File talk:GW Expansions Infographic.jpg

Not kept up-to-date, and text works just fine

Text does NOT work just fine if insufficient text is added to replace the information lost by removing the image. If some part of it is out of date then that should have been added to the text that was not added at the time of deletion. This image should not be deleted until the information it contains, appropriately updated, is added. ~ 1Maven (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• New Character Slots: Wrong, 1 with prepurchase, 2 with special edition prepurchase
• Explorable Zones: Wrong, 1 announced explorable zone ("Verdant Brink, the first map of the expansion..." "first" implying more)
• New Professions: Wrong, does not include swords, Legendary Assassin Stance, Devastation, or any elite specialization information
• New Skills for Existing Profession: Wrong, does not include Tempest or any information about the 4 unrevealed elite specializations

Along with the fact that Factions and Nightfall aren't expansions, this image adds a lot of false information. So what are you saying this image actually adds to any article that isn't already present and updated correctly? —Mora 01:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention, you can't really make comparisons between GW1 and GW2. Take skills, for instance - GW1 had a plethora of skills for every profession, where GW2 was intentionally designed to have significantly fewer skills. This infographic is misleading, at best. —Dr Ishmael 02:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

My point is that both the correct GW2 information in the image and the updated information that you list above should be added to the article from which this image was deleted before this image is deleted. ~ 1Maven (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

To what end? The image is not comparing like-to-like as Dr. Ismael pointed out, and has little intrinsic value beyond looking nice. The creator of the image stated that they wanted to present facts as they come in, which is what the page is already doing. If there's HoT information that isn't on the page, then it should be added. G R E E N E R 14:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)