*EDIT* also see the post above mine, ie on the bottom of the previous page
Criticism section of SC2 wikipedia page - Page 3
Forum Index > SC2 General |
MamiyaOtaru
United States1687 Posts
*EDIT* also see the post above mine, ie on the bottom of the previous page | ||
condoriano
United States826 Posts
| ||
Talic_Zealot
688 Posts
| ||
enzym
Germany1034 Posts
| ||
kajeus
United States679 Posts
On May 30 2010 17:19 MamiyaOtaru wrote: I would be surprised if this remains. Wikipedia's notability requirements fetishize mainstream media and peer reviewed stuff. lol, they FETISHIZE LEGITIMACY. | ||
tyCe
Australia2542 Posts
| ||
okrane
France265 Posts
| ||
AyJay
1515 Posts
| ||
Nich
397 Posts
| ||
EntSC
47 Posts
This keeps getting added and subtracted, so after watching this for the last few hours I've fully protected the article for three days so we can: * Leave the status quo in the article as is, and * Discuss the matter of a criticism section so we can get some consensus for its inclusion or exclusion. I have no strong feelings on the matter, but I do want to see some decision on the matter by the time the protection ends. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC) I don't have time to write any copy as I'm supposed to be revising for finals, but I suggest anyone so minded engages with Tom in a discussion about a criticism section, with a view to citing multiple sources in support. | ||
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On May 30 2010 21:39 EntSC wrote: I don't have time to write any copy as I'm supposed to be revising for finals, but I suggest anyone so minded engages with Tom in a discussion about a criticism section, with a view to citing multiple sources in support. Im interested to see if anyone here will argue for its inclusion. Ive never edited wiki. I think the big things for a wikipedia page to include this is proper formating neutral tone factual information multiple sources (not jsut TL, Bnet has huge threads) | ||
Antisocialmunky
United States5912 Posts
| ||
enzym
Germany1034 Posts
On May 30 2010 20:22 tyCe wrote: I like the idea and effort put into this, but the information is not very credible, even by wikipedia standards. All the references made to community opinion were from teamliquid forum pages and the references to Blizzard statements weren't referenced in the right style. TL is only a small part of the gaming community and it is hardly an impartial source of information about Starcraft 2. I suppose that wikipedia would rather references to more established sources like eurogamer or ign, where a more impartial (and probably in our eyes, naive) opinion is likely. wrong. incgamers is not part of tl yet. | ||
enzym
Germany1034 Posts
| ||
im a roc
United States744 Posts
Given that this seems to have been prompted by an external group of people from a forum, I'd advise individuals concerned read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article structure and Criticism sections; "criticism and controversy" sections can have a negative impact on neutral presentation; usually with video game articles, unless there's major unconventional issues that are covered by the core video game (IGN, GameSpot, PC Gamer, etc) or mainstream media, such points should be worked into the "development" or "reception" sections of an article, not given a special preference section (Left 4 Dead 2#Controversy would be a good example of a valid controversy section done properly). However, points also need to be properly cited to reliable sources, see Verifiability and No original research for this—forums, fansites and other sites lacking a wider reputation outside their fanbases aren't appropriate. Incgamers, whilst the strongest source of the ones used, is borderline: it needs to be reinforced by references from better sources. -- Sabre (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC) I'm not going to take the time to include all the links. They'd be easy to find anyway. | ||
Dionyseus
United States2068 Posts
| ||
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
Across Web Coverage of BNET 2.0 Problems Husky Video Gamerant Feature http://gamerant.com/blizzard-starcraft-2-no-lan-js-23284/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed: gamerant (Game Rant) Escapist Activision History Thread http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.198218-A-short-history-of-Activision-Blizzard | ||
USn
United States376 Posts
| ||
MamiyaOtaru
United States1687 Posts
Yep, that's what I said. And as per predictions it didn't remain. | ||
Superiorwolf
United States5509 Posts
On May 31 2010 05:56 MamiyaOtaru wrote: Yep, that's what I said. And as per predictions it didn't remain. Not necessarily - sometimes mainstream media gets things wrong, and/or don't cover some viewpoints that actually are a big impact on the perspectives towards an issue. It's not there right now but they are discussing whether it should be included, so it has a chance to remain. I think it will be removed but it does have a decent chance of staying, especially if later more sources appear. | ||
| ||