Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/StarCraft titles/archive1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Bencherlite (talk | contribs) →StarCraft titles: no point in creating an article now |
→StarCraft titles: commenting |
||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
:I don't think those articles are considered reliable sources. Now, if [[1up.com]] or [[GamesRadar]] had an article on it, I would agree with you. [[User:GamerPro64|GamerPro64]] ([[User talk:GamerPro64|talk]]) 01:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC) |
:I don't think those articles are considered reliable sources. Now, if [[1up.com]] or [[GamesRadar]] had an article on it, I would agree with you. [[User:GamerPro64|GamerPro64]] ([[User talk:GamerPro64|talk]]) 01:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
:I don't see the point of creating an article full of nothing and fluff based on dodgy sources and speculation. By all means ensure that this is noted as a topic with a future retention period (e.g. 3 months from the release of the game to get the article to GA), but forcing someone to write something about this hot air, let alone make anyone peer review it, seems a waste of time to me. [[User:Bencherlite|Bencherlite]][[User talk:Bencherlite|<i><sup>Talk</sup></i>]] 01:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC) |
:I don't see the point of creating an article full of nothing and fluff based on dodgy sources and speculation. By all means ensure that this is noted as a topic with a future retention period (e.g. 3 months from the release of the game to get the article to GA), but forcing someone to write something about this hot air, let alone make anyone peer review it, seems a waste of time to me. [[User:Bencherlite|Bencherlite]][[User talk:Bencherlite|<i><sup>Talk</sup></i>]] 01:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
:: Worst case scenario is we create a section for the upcoming expansions in the [[StarCraft II]] article, then redirect the expansion articles to the appropriate section. This also helps with redundancy since the three games are fairly intertwined with each other. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Gary King|<font color="#02b">Gary <b>King</b></font>]] <span style="font-size: 0.9em;">([[User talk:Gary King|<font color="#02e">talk</font>]] · [[User:Gary King/Scripts|<font color="#02e">scripts</font>]])</span></font> 03:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 03:24, 16 February 2011
StarCraft titles
5 articles
Procedural nom; I demoted this a couple months ago because StarCraft II was not a GA, but it has since become one. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy repromote no point in this one lingering. BencherliteTalk 16:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Needs creation of the Zerg game since it is in works and will definitely be released. Nergaal (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know if there's enough information for the article yet. As far as I know, as of the release of StarCraft II (so about half a year ago), mission ideas were still being pitched for the game, but I don't know how far they've gotten since then. Gary King (talk · scripts) 03:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Is there any estimated release date? Is it going to be after Diablo 3? Nergaal (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Not that I'm aware of, though places like IGN speculate 2012. The entire sum of knowledge we have about the expansion at present is that we know the title and the race it focuses on. That's certainly not enough to create an article with. -- Sabre (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's very likely to be released after Diablo III. Gary King (talk · scripts) 17:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Is there any estimated release date? Is it going to be after Diablo 3? Nergaal (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know if there's enough information for the article yet. As far as I know, as of the release of StarCraft II (so about half a year ago), mission ideas were still being pitched for the game, but I don't know how far they've gotten since then. Gary King (talk · scripts) 03:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Needs creation of the Zerg game since it is in works and will definitely be released. Nergaal (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy repromote - I agree, this was delisted not too long ago for not having that article as a GA+, and now it is. --PresN 21:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy promote Zginder 2011-02-13T20:11Z (UTC)
- Speedy promote igordebraga ≠ 18:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Since the second part will be released in about a year [1] [2][3] and there is plenty of information about how the game will probably be, I think the Zerg article needs to be created and included before this is repromoted. Nergaal (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think those articles are considered reliable sources. Now, if 1up.com or GamesRadar had an article on it, I would agree with you. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see the point of creating an article full of nothing and fluff based on dodgy sources and speculation. By all means ensure that this is noted as a topic with a future retention period (e.g. 3 months from the release of the game to get the article to GA), but forcing someone to write something about this hot air, let alone make anyone peer review it, seems a waste of time to me. BencherliteTalk 01:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Worst case scenario is we create a section for the upcoming expansions in the StarCraft II article, then redirect the expansion articles to the appropriate section. This also helps with redundancy since the three games are fairly intertwined with each other. Gary King (talk · scripts) 03:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)