StarCraft titles

edit

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]


  • 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. BencherliteTalk 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]