Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/StarCraft
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/StarCraft: |
edit · history · watch · refresh | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] Move to WP:VG
The old and incomplete Wikipedia:WikiProject StarCraft is now a task force of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. -- Sabre (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Starcraft II
I think this article could be promoted to GA-status very easily. The criteria for GA that would be hard to meet is stability — however, stability does not preclude changes in an article as new sources arise, and I think this article is currently stable and comprehensive. --Haemo (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Spore (video game) was at one point a GA, so I guess it's possible for an unreleased game to be promoted, but personally I think it's better to wait until after the release before submitting the article for GA-status. JACOPLANE • 2008-04-20 19:19
- I'd tend to agree with Jacoplane, it's often better to wait for the full picture to emerge - the game being released - as then you don't have to worry about having to rehaul it after the game is released. The issue of stability has been raised with me considering putting Species of StarCraft through GAN, I can easily see how it can re-emerge with a SC2 GAN: official information is constantly streaming out about it. It could be destablised by a news post of sufficient importance within days. David Fuchs pointed out to me that WP:GA?'s line "Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold" is valid here. Its also not very up-to-date, for instance: we haven't really added any significant information about the release of the Zerg, the development section could be so much better with all these media releases and conventions regarding the game. Stuff like "The Terrans were revealed at [whenever they were revealed] in [date], and were described by the development team as [...]. The release was received by critics..." wouldn't go amiss, as long as it maintains a healthy distance from going so far as to detail the media releases concerning the more minor aspects like units.
- Personally, I'd rather try to get the guaranteed stable articles up to GA, namely Brood War and Ghost. Ghost probably has a pretty good shot at it at the moment since it was redone (I'm just waiting on the WPVG assessment), and Brood War shouldn't take much to get there. -- Sabre (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] StarCraft rewrite
I've just finished my rewrite for StarCraft. I imagine it needs some copyeditting though, so if you can run through it for the usual mistakes that need fixing. -- Sabre (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Real-time strategy article needs help
Hey folks. Just wanted to direct some eager and intelligent minds to the real-time strategy article. Right now, the article is B-level status but it's important enough that it needs to be pushed to good article status. More than anything, it needs research and references to verify the statements in the article at this point. Please check in when you can. Randomran (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Board game, StarCraft Adventures and novels
Does anyone know anything about, or even better own, either StarCraft: The Board Game or StarCraft Adventures. These two articles have been sitting around a while and have yet to establish their notability, although I imagine that they can. However, I personally know absolutely nothing about them, so I can't really contribute to their articles. But they really do need to be sorted out. -- Sabre (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
We also need to think of a new approach to the novels. It would appear that the novels do not individually express any major notability - I cannot find reviews for any of them from reliable sources. However, I think we can do a bit better than a single section in the series article. Any ideas? -- Sabre (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
