Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic candidates/StarCraft

TonyTheTiger's oppose

 * Oppose Based on the logic used in my Millennium Park GTC above it seems to me that StarCraft II article is a possible GA and should be required to prove otherwise. Is there something at Peer review/StarCraft II/archive1 to indicate that this can not be a WP:GA. I don't think unreleased = unstable.  I have created WP:GAs for three buildings under construction.  See Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago).  See also Barack Obama, John McCain, etc.  Even politicians with rapidly changing positions in life, can pass.  Unstable means content dispute related instability.  If the article is complete it is eligible for GA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This sounds like WP:POINT to me. The primary difference is that companies that sell products, such as video games, tend to only release information as they see fit; once the product is actually released, then that's when the general public learns more about the product. Also, these products, especially in the entertainment industry, don't take too long to be released (a year or two), otherwise the "buzz" for the product will disappear. Buildings, on the other hand, are a completely different story, as I'm sure you know. Gary King ( talk ) 06:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think this portion considered by itself a WP:POINT: "it seems to me that StarCraft II article is a possible GA and should be required to prove otherwise. Is there something at Peer review/StarCraft II/archive1 to indicate that this can not be a WP:GA. I don't think unreleased = unstable.  I have created WP:GAs for three buildings under construction.  See Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago).  See also Barack Obama, John McCain, etc.  Even politicians with rapidly changing positions in life, can pass.  Unstable means content dispute related instability.  If the article is complete it is eligible for GA."--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue is whether the article is complete or not. Pending news is not a consideration for completeness due to WP:CRYSTAL and other reasons.  As I said above, it is only unstable if there is a content dispute with the article.  E.G., IP vandalism is not an instability issue unless it is a content dispute.  I see nothing at the PR to suggest a content dispute is the case with this article.  Thus, the article is eligible for GA.  It is not a GA, has not applied for GA, and should be required to do so for GTC completeness sake.  It is more than extensive enough that it should be required to apply for GA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The editorial activity necessary for the last paragraph of the Trump_International_Hotel_and_Tower_(Chicago) section do not make it unstable. Campaign issues for Barack Obama, John McCain and when she was in the race Hillary Clinton did not make their articles unstable.  Instability is a matter of whether there are non-POV content disputes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't have to rewrite the whole article on Barack Obama every time he gives a speech. What happens with politicians and buildings is irrelevant. The way that information is released on video games means that you often do, and a full rewrite is always necessary when it is released. Ghost is an odd one out because its established as vapourware, but StarCraft II is consistently having new information released, often changing the nature of the game. When released, the article's content in some cases can be taken back as far as start quality until all the details from development to release are fully established. That's what makes it unstable. See Duke Nukem Forever: the moment it stopped being vapourware it lost its GA status. When an article is liable to lose its GA status due to foreseeable events in the future (ie release), it is unstable and shouldn't be given GA status in the first place. -- Sabre (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Software is certainly outside my area of expertise. However, IMO, given the extensive article in existence, I believe it covers a topic of relatively elaborate breadth.  It would seem to me that you would add sections after release and not rewrite the whole article.  I.e, you might have a section on the expected game and then a section on changes that became apparent and the resulting game.  I think the expected game is still an encyclopedic section.  I concede that if on average a game has more post release information than vapourware information, the content would be likely to change.  I don't follow these types of articles (as the WP:CHICAGO director), the only game I recall that is part of my project is Midtown Madness.  I have no experience on these issues.  As the leading GA producer on all of WP (I believe and until User:Mitchazenia catches me) I am often determined to make an article GA.  I believe I could make the current article at issue a GA if I had full understanding of the topic.  I believe, even if one had to go to WP:GAR, one could get this subject promoted. I could be wrong, but my opposition still stands.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As I explained to you Tony, the check mark has been used for unreleased things like albums and video games and movies which can't be GA because they haven't been released yet, so Star Craft II is in that group. The other topic is obviously not in that category, so there is no reason it shouldn't be a GA or be merged. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As a side note, I've quickly failed video game GANs when they weren't even released yet, especially when they only had a week left before they were released. The articles had probably 100-200 edits a day upon release, which was expected. On the other hand, I've reviewed incomplete buildings and passed them as GA because for one, they often take several years for completion and yet the articles looked pretty comprehensive. I'm no expert in buildings, but I also imagine that in that business, the companies usually don't try and withhold as much information in order to create some sort of buzz around the building. Gary King ( talk ) 16:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I respect your opinion and experience. However, it continues to be my belief that an article such as this could become a GA.  I think some might pass it as complete despite the prospect for future information.  Are you saying you would quickfail the article if the nominator nominated it at WP:GAC right now?  Do you believe that if you did not do so someone else would.  Is it the prevailing view of all GAN reviewers that games can not be GAs until released.  I would concede that an album could not be a GA until released, but I think a movie could in the right circumstances where it is widely reported in the press.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is probably a larger discussion than the FTC process is able to handle. I think there's an unspoken rule that unreleased entertainment articles cannot be GA until released, primarily because of stability. This should probably be brought to WT:GAN for more input. Gary King ( talk ) 18:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * At the time of my Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) building there was a belief that a building under construction could not be a GA. Thus, I had to go through a WP:GAR.  I have also produced Joffrey Tower and Block 37, the former of which is now completed.  The long and the short of it is that in certain cases sufficient WP:RS are available to produce a broad article that is current, which is my understanding of the relevant standard.  There is certainly a risk that an article will lose its ranking.  However, I think quality research on unreleased media should be rewarded.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, I can't say I've read all the arguments above, but I'd like to raise two points. Firstly, I was the one who created the "inherently unstable" checkmark rule. It was intended for "unreleased/future products" such as "StarCraft II", not dispute-caused instability as you suggest (if there were disputes then we could hardly promote the topic, could we?!?)
 * Secondly, may I point out that in a sense it doesn't 100% matter anyway, as once the product is released, the article needs to get to GA/FL at that point, so ultimately (assuming that the article could in fact pass GA/FL before the product is released) this cannot be labelled as "slacking off" on the part of the topic creator(s), as they still need to do all the same work, just later on than they would otherwise - rst20xx (talk) 01:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I decided to take a look at the article to see what I thought, and the first thing that struck me was that at the top of the page there is a tag that states "This article or section contains info about an unreleased video game. The content may change substantially as more information becomes available. Please do not add speculation to this article, and remember to cite a published source for details." I think this tag demonstrates to me that an article about an unreleased video game is almost certainly going to be unstable in that it will almost certainly change dramatically before it is released. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the comparison to politicians is valid. Obama's section about the 2008 campaign is only one section long. S2's unreleased status means more than critical reviews. Nergaal (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)