Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/StarCraft titles/archive1

StarCraft titles

5 articles

StarCraft

StarCraft: Brood War

StarCraft: Ghost

StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty

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)[reply]

Speedy repromote no point in this one lingering. Bencherlite ^Talk 16:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Needs creation of the Zerg game since it is in works and will definitely be released. Nergaal (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Is there any estimated release date? Is it going to be after Diablo 3? Nergaal (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

I think it's very likely to be released after Diablo III. Gary King (talk · scripts) 17:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy repromote - I agree, this was delisted not too long ago for not having that article as a GA+, and now it is. --Pres N 21:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy promote Z gin der 2011-02-13T20:11Z (UTC)
Speedy promote igordebraga ≠ 18:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Bencherlite ^Talk 01:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. In any case, as mentioned in the linked articles themselves, these release dates are highly speculative. And, considering how long Blizzard took to release StarCraft II, don't expect the expansions to come on schedule. They prefer quality over punctuality, similar to Valve and Half-Life 2: Episode Three. Gary King (talk · scripts) 03:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put a note in the retention logs, so when the article is actually created and a release date noted then a timetable can be set for getting it to GA status. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy repromote As to the matter of HotS, as there is no planned release date yet and we have only basic info, I'd say there's no reason to have an article now and thus it's not germane to this topic. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Promote Nergaal (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]