Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/StarCraft/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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

Knowing Blizzard's interminable development cycle, that might be a while :P --Haemo (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hi

I just wanted to say hello. I just ran into this project and I'm very interested in helping edit and expand Starcraft articles. If you have any specific articles any of you would like me to work on, please let me know on my talkpage. I've played for over 8 years and i'm really interested in getting involved. Thanks for letting have the privilege of helping out :-). ~Beano~ ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Most of the game articles, as you can already see are, already reasonably high quality. StarCraft II could use some expansion in some areas, the development section in particular is rather lacking and the whole thing needs a thorough copyedit. However, bits like StarCraft Adventures and StarCraft: The Board Game are in desperate need of someone who knows something about them and can provide sources for them. StarCraft Adventures has been a stub for two years. If you know anything about them, working on those articles would be great. There's also List of locations in the StarCraft series, which needs a major cleanup to meet notability (through development and reception information), referencing and MoS standards, if you fancy something on the fiction. In addition, there's StarCraft professional competition, which could again use the attention of someone who knows something about it. If you want something on the technical side of things, MPQ could probably use a hand. Take your pick from the lot, there's plenty to go around. Enjoy! -- Sabre (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Left over pages from the move

FYI- There are currently discussions taking place on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Inactive project cleanup/Leftovers and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Inactive project cleanup that would effect pages related to the scope of your task force. Any input would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC))

Players Etc.

On the korean wikipedia there are articles for some less major professional starcraft players. I was wondering what the guidelines are for notability in this context. I'd be fully willing to write articles for them, but want to determine notability before proceeding. Best Regards, NativeForeigner (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, as long as the topic has been covered in reliable, secondary sources (they don't necessarily have to be in English) sufficient to build and source such an article properly, and that there's no contentious information in them (per WP:BLP), then there's no reason we can't have them. The notability standards would the same as for any other articles on people. -- Sabre (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

StarCraft task force in the Signpost

WikiProject Report would like to focus on the StarCraft Task Force for a Signpost article to be published this month. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 07:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

GAR for StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty

An article that you have been involved in editing, StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. SvenManguard Wha? 03:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Active task forces and notability

I have a question. Is it that only starcraft has a task force for itself, or does other esports have too? Or just an active task force on electronic sports in general?

And for establishing notability, normally which sources are used for electronic sports? Namely for articles for starcraft players under this task force, i personally see alot of sources from gosugamers.net, teamliquid.net and sk-gaming.com. Was there a discussion saying that these sources are accepted or what? Cos i met alot of resistance while citing gosugamers and sk-gaming as sources.. Thanks for your help.

Redefining history (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The task force was created more for working on the series as a whole, not with any particular focus on the esport part of it; that just ends up falling under the task force scope as its a related subject. In regards the sources, no, there's not been any discussion on it, though I do recall a brief note of teamliquid not being a suitable source in one or other of the game articles at some point. -- Sabre (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Then I wonder how did the articles on the players stayed on notability and did not get deleted. How did they got through? Redefining history(talk) 02:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I think that teamliquid among others are suitable for sources. Do they have a strong argument on why not? Redefining history (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it depends upon notability. Lee Yun-Yeol, for example, is regarded as the most successful Brood War player of his time, a prominent StarCraft II player, a member ofSK Gaming and a national icon for South Korea's sports context, (they do consider it a sport). He receives massive amounts of media attention and despite the bad references used in the article, (could be cleaned up easily), he is allowed such things. This differs from DotA players, (of whom I assume you are trying to find context within StarCraft II), who are a part of a team and are generally not defined as suitable for Wikipedia. DarthBotto _talk•cont 20:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

If team players aren't allowed articles, why are they so many players of team articles? Such as you have 100 articles for 100 "insert football team here" players. There must be some way for them to establish notability. I do watch starcraft as well as I also realized you work for SK. You should know SK's dota legend, Loda, who singlehandedly led his team to numerous champions (alot of news/etc., even on the sk gaming website, which is under google news/considered reliable). And in depth interview? This is a really indepth interview abuot China's current top player, BurNINg, which is not accepted too [1]. Redefining history (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not with SK Gaming, so there isn't a conflict of interest in this regard; SK Gaming is one of, if not, the premier electronic sports news syndicates in the world and it has earned its place on Wikipedia. I'm with Evil Geniuses now, if you must know. But, that's beside the point.

If anything, Wikipedia may have articles about very notable organizations, such as SK. Specific squads and players do not hold up much. Now, there are exceptions to this rule, such as Team Liquid, due to it being just about more popular than the Official Battle.net portal for StarCraft II itself; it is immensely popular and is not in danger. Articles regarding electronic sports squads are not as secure as football articles because they are, for the most part, not even a fraction as popular as football media and regardless of my own personal opinions, are not respected as sporting authority, in the eyes of most editors. I do believe Loda is notable, but I doubt he has enough to hold him up.

On a side note, there are some specific electronic sports figures, such as Andreas Thorstensson, who retain enough notability and notoriety to have their own separate pieces. As a matter of fact, I'm considering approaching the subject of Patrik Lindberg for his own individual article, (he is the single-most successful CS player in the world). If you want some additional personal input, I would be more than happy to comment on specific issues about Wikipedia and esports.DarthBotto _talk•cont 09:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Revival

I am interested in reviving this task force. I think the coverage of StarCraft-related articles is important, though it appears that unfortunately only User:S@bre and myself are members now. Anyone have suggestions as to how we can go about reviving this task force? Note: I am reviving this task force in conjunction with the eSports task force. —Entropy ^(talk) 01:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

My experience is the smaller the subset the greater the chance the taskforce will fail. I wish you luck but IMHO there is no way you will attract enough editors to maintain this. Wikipedia is littered with failed taskforces. Your best bet is to use the video games project where you ahve a larger audience. Ridernyc (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Task force cleanup

I've proposed a comprehensive cleanup of WP:VG's inactive task forces (which would include redirecting all task force talk pages and merging the StarCraft TF with the Warcraft TF to make a Blizzard TF), if you'll take a look czar ♔ 01:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)