have any advice on how to play the game well, just the features of the game. So it needs strategies, tactics, etc. Also all the images on the page are SD which isn't good.

Support - as nominator _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 10:15, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
Support Per Yanks. Yea, Degen just said per some one. How about that?--Degenret01 08:46, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - Lots of wonderful tactics and strategies on the minigame, also, what SD images? --Coolnesse 03:30, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Sd images: File:Tb interface.png, File:Tb supply table.png, File:Tb hoppers.png, File:Tb pump.png, File:Tb finished rum.png and File:Trouble brewing glitch.jpg. There were 3 more SD images when I first wrote the thing above, though they have since been converted to HD. Also I still can't see any tactics/strategies, just the controls like stated in Brewin' guide.

_{Evil Yanks} ^talk 05:04, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Opppose - This is a truly superbly written article for an under-used mini-game. --Eucarya ^Talk 22:14, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - This is a superbly written article with detailed information and the like MoomooYoshi 02:10, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
Slight Oppose - There's not a lot one can write about a minigame, and this article pulls it off pretty decently. But it's still so short... While I don't think this should be removed from the AOTMs, it definitely needs some work. Oil4 ^Talk 21:24, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
Oppose HEAVILY - This is one of the best written articles on the entire wiki, the images are being converted to HD as we speak, and there is information on strategies, there is also enough on how to play the game well, we don't want to go too far like the above nomination Desert Treasure which has 9 different methods of killing 1 of the 4 bosses, I say leave it as it is. Bob2006ty^{_{(RUNESTORM333)} talk} 16:09, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
Closed no consensus--Degenret01 15:49, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Ullek

Original nomination: RuneScape:Article of the Month/2009#September

There is hardly any known information on the location, and it also lacks images. I personally have never been to the city, but there are no images of the inside!!! Not even OOO images of secret locations. Also the watersource there, what is that? I don't see an image. Sure, it give a nice brief history lesson, but many questions still exist. Jagex is bound to update the area! Such a large area has to be updated, and and article like this should not be AOTM.

Support - as nominator http://i1016.photobucket.com/albums/af290/porp109/sig1.png Spam me w/ lolcats Is <insert name here> awesome? I don't know, let me check... 17:44, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - What are you talking about? This is a great article. --Coolnesse 17:49, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I agree with Coolnesse. This article is nothing short of brilliance. The history section is longer than any other town article, and it's one of the most informative there is.
Asparagoose
23:46, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I think that this article is what we should be aspiring for with all ruins articles. Since you were wondering, this is what Ullek is like now. I think this is a great article to showcase. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 06:23, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - He hasn't been in Ullek. The article is extremely good. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cmunz (talk) on 00:59, March 17, 2010.
Oppose - This article is great! There's not much to say about Ullek, but this article says everything that we know about the old town. Oil4 ^Talk 12:54, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Closed - Ullek will be kept a featured article at this time. Chicken7 ^>talk 01:03, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

East Ardougne

Original nomination: RuneScape:Article of the Month/East Ardougne

As the template says, more should be added to the history template. While the history section is ok, it is not up to the standard of most of the other major city articles on the wiki.

Support - as nominator _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 10:15, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I don't want to support, as I wrote most of it. Although, I agree it has fallen a bit. I'll try and get around to revising the whole article and cleaning it up, especially the history section. In the mean time, I don't mind if its status is removed. Cheers, Chicken7 ^>talk 11:34, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - This article is filled with tons of info... --Coolnesse 03:30, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
Neutral - While the info on it is very good, it's not much. Oil4 ^Talk 21:26, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
Support - nominates -- Vivieln/ talk File:Soul split.gif|27px 05:00, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - Hmm. I agree that the history section needs work. On the other hand, the rest of the article is good and informative. I remain neutral on this subject I fear.
Asparagoose
15:50, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - I think that the article's layout is fine. Lil cloud 9 02:20, April 27, 2010 (UTC)
Request closure - No one is replying anymore... --Coolnesse 14:14, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - No consensus. --Liquid^Talk 00:52, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Armour

Very little information in the main page.

Support as a nominator. --Flajuram 21:19, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

~~Uhh, this is the page for the best articles.~~ ʞo oɔ 22:23, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm an idiot. I support removal. ʞo oɔ 23:45, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support - How was that a featured article in the past? Sentra246 00:46, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

It was split before Category:Articles to be merged was even created. --クールネシ^トーク 01:20, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Per above. --クールネシ^トーク 01:20, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

Strong support - How the hell did this get featured? It has very little information, and it has no images of anything. Oh, and it's formatting sucks.

“

- Melee beats Ranged

- Ranged beats Magic

- Magic beats Melee

”

REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 06:31, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - Article will now be unfeatured. Lil cloud 9 ^Talk 09:36, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

God Wars

Much more information has become available since featuring this article, rendering some of the current information obsolete. Plus God Wars should be moved to Third Age due to the fact that there were other events and wars during that time.

Support as a nominator. --Flajuram 07:08, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

Weak support - It could use a little sorting out. --クールネシ^トーク 01:20, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 07:04, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - This article has a good history section, events/conflicts section, and other overall info. It should have some more info about fighting there etc. though. I think cleaning up this article would be a lot better than delisting it. This is still a great article, even though it could be improved at some points. JOEYTJE50 TALK pull my finger 02:54, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
Weak oppose - This is good article. Orbwiki107 18:53, May 21, 2011 (UTC)

REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 08:36, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - It will remain a featured article. User:Haloolah123/Sig 00:14, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

Warped terrorbird

The desription of which are weak to an attack assumes there are only 3 types that exist. Whether they've been updated since nomination to have different features I don't know but it's not the easiest thing to understand. Could use pictures tomake the differences clearer

Edmyg 09:31, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Support - literally tl;dr. Does not look good and doesn't attract people to read the actual text. Featured articles should be great for the text it has on it, not just useful for finding the drops of monsters on. We got enough of those articles. this one's just not good enough to be FA. (needs more (good) images too) JOEYTJE50 TALK pull my finger 02:58, May 19, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Looks like any other monster article. Ti en 20:25, May 21, 2011 (UTC)

Strong support - These are just the comments I have of the lead section and info box:
- Lead: "They require 56 Slayer and a Crystal chime to be killed." Who is they? At least 56 slayer? I think this sentence would be better if it were written like this: "Players need a Crystal chime and [at least] 56 Slayer to kill the monster."
- The prose needs to be improved so that it is more readable.
- "There are also three level 143 Warped terrorbirds that the player must fight near the end of The Path of Glouphrie quest; see here for a guide to that fight." "In addition" would be better than "also." The "see here for a guide to that fight" needs to be removed. Also, why must you fight them near the end of the quest? To complete the quest?
- Expand the lead to add some other important facts about the Warped terrorbirds (the lead seems to suggest the level 81 terrorbirds are more common).
- Info box: Under experience for killing, explain what the "620" experience is for.
- There are two consecutive brackets in the infobox. Fix that. Smithing 21:54, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Per Tien.

REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 02:38, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - Warped terrorbirds are no longer a featured article. User:Haloolah123/Sig 00:16, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

Santa hat

Absolutely nothing about this article is Featured-worthy. All it has is a couple of paragraphs, a market history and a few pieces of trivia.

Support - As nom.

REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 05:57, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Per nom. 222 ^talk 06:16, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

Support - It's pretty small for a featured article. The majority of it is just the market history, which I really doubt too many people care about. ɳex undique 13:42, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

Support - There is absolutely nothing worthy in this article.

REDIRECT User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 19:28, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

Support - First, I want to say it is not length that counts, but broadness and comprehensiveness. An article can still be small but be worthy of being featured in my opinion. My general comments:
- Lead and info box: In the lead, it mentions that they appeared 25 December 2002, but it doesn't talk about that in the article. This should be included somewhere in the body, and expanded on.
- The part where they appeared randomly on the ground about every six minutes should be cited. This is likely to be disputed (the news post says they dropped at random intervals [1]).
- Market history: Needs citations, for example: "When first released, players valued the Santa hat at around 50k." needs to be sourced. It also contains too much unnecessary information, shorten it or remove it.
- Trivia: Non-notable trivia needs to be removed.
- Could more be said about the release and reception? Smithing (talk | contribs) 19:37, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Per all. Also, the article says that the hat provides a +3 Magic bonus. Is this an offensive or defensive bonus? Ti en 15:02, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I got one I mean, not FA worthy JOEYTJE50 TALK pull my finger 00:39, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - Santa hat will no longer be featured. Sentra246 06:48, June 26, 2011 (UTC)

While Guthix Sleeps 2nd discussion

Article of the Month nomination

Some unsourced statements, including "It was, for a long time, considered to be the longest and hardest quest in RuneScape. However, with the release of new Grandmaster quests, it's lost this title; the general consensus is that Nomad's Requiem, featuring a boss battle with the level 699 Nomad, is now the most difficult." Needs a Development section (some info on that is listed [http://www.runescape.com/kbase/guid/while_guthix_sleeps_members here]). It has several grammar errors, some of the trivia belongs elsewhere in the article, and the single reference is missing parameters. Smithing (talk | contribs) 19:35, 18 June, 2011 (UTC)

Strong support - to improve. Orthanc107 12:24, 1 July, 2011 (UTC)
Support - An obsolete article cannot be featured. --クールネシ^トーク 16:01, 15 July, 2011 (UTC)
Support, per above.

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 19:07, August 25, 2011 (UTC)

Support - It's badly written and needs to be improved. Fsw e1 10:56, August 26, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - Why can't we just clean it up, instead of delisting it? Ronan^Talk 15:44, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

We can. Some suggestions have already been offered. However, considering it has been open for over two months, and still not up to standards, I think delisting it is a good option now. Smithing (talk | contribs) 18:50, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

We will, but since it's rather long, novice/intermediates will have priority, even if we don't want to.

Fsw e1

06:22, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral - I don't think it's that bad personally, a quick clean up here and there, and it'll soon be on re-nomination if this passes. Rhys ^Talk 15:59, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - While Guthix Sleeps is no longer a featured article. Suppa chuppa ^Talk 17:29, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

Miscellania

I can't find the original nomination

There's nothing special about the article. It has a short introduction, a few bullet points on how to get there, and then just tables of all the shops there. We have a lot of other articles that are much better than this one.

Support - As nominator. ɳex undique 17:44, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
Support - "Hop, hop, hoppity hop and then you fall in molten lava." - Stepping stones. Fsw e1 17:48, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
Support - The article needs serious improvement before being considered FA standard. Ronan^Talk 17:48, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
Comment - It was featured when Miscellania and Etceteria were one article.

REDIRECT User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 18:02, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I don't think this is actually featured Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 18:07, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
Support awful article, though as far as I know, it was untagged and never became featured since King^TALKWer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 18:35, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
Closed - Thank you Ciphrius. This article has already been delisted. ɳex undique 18:46, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

Kennith's Concerns

Original Nomination

It's definitely not one of our best articles, or even quest guides. More than half of it is written with bullet points. It also doesn't really have that feel of a good/comprehensive quest guide (It's missing something). Our standards for articles have gone up in the past 3 years. If this were to be nominated today, I doubt it would pass.

Support - As nominator. ɳex undique 20:05, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
Support - Needs a major improvement to be featured King^TALKWer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 21:46, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
Support - Per nom.

REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 05:59, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

STRONG support - I don't think it follows even half of the quest style guide... Fsw e1 15:55, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
Support - Yeah, it kinda hurts my eyes. I'm tempted to clean it up later when I get time, but meh, not FA quality. Hofmic Talk 18:58, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
Super Strong support - Where's the introduction? Remove it now! --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) • 跟我谈话 01:17, October 2, 2011 (UTC)
Notice of Intent - Any more discussion? ɳex undique 21:36, October 5, 2011 (UTC)
Closed - Kennith's Conerns will be delisted. ɳex undique 18:26, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

Members

Original Nomination

The article is... to be honnest, an aweful one. Its comprised of many (incomplete) lists. in the "members only skills" section, the only one it talks about is summoning, in the level up table, many members only things are left out eg. cooking only has rocktails, sharks, and monkfish, (personnally i think that section needs to go). i could go on, but the article really feels more like a list than an acutal article, and it really dosnt feel like im reading a featured article.

Support - as nom King^TALKWer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 22:24, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - The article is highly comprehensive and a well laid-out read. The fact that Summoning is the only skill which contains in-depth information is because it also has an affect on a player's combat level, making it very significant information, and necessary to have on the page. It was an interesting and enjoyable article overall, and I wouldn't like to see it go. Ronan^Talk 22:54, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
Support - Just a list. A detailed list. But a list. Fsw e1 17:09, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
Support - It looks like a bunch of lists to me. ɳex undique 23:35, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
Notice of Intent - Speak now, or forever hold your peace. ɳex undique 21:36, October 5, 2011 (UTC)
Support - It is just a whole lot of lists. While it is a good article, and exactly what the topic needs, that doesn't make it suitable to be a featured article. Sentra246 11:11, October 6, 2011 (UTC)
Closed - Members will be delisted. ɳex undique 18:26, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

Cape of Accomplishment

Original Nomination

This might have been a good article a few years ago, but it's not one now. It's got a big lead, but then the equipment bonuses section is unsightly. And the Trimmed Capes section might be in-detail, but then there's a table and the end of the article. We have much better articles than this one.

Support - As nominator. ɳex undique 17:44, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
Support - I was thinking of nominating it myself King^TALKWer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 18:32, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
Support - *nods*

REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 08:59, September 26, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Per everyone. Fsw e1 17:09, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
Notice of Intent - Any more takers? ɳex undique 21:36, October 5, 2011 (UTC)
Closed - Capes of accomplishment will be delisted. ɳex undique 18:26, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

Baxtorian

Original Nomination

This might have been a great article 2 years ago, but in 2011, I wouldn't want this to be featured. It's a good article, and it goes in detail about Baxtorian, but there's just not enough on him. It's a relatively short article and it shouldn't be classified as "one of the best written".

Support - As nominator. ɳex undique 17:44, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - I thought it was a great article, and a very enjoyable and well put together read. It also features some brilliant images. Ronan^Talk 17:47, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - I like the article, may not be the longest, but it's well written and informative King^TALKWer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 18:40, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - No, not very long, but still informative and very well written. Fsw e1 17:09, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
Notice of Intent - This will be closed tomorrow, as unsuccessful ɳex undique 21:36, October 5, 2011 (UTC)
Closed - Baxtorian will not be delisted. ɳex undique 18:26, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

Fairy ring

Original Nomination

The majority of this article is just a huge table with all the locations of Fairy rings. It has a good lead but that's really it. It has a small history, bad trivia, a bad gallery, a huge table, and that's the article. If it were nominated today, it wouldn't pass.

Support - As nominator. ɳex undique 23:08, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
Support - Per nom. King^TALKWer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 01:07, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
Support - Per nom.

REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 09:00, September 26, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Per everyone. Fsw e1 17:09, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
Notice of Intent - Nobody else? ɳex undique 21:36, October 5, 2011 (UTC)
Closed - Fairy rings will be delisted. ɳex undique 18:26, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

Lunar spells

Original Nomination

It's a good article, but our standards for FA have risen since it was featured. It has a good amount of information on Lunar spells and their history, but the majority of the article is a table. If it were to be nominated today, I don't think it would pass. I don't think that it's one of our best articles.

Support - As nominator. ɳex undique 23:08, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
Support - I like it more than the fairy ring article, but the wiki still has much better articles than this King^TALKWer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 01:10, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
Support - Go for it.

REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 09:01, September 26, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Per everyone. Fsw e1 17:09, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
Notice of Intent - Unless somebody starts talking :P ɳex undique 21:36, October 5, 2011 (UTC)
Closed - Lunar spells will be delisted. ɳex undique 18:26, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

Contact!

Original nomination

Horrible quest guide. Sure, its contents are OK, but it uses bullet points, poor lay-out and some makeshift bottom sections. Really not one of our best. It may have been good back then, but now it's not. Especially with the new policies.

Strong support - As nominator. Fsw e1 17:09, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
Support - Agreed. Definitely not one of our best articles. ɳex undique 19:10, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
Support - has lots of improvement to do before it sould be featured King^TALKWer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 19:36, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
'Support - Indeed.

REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 23:55, September 26, 2011 (UTC)

Notice of Intent - Anybody? ɳex undique 21:36, October 5, 2011 (UTC)
Closed - Contact! will be delisted. ɳex undique 18:26, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

East Ardougne

Original Nomination

It has a good lead and a nicle little section about it's history, but then the rest of the article is just lists. A list on ways to get there, a list of various POIs, a huge list of all the stores, a list of NPCs, and a list of quests. The first page is okay, but the rest isn't, and it shouldn't constitute a featured article.

Support - As nominator. ɳex undique 19:32, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
Weak Support - The article is pretty good when you compare it to a few other city articles. but its true, there are alot of lists, and alot can be inproved, especially in the surroundings section King^TALKWer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 23:17, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
Support - The best list? Yes. The best article? Naaaah. Fsw e1 12:59, September 27, 2011 (UTC)
Notice of Intent - Anyone else? ɳex undique 18:26, October 7, 2011 (UTC)
Closed - East Ardougne will be delisted. ɳex undique 17:53, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

Mourning's Ends Part II

The images are in bad positions, of low quality, and way too big; it makes the whole article look very unsightly. Also, near the entire article is written like a quick guide in bullets. I definitely would not call this one of our best articles.

Support - As nominator. ɳex undique 21:57, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
Support - the article is outdated, considering current standards, and the images are horrendous. King^TALKWer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 22:35, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
Support - For a quest article, it doesn't cut it.

REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 23:59, September 26, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Thank you for this. It makes The Branches of Darkmeyer look even better. Fsw e1 12:59, September 27, 2011 (UTC)
Notice of Intent - Anyone else? ɳex undique 18:26, October 7, 2011 (UTC)
Closed - Mourning's End Part II will be delisted. ɳex undique 17:53, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

Desert Treasure

Original Nomination

The article is quite a bit outdated, considering current standarts. ~~it uses a lot of bullet points~~, and almost feels more like a quick guide, especially in the beginning.

Support - as nom King^TALKWer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 23:11, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
Support - I don't think any quest guide using so many bullets (except maybe MEP2, where bullets actually make it easier to understand) should be a featured article. Hofmic Talk 01:17, September 27, 2011 (UTC)

Changed to Oppose - After a lengthy rewrite in prose, it actually looks good again; and worthy of being a featured article. Hofmic Talk 02:31, September 27, 2011 (UTC)

Support - It is better after the rewrite, but still needs work. E.g. the first and last sections are like "talk to Azzanadra until the conversation is over and congrats" (the same with Asgarnia Smith) - he should at least get his own section and a transcription of the dialogue. Fsw e1 12:59, September 27, 2011 (UTC)
Comment - There is no denying it, the rewrite does help, but the wiki does have better quest articles, and it still does have alot of "do this, talk to this npc" in the guide rather than having the backstory into what the npc is saying King^TALKWer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 18:52, October 7, 2011 (UTC)
Weak oppose - It actually doesn't look as bad as you think. --クールネシ^トーク^トーク 12:06, October 9, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - It looks quite good now, a good article, good job Hofmic on the rewrite. Sentra246 08:30, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - This needs more consensus to be closed. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 16:52, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Still a very high standard article. Ronan^Talk 21:49, October 17, 2011 (UTC)
Withdraw - The article has improved vastly since i first nominated it 3 weeks ago, and i am satisfied with it for the time being, i will keep an eye out on it, and if i feel that is isnt keeping up to future standarts in the future, i might renominate it. Kudos to Hofmic and to anyone else that helped to revamp the article and bring it up to current standarts. King^TALKWer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 23:03, October 17, 2011 (UTC)

{{Closure|Withdrawn}} King^TALKWer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 23:03, October 17, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - Nominator withdrawn. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 17:48, October 18, 2011 (UTC)

God Wars

Frankly, this is a very weak page considering the tons of information that could be there. It has a relatively tiny history section and a long and very limited list of events. If every point in that list had a decent line, and there would be paragraphs about the outcome of the Wars, subconflicts etc. this would be much better. But it's deffo not up to the standard.

Delist - As insulator. Fsw e1 16:42, January 18, 2013 (UTC)
Delist - I agree with your points. That being said, why did you decide to delist it when you could have rewritten the article based on the points you brought up here? http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/Blaze_fire.png http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/12.png 21:19, January 19, 2013 (UTC)

I should do that yes, but it'll be a truly MASSIVE project. Nearly every point in that list (and it's quite extensive) could have multiple paragraphs on it. It'd take days. In other words - I need help. PLus exams are coming next week, so I won't be able to do it. I'll get to it eventually. Maybe. Ish. Either way, it's definitely not a featured article in this state.

Fsw e1

21:22, January 19, 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. And that's why I agree with you, it's definitely not a featured article. http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/Blaze_fire.png http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/12.png 21:24, January 19, 2013 (UTC)

{{Closure|Discussion dead {{Signatures/Blaze fire12}} 15:58, February 16, 2013 }}(UTC)

Closed - Article will be delisted. --Liquid^Talk 23:59, February 16, 2013 (UTC)

Dragonfire shield

Original nomination: Look 'ere, ye landlubber.
Reason: The article is fairly short and, aside from the introduction and how to obtain the shield, is rather devoid of information. Some images have been ickily placed and some of the wording seems... disagreeable. Even if that is fixed, I doubt this article will be able to get much more body, simply because there isn't that much to say.

Delist - As nominator. Fsw e1 09:43, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

Delist - To be honest I don't think any item, apart from stuff like the Staff of Armadyl, will ever be notable enough that a featured-worthy article can be written about them. The DFS article is written fairly decently, but not featured-article-level. Oil4 ^Talk 19:12, May 4, 2013 (UTC)

Delist - This article, like most, has degraded a bit since I rewrote it ages ago. It's also not quite as noteworthy or important an item as it used to be. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 19:17, May 4, 2013 (UTC)

"And look, I even managed to completely avoid use of "the player"!" ♥♥♥

Fsw e1

19:32, May 4, 2013 (UTC)

Delist Hair 16:00, May 5, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose deletion I know this is not an RFD, but I'd to make it clear that I don't think we should delete this article. I mean yeah... it's not worthy of being a featured article, but that doesn't mean we should delete it. MolMan 19:15, May 5, 2013 (UTC)

...you have problems, you know that.

Fsw e1

19:33, May 5, 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying it should be deleted? MolMan 20:01, May 5, 2013 (UTC)

Support deletion. Suppa chuppa ^Talk 20:04, May 5, 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to consult Lord Yelps the Almighty about it. You will hear back from me.

Fsw e1

20:05, May 5, 2013 (UTC)

Can we delete Mol as well? I think he's been digging up my back garden again. Oh, and delist per Andorin. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 20:16, May 5, 2013 (UTC)

LIES! LIES! LIES! All I've been doing is constituting 12 grams of ¹²C. MolMan

That doesn't even make sense...

Oil4 ^Talk 08:29, May 6, 2013 (UTC)

Does Mol ever?

Fsw e1

08:35, May 6, 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so he's a chemistry mol as well as an annoying furry animal. I see now. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 08:36, May 6, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - Dragonfire shield will be delisted. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 16:25, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

Fishing

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<><

I've been wanting to do this for a while. Ever since I created User:The Mol Man/Fishing actually, where I realized that this article sucked.

Ya sure, it's got a lot of information (still is missing a whole bunch though), but it presents it so poorly. The syntax is so unengaging that I had difficulty reading it over one last time before I made sure I wanted to get it delisted.

I'll be honest: The article has potential, but no one is going to go forth and fix it. Not being a pessimist, just being realistic.

It's not worthy of being featured anymore... It's missing information, and, if that weren't enough, it makes a mockery of the English language with its subpar grammar and dull structure.

Any wordsmith can feel free to attempt a rewrite, but because none of you will, can we just delist it for now?

ʇsᴉləp MolMan 19:51, May 5, 2013 (UTC)

Delete -

The first few fish players can catch require nets, except for crayfish, which require a crayfish cage. Fishing nets can only be used in the seas. Free players can only use small fishing nets while members can also use big fishing nets.

I feel like a bloody six-year-old reading that. Feature your subpage instead, it's a much better read.

Fsw e1

07:48, May 6, 2013 (UTC)

Can we speedy d it? Suppa chuppa ^Talk 07:50, May 6, 2013 (UTC)

Let's give it its own namespace and then speedy d it. =3

Fsw e1

08:25, May 6, 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I'll get RuneScape:MassDelete ready. Suppa chuppa ^Talk 08:36, May 6, 2013 (UTC)

Let's kill everything in Category:Dungeoneering while at it.

Fsw e1

08:41, May 6, 2013 (UTC)

EXTERMINATE. EXTERMINATE. http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/Blaze_fire.png http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/12.png 14:21, May 8, 2013 (UTC)

WHY ARE YOU DELETING IT? The article is important!!! Ilikewiki (talk) 09:03, May 11, 2013 (UTC)

We aren't nominating it to be deleted :p, but just to lose its featured article status. If you're against this, feel free to leave a comment explaining your reasons :). Haidro ^(talk) 10:25, May 11, 2013 (UTC)

Wait, this isn't an RfSpeedyD? Awe...

Fsw e1

13:29, May 11, 2013 (UTC)

Delist - It's pretty much just a list of things you can do and things that can happen. Not feature-worthy. Oil4 ^Talk 17:22, May 8, 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that like all of the skill articles though? http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/Blaze_fire.png http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/12.png 01:13, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

Yup.

Oil4 ^Talk 15:35, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

So, then, I can assume you'll be putting up Hunter and Magic for delisting then, based on your criteria? http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/Blaze_fire.png http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/12.png 16:25, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

Delist - Definitely not one of our best articles. ɳex undique 02:26, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

Remove - "Fishing lets players catch fish from fishing spots. It is the companion skill of itself [[forever_alone.jpg]]. Caught fish may be cooked using a bunsen burner, and are often sold to other players because of their ability to heal hurt feelings. When a player has achieved level 99 in Fishing, they may purchase a pity hug from the evil guy inside the secret hideout of doom for 99,000 beers on the wall, one of which must be taken down and passed around." That's a hell of a lot more interesting than the lead on the Fishing article. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 15:42, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

I am pretty funny. MolMan 18:39, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

Delist - Though I still don't see why we don't rewrite it ಠ_ಠ http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/Blaze_fire.png http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/12.png 11:59, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - This article will be delisted. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 15:27, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

Hunter

I propose since Hunter is currently unfinished (requires info on Jadinkos) it should be delisted from featured untill such a time that it is up to date. Eifekk (talk) 20:10, May 28, 2013 (UTC)

Delist - Per RuneScape:Featured_articles/Delist/Archive_1#Fishing. Was actually planning on nominating this for a delist myself. Oil4 ^Talk 09:02, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

Question - Does anyone have any statistics on how frequently Featured Articles are clicked on? Are they actually useful? (And I support delisting this article.) --Liquid^Talk 21:09, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

Support - I doubt we'll ever be able to have Skill article FA's. @Liquidhelm: No. Probably. Fsw e1 14:52, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - Article will be delisted. Suppa chuppa ^Talk 16:39, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

Dragon Slayer

Is this one of our best articles? No. Heck, it's not even one of our best quest guides. Far from it. I quote thee: "To start the quest, speak to the Guildmaster in the Champions' Guild, located just below the southern entrance of Varrock. After talking to him, you will be directed to Oziach,..." That's not really good and barely in line with RS:QSG. I've given it a read and it's decent or fairly good at its best, but definitely not one of 'the best'. Fsw e1 07:18, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

Delist - Per nom.

REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 21:30, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Delist - Hair 17:39, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - Delisted. Suppa chuppa ^Talk 18:59, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

Draynor Manor

Okay, so let's see. Of the three introductory paragraphs, the one with the most text contains only trivia. Further ahead, there's basically nothing interesting. Read the Dungeon section, for example. Some seven-year-old squirrel (no offence, Mol) could have written that. The rest isn't so horrible, but, face it, if this is of similar quality to things like Lord Drakan, I'll rip my spleen out. Fsw e1 07:22, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

Strong delist - It's vastly about where stuff is. Boring. Haidro ^(talk) 07:33, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

Delist - It is quite poorly written. Temu jin 01:58, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

Delist - Per nom.

REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 21:27, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Neutral - Hair 17:41, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - Delisted. Suppa chuppa ^Talk 18:59, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

Kalphite queen

Another such lovely article. It's a fine article for a boss, but to remain featured? Not quite. She hasn't got a history and nothing is done to make up for that; no physical description, no biological desription, nothing. Really, the first paragraphs only speak about her combat level and drops. Then there's a nifty list of how to reach Her Majesty, followed by a poorly formatted summary of her attacks. Oh, and a huge drop table, yay. Honestly, the best thing of that page is the gif of her transforming. So nominate that for FIMG if you want, but delist the article. Fsw e1 07:26, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

Delist - Per nom.

REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 21:29, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Delist - Hair 17:39, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - Delisted. Suppa chuppa ^Talk 18:59, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

Barrows

The article is completely unreferenced, the coverage is poor, and the writing and organization of the article could be improved. I'll give some examples below.

Background

"It succeeded, for the brothers, who were in the front line, seemed invincible." Poor grammar.
"The brothers were grievously wounded in battle near the Great Vyrewall and thus the army set up camp just west of Meiyerditch." The prose could be improved. This would work better: "After the brothers were grievously wounded in battle near the Great Vyrewall, the army set up camp just west of Meiyerditch."
"Soon, the brothers died of their infectious wounds simultaneously in the army's camp." The brothers died at precisely the same time? That sounds unlikely; I would recommend referencing this claim if it is true.
"Sliske cast a magical spell on the crypts" What crypts?
"binding them to guard a very powerful artefact" The name of this artefact could be mentioned. I notice that in the article, "a very powerful artefact" links to the Barrows icon.
Explain who Zaros is. Why did Azzanadra want to establish communication with Zaros?
"Shortly after said ritual, which the adventurer attended with several Temple Knight allies, Sliske attempted to claim them in a similar way." In what way did Azzandra and the adventurer claim them in the first place?
"However, the Saradominist priest Akrisae Kolluym intercepted the spell, sacrificing himself and turning him into Akrisae the Doomed - the seventh wight." This sentence is a bit convoluted, and needs to indicate that Sliske turned him into Akrisae the Doomed.
"Akrisae joined the Barrows Brothers in their crypt, although, of course, he isn't a Barrows Brother himself." It isn't necessary to mention Akrisea is not a Barrows brother (I hope).

Other quick observations

The lead mentions the objective of the Barrows minigame, but this isn't mentioned or expanded on in the body.
Money making: An introduction to this section would be useful.
This section talks about "High level Barrows", but this isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article.
"The minigame is one of a few being updated completely, both graphically and minigame obstacles." Poor grammar. Also, this could be included in the "Graphical overhaul" section.
"Safespots were also affected by the update, and there are very few safespots to deal with the Barrows Brothers, all being in the catacombs only." These safespots aren't described anywhere else in the article. Smithing (talk | contribs) 02:44, September 16, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Support - Not that good. Note that Suppa is preparing a YG thread about some additions to the FA and FIMG processes, including a mass delisting of articles (this included). Fsw e1 05:30, September 16, 2013 (UTC)

Why did you make this if there's going to be a YG thread about delisting this article anyway?

Oil4 ^Talk 21:39, September 17, 2013 (UTC)

He didn't make it, Smithing did. Also because I'm lazy. Suppa chuppa ^Talk 21:41, September 17, 2013 (UTC)

Ooooh I see. I should get new glasses.

Oil4 ^Talk 06:44, September 18, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - So, once it's delisted, are you going to be applying these changes to the page that you listed to fix it? http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/Blaze_fire.png http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/12.png 21:53, September 17, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not able to accurately fix most of the problems I've noted above, since I'm not a member and can't play the Barrows minigame (I really have no interest in playing RS). I also don't know or can't access the sources of information for the article. I do, however, hope that my suggestions will help anyone who can play the minigame and is interested in improving the article. Smithing (talk | contribs) 20:02, September 18, 2013 (UTC)

Support - Unless this gets updated for EoC, then it should not be featured. --Jlun2 (talk) 11:39, September 22, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - I think instead of delisting this article we should use this as an opportunity to bring it up to Featured Article status by making the changes mentioned. 04ismailjj6 (talk) 12:00, September 22, 2013 (UTC)

Well then feel free to make the changes, but if it isn't up to scratch then it needs to be removed and if need be renominated at a later date. Plus you assume that making the changes would bring it back up to FA status which is not necessarily the case, which would result in a massive waste of time fixing it only to have to delist it. Until such a time it should be removed if it's not FA status then renominated if it becomes FA status again. Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 21:24, September 22, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - Barrows will be delisted as a Featured Article. User:TyA/sig 18:44, September 26, 2013 (UTC)

Keldagrim

Pictures and information is outdated. --Scuzzy Beta (talk) 17:31, January 31, 2014 (UTC)

Support - It is pretty terrible, doesn't mention how Veldaban became king, and stuff. Wahisietel (Talk) 20:00, January 26, 2014 (UTC)

Support - Just to add onto what Battleben and Scuzzy Beta said:
- This article has absolutely no references. This makes it very inconvenient to try to verify the information in the "History" section if I don't know where this information is coming from in the first place.
- "Transportation" section has several one sentence paragraphs. Perhaps some of these could be merged?
- "Inhabitants": This section is empty. Even though it does link to another article, it would be nice if a summary of the information there were included in this article for comprehensiveness.
- Parts of the article read like an advertisement, contrary to RS:NPOV. This is an encyclopedia, not a brochure. Examples:
  - "Its close proximity to an anvil makes it an excellent place to smith, rivalling areas such as Varrock and Yanille" [emphasis added]
  - "Keldagrim is an excellent location to begin searching for an item" [emphasis added]
  - "The upper level has several rooms where NPCS can spend the night and offers an excellent view of one of the River Kelda's main tributaries" [emphasis added]

Smithing (talk | contribs) 20:45, January 26, 2014 (UTC)

{{Closure|Discussion has died.}} Temu jin 10:06, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

Closed - Keldagrim will be delisted. --Liquid^Talk 13:36, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

Magic

This article is not very comprehensive, doesn't contain any references, and its syntax is poor. These are just a few examples of some of the problems in the article:

"Training Magic" It would be nice if a summary of the information in the linked article were included in the Magic article for comprehensiveness.
Information on how to cast a spell, including the autocast feature, could be explained. "In order to cast a spell, its spellbook must be active" is not very helpful.
The "Development History" and "The Canon of Magic" would benefit from references to help with the verification of the material. I can't verify "Jagex explained that the reduction of Magic experience in RuneScape 2 was due to the fact that runes were easier to obtain on the new version" if I don't know where the material came from.
"Development History"
- Repetition: On this date, on this date, on this date,...
- Some of the one-sentence paragraphs could be merged.

Smithing (talk | contribs) 06:17, February 12, 2014 (UTC)

Support - It's essentially a list of tables. I'd rather watch that channel that shows only pictures of beaches than read the development history section ew... And "The Canon of Magic", which is the most ridiculous name ever, is very short and has very poor information in that's it's wrong for a good part. Fsw e1 18:11, February 12, 2014 (UTC)

Support - Per Smithing. Temu jin 09:17, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

Super Strong Support - The training guide makes me want to cry, it's that bad. --Scuzzy Beta 19:31, February 28, 2014 (UTC)

There hasn't been any new discussion for 13 days Smithing (talk | contribs) 00:34, March 14, 2014 (UTC)

~~A user has requested closure for Featured articles/Delist/Archive 1.~~ Request denied. The reason given was: Until Forum:Featured_Articles_overhaul is closed, this shall remain open Haidro ^(talk) 07:46, March 19, 2014 (UTC)

Closed - The Magic article will no longer be featured. I have closed this thread at this moment per here. Haidro ^(talk) 08:39, March 20, 2014 (UTC)

Retagged

While Guthix Sleeps

While it was a horrible task to go through the entire page to reformat all the pictures, lists, etc. correctly, I think we might be able to consider re-tagging. Lil cloud 9 00:12, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Spent about an hour or two earlier cleaning it out so I hope it looks a tad better now, full changes are on discussion. --Death 4210 00:18, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Seems so much better now! _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 07:28, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It's cleaned up, all right. --Coolnesse 21:15, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for now The trivia section still has an awful of garbage and worthless mentions, as well as being exceedingly long. And some of it should be in the article. It is "almost" ready, but not yet.--Degenret01 00:46, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I visited the article, and read over most of it, and I think it's fantastic and the clean-up crew has done a spectacular job. I had also used this article as my guide in completing the quest, so no problems there either. Born2bwild04 16:43, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - While Guthix Sleeps will be retagged. --Liquid^Talk 21:51, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Fishing

The archive is missing, but was retagged when a history section was added on November 2010. Lil cloud 9 ^Talk

Mining

A history section has been added.

Support - As nominator. ----クールネシ^トーク 22:32, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose needs a serious cleanup, too many tables, too long, repeat info that should be on other articles, such as pickaxes, ores, perhaps mining locations as well.--Degenret01 01:22, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

RS:CLOSURE - Sadly, I'll have to concur with Degen for now. --クールネシ^トーク 01:18, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - Nominator withdrawal. User:TyA/sig 05:16, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

Magic

A history section has been added.

Support - As nominator. ----クールネシ^トーク 22:32, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Crapload of trivia needs cleanup, removal, or merge into article proper.--Degenret01 01:33, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

As the person who re-wrote the page into what you see today (and largely left the trivia and history sections alone), I can do that. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 23:52, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

Better now? --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 00:26, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

Support, by the way. I think it's a rather nice article now. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 22:25, January 19, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Looks great after the re-write. Sentra246 00:45, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

Yes - Looks nice, no?

REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 06:33, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

~~A user has requested closure for Featured articles/Delist/Archive 1.~~ Request complete. The reason given was: Inactive discussion

- --クールネシ^トーク 23:34, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - It seems the issues with the article have been dealt with; Magic will be re-tagged. Suppa chuppa ^Talk 06:03, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Desert Treasure

Original nomination: RuneScape:Article of the Month/Desert Treasure (2)

Delisting: RuneScape:Featured articles/Delist/Archive 1#Desert Treasure

I removed a lot of the long language and simplified some of the text, though I did leave in two or three methods per boss. Even though I didn't remove the other methods, I did shorten the text per method considerably.

Part of my rewrite was dealing with the long and confusing directions; hopefully they're better now. --Liquid^Talk 18:39, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Support - As nominator. --Liquid^Talk 18:39, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I liek it.

REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 23:54, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Looks good, also shouldn't it be here under the re-tagging? RuneScape:Cleanup Featured articles Sentra246 00:41, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

Yes. --クールネシ^トーク 13:27, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

Support- In the name of guthix !! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.96.229.87 (talk).

Support- This thing saved me so many times during the quest! I found it to be accurate and useful. LordArianwyn

Yes It Should Be Put On Main Page!! =-) Braitling1 02:38, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

~~A user has requested closure for Featured articles/Delist/Archive 1.~~ Request complete. The reason given was: Unanimous consensus

- --クールネシ^トーク 23:34, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - Desert Treasure will be re-tagged. Suppa chuppa ^Talk 06:03, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

@@ Line 129: / Line 129: @@
 '''Support''' - I liek it. {{Signatures/Matthew2602}} 23:54, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
-'''Support''' - Looks good, also shouldn't it be here under the re-tagging? [[RuneScape:Cleanup Featured articles]] {{Signatures/Sentra246}} 00:41, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
+'''Support''' - Looks good, also shouldn't it be here under the re-tagging? RuneScape:Cleanup Featured articles {{Signatures/Sentra246}} 00:41, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
 :Yes. {{Signatures/Coolnesse}} 13:27, February 5, 2011 (UTC)