Hello, I am very new to this wiki, I am an active starcraft 2 aracade game player and map maker, I would like to contribute and make a few pages for some very popular games on starcraft 2 arcade games, there is a policy currently regarding notability of arcade maps. I would like to propose revising this rule. Allow a article/page for each of the 20 to 30 most popular arcade games on starcraft 2. --Jesideaxis (talk) 12:44, January 25, 2017 (UTC)
- No. That arcade maps get articles at all is a concession that's already been made. Popularity rises and falls, and isn't a measure of quality or relevance. This isn't a fanfiction wiki, it's a wiki primarily concerned with official, canon works.--Hawki (talk) 12:46, January 25, 2017 (UTC)
OK, firstly who are you? Are you the dictator here? You are dismissive me, i don't know why, but it is quite unnecessary. Popularity of mafia for example has been in the top 10 for years, same with nexus wars, same with desert strike. so using popularity, number of ratings and star rating would give you a much better picture of what games are actually played on arcade, and game people play, those are the games people need a rule book for, I know what im talking aobut. Its like im pointing at a grand master, and you are obsessed with the average player with a blizzard sticker on his keyboard. #arcadelivesmatter Jesideaxis (talk) 13:21, January 25, 2017 (UTC)
- That's the guy you have to convince for policy changes. But he's right, our focus is the canon works of Blizzard and things that get referenced by Blizzard. I will say our arcade section is outdated even by our own standards of notability (one of those "I'll get around to it eventually" things), having said that arcade is such a broad net we need a hard line so we don't get clogged with B-list maps. Subsourian (talk) 15:06, January 25, 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, one of three guys really, but that depends on how active Psi is (and other users for that matter). But yes, Sub is right. Regardless of popularity, it's a subjective decision for fan works that have a limited place on a wiki that's primarily concerned with official works. It's also noticable that you want special dispensation for maps, but aren't arguing for equal treatment for other fan works. In short, "popularity" is by definition subjective, and it's not our mission statement to widely cover fan works. It's the reason why there isn't a bunch of articles for StarCraft stories off ff.net for instance.--Hawki (talk) 21:08, January 25, 2017 (UTC)
Please stop calling arcade maps "fan works" they are STARCRAFT 2 arcade maps. They are owned by blizzard. When you make an arcade map it is owned by blizzard upon publishing, you hand over all of your rights to the map to blizzard and is part of starcraft2 arcade after that. other fan made works are not even close to comparable. you play starcraft 2 arcade in the game, they are huge part of starcraft experience. Arcade maps are played on starcraft 2, there are some maps on starcraft 2 arcade that have been around since starcraft and warcraft2, there is not even a mention of them on this wiki, the thousands of people who play these starcraft arcade games are poorly represented here , its whack if you ask me. 7000 pages on starcraft 2 wiki and theres like 36 pages for arcade games, and someone who obviously doesnt play arcade or hold it in high esteem is calling the shots. http://us.battle.net/arcade/en/what-is/ if you read blizzards own website regarding arcade games it is obvious that the starcraft 2 developers hold arcade games in a lot higher regard than you, they actually made it possible to make a free account so people could play arcade for free. The map editor is hard to get into if you are not determined to learn it you will fail. popularity is subjective, ratings are not. "clogged with b list maps" do you genuinely believe your precious wiki is going to be swamped in arcade maps if you allow a more inclusive notability guideline to be used? I object to your close mindedness and your lack of vision for this wiki Jesideaxis (talk) 02:36, January 26, 2017 (UTC)
- Per the above points:
- By definition, arcade maps are fan works, bar the ones developed by Blizz themselves. They're developed by people who don't own the IP, who aren't contracted to work on the IP, but instead create work based on the IP, and can't gain any financial benefit from creating a work based on said IP (well, not legally at least). Arcade maps get a bit more spotlight, but they're not the only form of media to have received it, hence why there's stuff like a StarCrafts article.
- Warcraft II is academic. Warcraft as a whole is very relevant, but the individual games, not so much.
- It's not our job to represent fans, it's our job to document official information and keep it to as high a standard as possible. There's already plenty of leeway for fan-made material (e.g. strategies). Same reason why there's not thousands of arcade map articles is the same reason there's not thousands of story articles - fan-works fall outside our main purview.
- The link you show is more an acknowledgement that the arcade exists, and spotlights official arcade maps. Same way Blizzard has spotlighted fan-writing, fan-videos, fan-casts, etc.
- There's already a Galaxy Map Editor article. I've nothing against it being edited/expanded to provide instruction on how to use it.
- Ratings can rise and fall over time. Also, that's still opening up the floodgates - even something like a 4 star rating would result in an influx of fan material.
- Your last comment of "lack of vision" is more directed towards Sub (I think), but, yes, that's the scenario I envisage. I can envisage it because it's the same situation the wiki was in when I first came here, when we had articles like "Mengsk-class battlecruiser" and "arachnalisk." That was well before Sub's time, but, well, let's just say that things are a bit more tidy now. Right now, the notability for fan works exists without bias. It's the reason why stuff I personally despise (e.g. The Rush) gets an article, while there isn't a note in StarCraft: Precursor that links to the novelization I did of it. Because The Rush makes the cut, my novelization doesn't. I don't get to bend the rules more than anyone else does.
But I can tell you the problems of "opening the floodgates," because it's just that. If we're deciding things outside the current parameters, then that immediately raises two problems. One, based on stuff like popularity and star ratings - those things can change over time. It would open up the floodgates to likely dozens, if not hundreds of maps, and it would generate all matter of demands from users for their maps to be spotlighted, and all manner of contrivances to explain why they fit this even looser criteria. Two, it's clearly a double standard. Right now, the selection criteria applies to all fan works equally. Giving arcade maps preferential treatment is giving them...well, preferential treatment. Yes, a game is StarCraft's primary medium, but it's the height of hubris to suggest that one form of fan work is inherently superior to another, and thus more deserving of spotlight by the nature of its medium itself.
There's a reason why few wikis allow fan works, because there's a very clear, unambiguous divide between fan works and official works, and is also why fanfiction (or similar) wikis exist, to deal with the fan-made stuff. Right now, the system in place is a good compromise between keeping the focus on official works, while giving some spotlight to the fan works that do get recognition from official or semi-official sources.--Hawki (talk) 05:52, January 26, 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to explain all of this hawki and sub, I will think about this some more and get back to you