Talk:StarCraft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article StarCraft is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 26, 2006.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Video games (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Blizzard task force.
 
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Version 0.5      (Rated FA-Class)
Peer review This Everydaylife article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Ghost?[edit]

I know that SC:G has its own page, however I was suprised to find that it was not mentioned at all in the StarCraft page itself. Should this be fixed? Nuclear Lunch Detected  Hungry? 23:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Development-wise at least, Ghost isn't really related to this game; its probably better linked to from the series article. -- Sabre (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

shouldnt there be a minisection discussing the pro gaming aspect? with links to the proper article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.81.103 (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The game is theft from Warhammer 40K?[edit]

Is it true that first phases of the game were developed under Warhammer 40K licence?

¨¨¨¨ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edelward (talkcontribs) 08:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

To Zerg[edit]

I was surprised when reading this article today that the cultural legacy section didn't include mention of how the word "zerg" has become a fairly universal gaming term for a specific kind of rush. For specific terminology to transcend its original context and enter the wider culture represents an extraordinary level of influence that very few games, or products of any kind, ever achieve and IMO is worthy of inclusion.

I know this is a featured article so I hope I didn't mess it up too badly ;) I also think this should be included in the cultural influence section for other StarCraft-related articles but I'll hold off on this for now. Threephi (talk) 00:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the reason it wasn't included on this article was because the point is made over at Species of StarCraft, in the section on the Zerg. Its probably more pertinent there than, where Zerg strategy is discussed in greater detail and therefore fits in with better context. -- Sabre (talk) 01:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I started on this after randomly visiting zerg earlier today, which brought me to that very section, but clearly I missed that since I scrolled right to the cultural impact section looking for it. I did scan through the archives here before making the edit to see if it had been discussed previously and only found one mention requesting inclusion, with a comment seconding the idea and no other followup. Here's my thoughts on why I put it where I put it:
Firstly, while the term does describe a strategy (although one can find examples outside a gaming context where "zerg" refers even more generally to any large movement of similar beings), it is IMO more significant as a cultural impact given how special and rare it is for a word to make this kind of leap into general use, as I mentioned in my first comment. That very leap is really the essence of cultural legacy.
Secondly there are many elements that are repeated in the cultural impacts/legacy sections across multiple StarCraft-related articles for example mentions of the Korean pro leagues and its TV presence there; specific citations of critical reception when StarCraft and Brood War were released, etc., not to mention other factual duplications under other article headings, so duplication doesn't seem to be a decisive test.
I think it's fine where it is in the species article but beyond its specific tie to the Zerg race, the term "zerg" is a significant and lasting cultural legacy of the game itself in a much larger context and merits a mention in the main article. I do agree that my edit does kind of hang out there on its own and could certainly be improved upon but that IMO is a failure of my abilities as a writer and not a shortcoming of the importance of this element. Threephi (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source though. Not for FA. Hellknowz  ▎talk  11:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I was concerned about that but couldn't find a citation from a more professional source after looking for about two hours. There are many examples to be found for use of the word (themselves from blog posts, comments, and other un- or quasi-reliable sources) but I couldn't find anything else online (other than Rush_(video_games)) that specifically addressed the definition.
Before making this edit, I did read through WP:RS and WP:RSE where it says it can be ok to use otherwise unreliable sources in limited circumstances and with strong caveats since the nature of cultural elements (in this case, the definition of a slang term) makes them harder to source than hard facts. You are right however that Urban Dictionary is currently considered unreliable (which I was not aware of yesterday) but an earlier assessment ok'd it for precisely the limited purpose I cited here, with an assist from WP:IAR. I figured using Urban Dictionary here squeaked into being ok given how much support there is on that site for the definition of "zerg", and the absence of another source.
I will keep looking for a better source but that has proven difficult so far. Threephi (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
It's a difficult search term. I guess UD will have to do here to show off popular culture.  Hellknowz  ▎talk  19:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

"3 expansions" in the intro[edit]

I don't think referring to Insurrection and Retribution (long-forgotten "third-party add-ons" to use Blizzard's terminology; searching for them on blizzard.com doesn't even return any result) as having the same status as Brood War (a true expansion that is more widely played than the original) is a service to the reader. I propose changing the wording

With its storyline adapted and expanded through a series of novels, StarCraft has three expansion packs and a sequel, StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty.

to

With its storyline adapted and expanded through a series of novels, StarCraft has two single-player add-ons and one expansion pack. It spurred a sequel in 2010, StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty.

I would have been bold and did it myself, but someone left a note "Please do not change this" in 2008 so I thought I'd discuss it first. Note that the situation is different today: we now know that SC2 will have what amounts to 2 expansion packs, so it's important not to mislead readers into thinking that SC2 will have one less expansion pack than SC1 when it will actually have one more. --Wrongmonthpant (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Expansion pack and add-on are fairly interchangeable, and an introduction is supposed to be as concise with details as possible. Simply referring to three as expansion packs and then fully elaborating on the full differences between the "official expansion set" and the "authorised add-ons" in the appropriate section fulfills that function nicely. However, if you really want to make the change, go ahead. -- Sabre (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I changed the article with an improved wording, since I noticed that there was no mention or link to Brood War in the intro or infobox. --Wrongmonthpant (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
There has been a previous discussion on this and you should avoid immediate changes to a Featured Article when the change brought up on the talk page has been disputed. However, for the sakes of clarity, I do not think another 10 or so words in the lead are a big deal-breaker, since this seems to be brought up a lot. I reworded the lead to conform with MoS better. Also, can we call Brood War "canonical"? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
It's a bit of a stretch to call the change "immediate" when I waited two weeks for any comments, and a bit of a stretch to call it "disputed" when the only reply basically said "I'm not sure about this and that, but go ahead if you feel like it" :-)
There are still a few things that bug me with the current intro, if you have any ideas on how to word them properly:
  • I think it's important to mention the year 2010 for SC2, since it's such a big gap for a video game
  • is it really necessary to mention the name of the third-party add-ons here, given their limited success?
  • it would be nice to mention the fact that the competitive/professional scene is exclusively based on Brood War, even if it is often referred to as "Starcraft"
  • there is no link to StarCraft: Brood War professional competition, even though there's a whole infobox for it at the bottom of the article
  • calling BW "canonical" is definitely correct, but probably a bit vague and less clear to the reader than something like "In the competitive scene, StarCraft usually refers to StarCraft augmented with the Brood War expansion." --Wrongmonthpant (talk) 10:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to the previous discussion where it was decided to call it "3 expansion packs". Only one reply here simply means there may not be too many people watching this page. This can and is however being revised. I don't want to discourage you from being bold, I was merely pointing out there was a previous discussion.
I made the changes you listed that I agree on. Though I don't think there is need to explicitly state that Brood War is what is used for tournaments, not in lead. Also it is not only the professional scene where BW is known as just SC.
I'm still out on whether Insur/Retrib are notable enough to be in lead alongside Brood War. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
"Canon" is a dodgey, loaded word, and there isn't a strictly defined canon for StarCraft, so that term should be entirely avoided, especially for dealing with products. The notability or success of Insurrection and Retribution is irrevelevant to article content: the lead is there to summarise article content, and we deal substantively with both add-ons in the article. That said, the link to Insurrection and Retribution isn't needed at this point in the article, its better to link to that from the appropriate section. I've modified the lead to address this. -- Sabre (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

StarCraft N64 & European release[edit]

Hi,

According to the infobox, SC-N64 was released on 16 June 2000, however I’ve searched that information in the linked reference to no avail. On the other hand, according to the French WP article, that release has been cancelled… yet WP:FR claims that without giving any reference to confirm such cancellation. In case you have any data about this, could you please share it (and post a note on my talkpage, sothat I could adapt the WP:FR article accordingly). Thanks. — MetalGearLiquid [chat] 13:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In pop-culture[edit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B16eAS1dwA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.24.48 (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Huncraft Genocide[edit]

HunCraft Genocide should be listed at expansions section. Though that is not an official expansion and not even in English, but its gameplay is more detailed than the others. Christo161 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Christo161

You will need to provide reliable, secondary, independent sources for this though, especially since this article is being maintained to FA status. Same goes for the HunCraft article, which seems to fail WP:GNG at the moment and will most likely be nominated for deletion unless some quality sources are given. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Connecticut Shootings[edit]

I'm wondering why my addition on the link to the Connecticut shootings was removed. The unsourced statement that "In the korean movie "old boy" you can hear a marine using his stimpack in one scene" is worthy of inclusion, but the fact, sourced from a major newspaper, that Adam Lanza played StarCraft, touching off discussion about the possible effect of violent video games is not? Kirkpete (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the offending line for being unsourced and trivial. Your content, I would also argue, is (also) trivial to StarCraft as a whole, and is newsy, so I would agree with whatever reversion was made for your edit. --Izno (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Heinlein's Starship Troopers[edit]

The primary inspiration for the game comes from Robert Heinlein's book "Starship Trooper's" the primary game elements, three primary races of the game, ect are taken from the book. The game developers themselves have acknolwedged this by including him in the game credits. This is clearly a very important fact that should be incorporated into the text of the article if it is going to maintain its featured article status.XavierGreen (talk) 05:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

All very well saying that, but without a reliable source to solidly back such a claim up, the information cannot go in the article. Inserting unreferenced material into the article would be more damaging to its FA status. -- Sabre (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)