Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Command

Articles Command Center (StarCraft) ComSat (StarCraft), Nuclear Silo (StarCraft), Supply Depot (StarCraft), Engineering Bay (StarCraft), Barracks (StarCraft), Refinery (StarCraft), Missile Turret (StarCraft), Academy (StarCraft), Zerg (StarCraft), Terran (StarCraft), Zealot (StarCraft), Damage Types (StarCraft), Dragoon (StarCraft), Reaver (StarCraft), High Templar (StarCraft), Bunker (StarCraft), Space Construction Vehicle (StarCraft), Marine (StarCraft), Firebat (StarCraft), Ghost (StarCraft), Vulture (StarCraft), Siege Tank (StarCraft), Goliath (StarCraft), Wraith (StarCraft), Dropship (StarCraft), Battlecruiser (StarCraft), Vespene gas (StarCraft), Mineral (StarCraft), Science Vessel (StarCraft), Valkyrie (StarCraft), Space Construction Vehicle (StarCraft), Minerals (StarCraft), Medic (StarCraft), Protoss, and Yamato gun (StarCraft) all listed on Votes for deletion Apr 25 to May 2 2004. Kept as consensus was not reached. Discussion:

While I appreciate that StarCraft is a popular game and that Wikipedia doesn't need to count pages, it does need to count disambig pages. Moreover, granting individual page status to game parts will encourage every backwater galactic empire to begin submitting its own. Wikipedia is not a parts department. It is also worth mentioning that most of these pages have not been touched in a year now. Merge with StarCraft and delete. Denni 22:03, 2004 Apr 25 (UTC)
 * Is it me or is it the only reason they're not orphans is because they link to each other? Merge all into one article then delete/redirect as appropriate. -- Graham :) | Talk 22:34, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * It might be a bit much to merge them all into one article, but maybe we could classify them somehow and group them in a few articles accordingly. The Zerg, Terran and Protoss articles are quite long and should keep their own pages, but lots of the unit and building pages could be merged. Everyking 22:38, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikibooks' Starcraft game guide. -- Cyrius|&#9998 22:44, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * I wrote the Vespene gas article. I admit this is a rather highly specialized article, and that most of the above articles are stubs, but there are a number of interesting things to say about it. The suggestion of creating a game guide with sections detailing these things is probably a good one; I'm all for moving and refactoring, but please don't kill my content. Derrick Coetzee 22:48, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Content killing not even suggested - just let's try to get everything under one heading. Denni 00:49, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)


 * Wikibooks StarCraft game guide. Fredrik 23:23, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep the content, but merging it into fewer articles is a good idea. - SimonP 23:25, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. Transwiki and delete, delete, delete. Jeeves 01:04, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete all: useless pseudoinformation. Let the fan sites handle it (or ignore it as the case may be). No need to clog up Wikibooks with this, so don't transwiki it. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:11, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Many of the arguments posted above (fans only, Wikibooks, page merge) would also go for the many Star Trek pages, the Lord of the Rings pages.  Even the myriads of pages on mathematical subtopics such as Klein bottle and manifold would be questionable if we use the "non-orphans due to similar page links" test.  --zandperl 02:17, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * That's a rather disingenuous argument, Zandperl. An article on the Klein bottle is infinitely (okay, finitely, but highly finite) more important than an article on Missile Turret (StarCraft), even a well-written one. Denni 00:06, 2004 Apr 27 (UTC)
 * Keep Protoss and Zerg (the latter shouldn't even need the disambiguation). Merge all the others into more a more generalized article(s), and delete the current pages. -Sean 04:33, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep, I have for a long time been meaning to rearrange the whole StarCraft articles, i agree with the original poster that there are way too many stub pages ( just how much can you say about the command center? ), however the whole thing is too large to merge into one page, here is a layout i suggest:


 * StarCraft - General information
 * -Race- (StarCraft) - One page about each race, beginning with the history of it then moving on to nits stats, and short overview of all units and their relation to each other, also feature a tech tree for each race ( what unit needs what to build ), have a tech tree and overview of buildings also.
 * -Race- (StarCraft) - Background and history of the -race-
 * -race- Units - Units stats, and short overview of all units and their relation to each other, also feature a tech tree for each race ( what unit needs what to build )
 * -race- Buildings - Building stats, and short overview of all buildings and their relation to each other, also feature a tech tree for each race ( what building needs what to build )
 * -race- Strategy - All strategy and how-to should be on wikibook


 * As soon as this debate is over i will make a quick chart of what needs to be done and list it on pages to be merged, any objections? --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 12:54, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's no different from any of the other detailed concordances in progress.  The main objection here seems to be that unlike, say, Middle-earth stuff, some of these are realm-specific meanings for more common terms, which is really more of a problem with the 'pedia structure than a problem with these articles.  Jgm 14:43, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep information but rearrange. This isn't the first time that the StarCraft unit pages have appeared on VfC... I think that Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason's proposal is probably the neatest way to clean up the stubs, if he's prepared to rearrange the pages. - MykReeve 19:30, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Support Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason's idea. Fredrik 21:29, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Suggest removing most of it. We dont need the cost, and usefullness of each unit in the game.  Wikipedia articles add nothing you can't get from the game manual.  Sorry, I love the game myself, but it is not as timeless Lord of the Rings, or a part of popular culture like Star Trek, Star Wars, James Bond, etc.

End archived discussion