| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Counter-Strike 2 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find video game sources: "Counter-Strike 2" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
 | Counter-Strike 2 has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: July 1, 2024. (Reviewed version). |
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Update
editAudio rework
More guns
Half life is Canon
https://www.pcgamer.com/here-we-go-again-counter-strike-2-has-a-half-life-reference/ Baratiiman (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
editThere is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Counter-Strike: Global Offensive which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Mike Morasky citation
editThe source for the claim that Mike Morasky is the composer for the game is this tweet [1], where Mike just quote tweets the CS2 account with the words "Dig it!" - which doesn't really prove anything. I know he probably did compose it, so I won't delete it from the article, but do we have a better source for this? I just had a look and couldn't anything reliable, just stuff like IMDB (user generated, so that claim was probably based off this article) and random unofficial steam workshop posts. BugGhost🪲👻 20:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- There were a couple game production credits that were added based on vague tweets when this article was first made, so I'd support removing it until we have more confirmation. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
"CS2" redirect
editDo you think it's a good idea to get CS2 to redirect directly to this article?
I've just changed CS2 to redirect to CS2 (disambiguation), because previously it went to carbon disulfide (CS2), even though nearly all the other topics listed CS2 disambiguation page get more traffic than it [2].
Seeing as Counter-Strike 2 is very commonly referred to as "CS2", and it gets more wikitraffic than the other 'CS2' articles, should CS2 redirect directly to the Counter-Strike 2 article instead of the disambiguation? Search engine results already overwhelmingly point to Counter-Strike 2 when searching "CS2".
I'm asking rather than doing because I don't know the politics or the process involved around "claiming" redirects like this, or what is the method for deciding priority (still pretty new to editing) so wanted a second opinion before meddling further. BugGhost🪲👻 18:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- I certainly agree with retargeting CS2 to the disambiguation page, but for the second part of your question it might be worth starting an WP:RFD to get some input from editors who more commonly work with redirects? Because there isn't an unambiguously clear primary topic (even if counter-strike gets a plurality of the hits), your current solution might be best. Alyo (chat·edits) 20:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks ok - I wasn't aware of WP:RFD. I just reverted my changes to the CS2 redirect and launched a RFD about it in order to get the redirect specialists involved [3] - I wasn't certain I did it right the first time (wasn't sure if CS2 was meant to "become" CS2 (disambiguation) or if it was just meant to point to it). BugGhost🪲👻 21:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- No worries, you did pretty much exactly what I would have :) Alyo (chat·edits) 04:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks ok - I wasn't aware of WP:RFD. I just reverted my changes to the CS2 redirect and launched a RFD about it in order to get the redirect specialists involved [3] - I wasn't certain I did it right the first time (wasn't sure if CS2 was meant to "become" CS2 (disambiguation) or if it was just meant to point to it). BugGhost🪲👻 21:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
"Monetization" section
editYesterday I added a Monetization section (cited), but its since been largely reverted, with a small portion of the info being moved to a new Revenue subheading. Just wanted to discuss what other editors think about the inclusion of a section like this.
Main points in the section were:
- Revenue model (F2P and Prime)
- Drops/weapons cases
- Marketplace
- Weapon skins/knives/etc surprisingly high prices
- Valve's estimated 2023 revenue from keys and trade commissions
These points have now been removed from the article, apart from the last one. This section was intended to be a jumping off point in order to discuss related topics such as:
- Countries passing anti gambling laws that prevent weapons cases in Counter-Strike being opened, including Valve being fined in Austria over it: [4]
- Skins gambling and it's alleged connection to real gambling, including regulation issues and claims that it can be used by children [5] [6][7]
- The care package drops leading to the "case farming" bots phenomena [8], a Valve-acknowledged issue [9]
My view is that the skins economy that revolves around CS2 is too huge and complex to just put in what is currently in the Revenue section, and it's had enough sustained coverage to warrant some discussion on this article. A simple Revenue section would make sense for a game with a more straightforward monetization model (say, Elden Ring, which just earns money through copies sold), but it's too reductive for CS2. Seeing as it was reverted just wanted to get other view points on this. BugGhost🪲👻 09:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging @IDKFA-93 in case they missed this BugGhost🪲👻 11:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
GA Review
editThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Counter-Strike 2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: IDKFA-93 (talk · contribs) 14:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: CanonNi (talk · contribs) 11:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
I'll review this one. This is my first review, so please leave me a message on my talk page if I do anything wrong, thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Passed. Well written and grammatically correct.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- Passed. Complies with the MoS and is properly formatted.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Passed. References are formatted properly.
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- Passed. I checked 10 random sources:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Source check
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
- C. It contains no original research:
- Passed. All statements are supported by reliable sources.
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Passed. No copyvios.
- C. It contains no original research:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Passed. Contains almost all information about the game, including its gameplay, development, and reception. The article would be very useful for the average reader.
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- Passed. Stays on topic and contains lots of (but not too much) detail.
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Passed. Neutrally written with an encyclopedic tone.
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Passed. No reverts in the past month (apart from some socks promoting a case opening site) and no edit wars in the article's history.
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Passed. All images are properly licensed.
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- Passed. Images are relevant to their respective sections and have descriptive captions related to the topic.
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Passed. @IDKFA-93: thank you for your amazing work! As a CS2 player myself, I found this article extremely informative, and, to be honest, this is one of the best articles I've read in a while. Keep up the great work! '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
Good Article review progress box
|
