Talk:Races of StarCraft

Species article

The new article is finally done (was started in September 2007, and deals with the four species and what psionic technology is actually relevant to a reader unfamiliar to the subject. Unlike the previous four articles (which separately have no notability - believe me, I spent a long time looking for something to the opposite), notability has been presented through the design and reception sections. I adapted the structure and style used for Elite (Halo) to make this work, so it isn't unnecessarily bloated with a step-by-step run through the plot. Gameplay has been limited to only a small statement for each race on their general play tactics - anything more of that risks falling under game-guide material. A few bits still need referencing (namely the Brood War appearances sections: I was hoping to simply reference them to the story summaries on the SC2 site, when they get around to covering Brood War) and I imagine that the reception and design sections can be updated in the future in regards to SC2. -- Sabre (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

VG project assessment

I've rated the article B class low importance, there's no way it could be less.

Asides from a few references being needed, what concerns me is the potential instability due to SC2, in terms of higher ratings. I had actually forgotten that it was coming out, things are so quiet on that front (at least in the mags I'm reading), but it won't be too long before the hype and expectation reach what we've been seeing around GTAIV for many months. Gaming media and the general media are going into more depth when it comes to important releases, coverage is more extensive than it was even after the internet had become popularized, particularly with games aimed at a non-kiddy or mature audience. Compare the coverage of BioShock and Spore (video game) compared to games coming out 8-10 years ago. What I'm trying to spit out is that at some point in the future there are going to be a lot of new details, a lot of new sources, and decisions to be made on the direction the article will take. I'm not sure how that will affect a potential GA attempt. What I will do is have a thorough read of the article and post any suggestions below here.

In the meantime, can I suggest listing the article for peer review (the project seems to be keeping up with these) or consulting either David Fuchs or Dihydrogen Monoxide, who are in an infinitely better position to advise you regarding this article's potential for GA. I'll do my best at having that read through when I get a minute, as far as the assessment is concerned. Someoneanother 20:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The impression I've got is that its not a good idea to go for FA until SCII is released, but I've had little problem getting StarCraft articles through GA due to it coming up. It's simply a matter of quickly moving in on new information as its put in and making sure its integrated properly or removed if unnecessary. Thanks for the assessment though. -- Sabre (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see a section in this article that places the species in a broader context within the RTS genre. For example, the Zerg are clearly the Soviets of StarCraft, and if you compare these three species to the Factions in Supreme Commander the parallels are clear. Stuff like this has to be available somewhere. A discussion of a rock/paper/scissor system that's often present with three races and such could be added as well. This may continue from the Design section, but takes a more gameplay-like angle. User:Krator (t c) 21:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can dig up, but that sort of thing will be difficult to get hold of from reliable third-party sources and implement in an encyclopedic manner. However, this is one of the reasons that the StarCraft Compendium is in the external links, it gives complete strategy data on all three races, every unit in StarCraft, how to use them and how to counter them in the rock/paper/scissors style you describe. I tended to err away from full gameplay information, although I did briefly summarise the play styles for each race in the section leads: "Protoss strategy in-game is usually built around the quality of units the player controls rather than the quantity." "The Terrans... are defined in-game by their specialisation of units and tactics of defence and mobility." "Zerg units are designed to be cheap and fast to produce, encouraging players to overwhelm their opponents with sheer numbers" -- Sabre (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What about this IGN guide: [1], reliable source? Someoneanother 21:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I never knew IGN ran such a site... that seems to have the essentials in it, I should be able to use that. -- Sabre (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Even better: [2] GameSpot's guide by Greg Kasavin, and he's one of their writers. Someoneanother 21:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know GameSpot ran one either... how long have these existed? -- Sabre (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Pass, I've seen other editors use them which is the only reason I knew they were there. They're usually only for the more popular games (hence I never have a use for them). Oh, Kasavin was more than a writer, he's the former GameSpot editor-in-chief, has his own article here, and is now working for EA. An online game guide isn't going to get much more reliable than that. :) Someoneanother 22:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm reading through the article and struggling to find anything to comment on, a few ideas have popped up though:

• The article lead needs details about how the species were received individually as opposed to an aspect of the whole (which is covered in the first paragraph).
• The GameSpot guides for StarCraft and Brood War split the races into rock/paper/scissors for you, all that you need to cover this aspect of the races should be contained within them.
• This interview from the official page of SC2 offers more material in terms of the cinematics' role in development and would go very well with the small paragraph already here.
• The Protoss image has partially covered 'species', turning it into 'speci' (for me at least) in the first line of text under that section. If that's not just a blip affecting me for whatever reason, could you correct it please?

That's all I can suggest, the quality of writing is already well beyond my own ability so there's nothing I can pick at. Looking forward to seeing you pass this through GA. Someoneanother 01:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Major Merge

Where is the major merge discussion? I see nothing and if there isn't one then why were all the species merged into this one... About this merge the three Starcraft species are quite different with fully fledged histories and the Elite(halo) layout isn't the best way to put it. IMO to have all the species merged in this article will either make it huge or irrelevant for the lack of information. The other three articles were quite well done and frankly I came here to know more not to know less. Strumf (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

For Wikipedia, the articles were horribly structured. In-universe, overly long, game-guide, etc. The new article is must better, and if you want to know more, StarCraft has its own Wiki you know. The Clawed One (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Then I guess we can delete this article and just put the link to the StarCraft wiki... If it was bad you make it better you don't delete or move it with out discussing it(again tell me where it is if you know)... The Starcraft main article already resumes what the races are about soo why having two times the same thing ? Strumf (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

We did make it better, which is how this page was created. And if I recall correctly I think there was a discussion, or at least no one besides you has objected yet. So sorry you're late to the party. The Clawed One (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Again tell me where the discussion is... the "I think there was" is only good to hide your own incertitudes. On the Zerg talk page you'll notice at least another user questioned the merging and he got... no answer, too busy to read the talk page ? As for the "you're late to the party" this only shows your arrogance, no comment... Strumf (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability for the individual species is very, very sparse - there is very limited reception or design information available for any StarCraft race at present. Perhaps after SC2 is released, there will be sufficient real world information to justify separate articles, but if that ever happens do not be under any illusion that they will look anything like the old articles. The existance of a "fully fledged history" is not a valid reason for individual articles, and the old articles were in no way "quite well done" for an encyclopedia, as Clawed One has pointed out. Wikipedia is here to cover subjects in proportion to their real world notability and from a real world perspective, and that is exactly what has been done here. Should you want to read unencyclopedic approaches to the subject which only regurgitates the plot in excessive detail, is only there for the benefit of the fans and is not understandable by people who have not played the games, as was the case with the previous versions, StarCraft Wikia contains much of this. However, as this is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia caters to a wider range of people and hence has higher standards for how articles should be constructed. -- Sabre (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

And I guess it's you that dictates what is "excessive detail" and what isn't. There is little information about each race ? I fail to see how there is enough information to make an article on a single race from halo but not to make an article on a Starcraft race is Elite (Halo)> Zerg(Starcraft)... I guess again it's you who dictate the rules.

The fact is there was no discussion, nothing... you guys purely enforced your POV on the rest of us with out even pointing the reasons why they should all be merged and cut down. Strumf (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Read the relevant policies and guidelines... WP:N, WP:NOT, WP:FICT, WP:WAF, WP:VG/GL, we don't make the rules, the people who know what makes an encyclopedia make the rules. Wikipedia is NOT an outlet for nothing more than plot summaries and is excessively detailed, and that is exactly what the old versions of the article are. Search yourself for indepth and verifiable information on development, merchandise, marketing and reception for each individual race from reliable sources. That is why the Halo elite has an article, because it can produce that information. The StarCraft species individually cannot, and accordingly with the project guidelines (and with the support of WP:VG), they have been merged to a level where notability can be established. This is not a fansite, and it should not cover articles as though it were, giving undue weight to it without any attempt to establish notability. There WAS discussion, although it was not centralised. There has been discussion on this over the last year or so, in a variety of user talk pages, the WT:VG talk page, the AfD's of the articles. Please also consult WP:AGF and WP:NPA. The discussion on the Zerg talk page is also out of date, one of the two is two years old, the other is not refering to this article in any way. -- Sabre (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on user pages ? that doesn't make your discussion any more valuable, and further proves my point you guys did it according to your own POV. 2 years ago there was a proposal for merging and it didn't pass, in September 2007 the zerg were tagged to deletion and the consensus was keep. I don't see any reason that if you tagged again the article for deletion it would get any other result. Strumf (talk) 10:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on user pages, WikiProject pages, AfD pages is just as valuable as anywhere else. And never assume that things remain the same, things can easily change in a couple of years. Two years ago, the standards may well have permitted the articles to remain. Three years ago, this quality level was considered a featured article, that wouldn't even make B-class now. In any case, it can be boiled down to one thing: no-one was working to effectively improve the articles to encyclopedic standards, so we were bold and took the step ourselves. Multiple users were involved in the process, either in writing, help, tips, feedback or assessment, including the users Larrythefunkyferret, Captain Panda, Bob rulz, David Fuchs, Deckiller, Someoneanother, Krator and dihydrogen monoxide, so please do not accuse us of pushing our own personal POV. A keep at AfD does not mean the article should be kept in its current state, it merely clarifies that the subject should be covered in some form on Wikipedia: a surmountable problem that has been addressed by merging. Believe me, I would have much preferred it if the individual species were independently notable, it would have made my job of cleaning the articles up far easier and we wouldn't be having this conversation. But the fact is, they are not at the moment notable and accordingly with the project's guidelines they have been dealt with so they are covered encyclopedically. The sources to develop the individual articles may well emerge after StarCraft II's release, I will never rule out the possibility of the recreation of the individual articles because of this potential. You don't like it, I'm sorry to hear that, but we can't please everyone and what was done was done to improve the encyclopedic coverage of the subjects in hand. -- Sabre (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Then I guess I have to check all the user pages just in case they are conspiring to delete some other article that matters to me...I don't assume things remain static but I assume they get better not worst, I grant you that this one is better written but it can not hold all the events related to each race, if the it did then it would be too big. As for your last sentence, its not your job to please me and neither is mine to agree with you. Strumf (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If you plan to check my user page, allow me to make it easy on you. Just so you know, though, I'm not bold enough to delete articles, no matter how much they deserve it. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 05:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can only say one thing: What the flying fuck?! This has been happening all over wikipedia, like this is some kind of xbox achievement! Congratulations! You just stuffed 6 pages into one while pointing at 10 different guidelines! That gives you 60 points! Now people can look at one cluttered page instead of the one focusing on what they were looking for! You just made the internet a better, more informative place! Again, congratulations!Fernando Hulio (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

As a wiki user instead of editor I clicked the link from the main starcraft page and got exactly what I needed. A good summary of the species in the original game since its been so long. Usually discussion pages have a bit more informal information tidbits that don't make the main article... If I knew it was going to be a pissing contest I wouldn't have bothered. 68.80.116.215 (talk) 02:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Small Change

Hi all.. I've never really used Wikipedia before. On this page I noticed it said: "Stating that the use of distinct races allowed for the game "to avoid the problem [of equal sides] that has plagued every other game in the genre", GameSpot praised Blizzard Entertainment for keeping "it well balanced despite the great diversity"."

Shouldn't it be "unequal sides" and not "equal sides"? I don't see how having sides being equal is a problem within the RTS genre, and Starcraft is acclaimed for doing such a good job with having equal sides despite the diversity between the 3 races. I just thought I'd note the change I made here and my reasoning behind it, but if somebody is against me doing it please let me know and explain why here. Thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.114.250 (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome! No, it should be "equal sides". The quote refers to the sides being distinctly different in terms of gameplay, as well as graphics and story. Compare it with, say, the original Warcraft, where beyond the graphical differences, the two sides acted in gameplay practically identically, and clear parallels can be drawn between tech trees and units. The same is with the game of chess: the two colours (and construction of the pieces in some cases) may be entirely different, but they both act in exactly the same way. StarCraft doesn't do that. Perhaps another word can be used to convey this better than "equal", but I unfortunately can't think of one. If you can, feel free to change it. -- Sabre (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Would "identical" work? Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 07:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Its a bit misleading as the Warcraft II races aren't identical due to the differing graphics. It might work, it might not. It should work if we qualify the point by stating that it only means in gameplay terms. -- Sabre (talk) 09:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Kalithi

Are the Kalithi going to be included on this page?Hrainian (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Err, no... they aren't exactly notable at this point. That, and we know absolutely nothing about them. If they have a significant role in SC2's story (unlikely), then it may be prudent to include them. However, we shouldn't include information on everything ever mentioned as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the Kalithi are just a little piece of insignificant lore mentioned in the background of one Protoss unit. The Zerg, Protoss, Xel'Naga and Terrans are the main species of StarCraft that the franchise revolves around, they have been covered by reliable, secondary sources. The Kalithi have not, so should not be given undue weight by giving them equal coverage. At this point, they simply are not notable. -- Sabre (talk) 08:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"Nomadic" terrans?

From the article:

...the psionic and technologically advanced Protoss, the nomadic Terrans and the insectoid Zerg...

I replaced "nomadic" with "humanoid" because it seems like an arbitrary label to attach to them. In this sentence, both the Protoss and Zerg are described through physical characteristics or abilities, so it seems a little strange to describe the Terrans by way of their lifestyle instead. "Humanoid" was a bit of a quick fix, but if you have a suggestion for something that is better than "nomadic," that would be welcome!

I came across this article through WP:GA, so I'm just trying to get those little details cleaned up before it gets reviewed. --Politizer (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly see where your coming from, "nomadic" isn't ideal and I'm currently racking my brains for a better alternative. I'd best explain my revertion in any case. "Humanoid" is potentially misleading, as it means to "like a human", while the Terrans are actually depicted as fully human. Humanoid would applies to the Protoss, but not to humans. -- Sabre (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Gah, I'm just going to reword the sentence. I borrowed the equivalent wording Starcraft intro. -- Sabre (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This new rewording does get rid of the problems I mentioned earlier, but now it feels a bit big and clunky for a lead-in...maybe we could just get rid of the description entirely (thus leaving the sentence as just "the three playable species each have a playable campaign..."), since we assume the reader will get all that more specific information from the appropriate sections later in the article. --Politizer (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we need some sort of quick summary of the species in the intro, as the intro is supposed to summarise the article and removing it entirely would remove any reference to an overview of the races in the intro. May not be perfect, but it'll suffice. -- Sabre (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources for Starcraft's popularity/sales in lead-in

Regarding the sentence I tagged with {{fact}} earlier (it was originally claiming SC is "one of the top selling games in the PC market," and has since been changed to "and remains one of the most popular games in the world")... I see you've added some references for that. The NYT reference I can't access right now, it prompts me to log in and I'm not a registered user there...I'm not sure what WP policy is on that sort of thing, but in general I try to avoid using links to sites that prompt login if a suitable replacement is available. As for the other reference, the long Rossignol article, I skimmed it and couldn't find anything that is actually directly supporting either of the claims in the article (the claims that SC is top selling or is one of the most popular games). Of course, it talks a lot about SC, but as far as I could tell it didn't directly say any of those things. If that information is in the article and I just missed it, then since it is such a long article it would be helpful if you added a paragraph number or section number in the citation (I'm not sure if {{cite web}} has a parameter for that, but you can always just enter the paragraph number as a page number).

Of course, I'm not disputing that SC is popular; I'm sure it really is one of the most popular and highest selling games of all time. But it still needs to be verifiably sourced.--Politizer (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The New York times article doesn't need registration of any kind, I don't know whats happened there for you. However, it does make it fairly clear how popular StarCraft is. These are the same two references that were used to reference the same point in both StarCraft and the series article, and no reviews of them (one's FA, the other's GA) ever pointed to anything wrong with either of them for referencing that point. -- Sabre (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a problem I've been noticing with NYT lately...sometimes it asks for me to login and sometimes it doesn't, and I don't really know why. I was just able to get to it this time, navigating there through Google instead of directly from this link. Anyway, the only problem I see with that article is (similar to the other article cited here), it mostly talks about SC's popularity in South Korea—whereas in the article we're trying to say it's one of the most popular "in the world." Of course, you can deduce from the praise-filled tone of these articles that SC must be super-popular worldwide, but the article doesn't seem to explicitly say these things. I'm not saying these are bad sources...I'm just saying we could probably find something better for this particular context, or at least change the wording in the article to better reflect what's actually in these sources. And even if the FA and GA reviews for the other StarCraft articles didn't have any problems with those articles, I figure if we can fix that issue here we might as well—there's no guarantee that the reviewer for this article will be so generous.--Politizer (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've accompanied it with a GamePro "most important games" source, which says it straight up: "StarCraft is one of the most popular video games of all time and practically the national sport of Korea". GamePro is considered a reliable source, so that should cover the bases. -- Sabre (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that ref looks good to me. Might we be able, then, to drop one or both of the other references? I'm just asking because, while there's no rule against having footnotes in the lead-in, we do seem to have an awful lot here. For the most part that's unavoidable, since we have to have information on reception and notability and that's more important than cutting down on footnotes, but for this particular sentences we might be able to make due with just the GamePro source. The other two sources could probably still be worked in elsewhere in the Cultural Influence section, if you want to keep them around. --Politizer (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Species of StarCraft/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Notability

Notability is very clearly established: the article discusses how notable StarCraft is, and discusses in detail (esp. in the Critical Reception section) how StarCraft's success comes mainly from the three races. A wide variety of sources are used to establish the reception and impact of the races in mainstream online periodicals.

Guidelines for writing about fiction

Care was taken to avoid having an in-universe perspective. Extensive citations are given to verify that content is not original research. No undue weight is given to any particular race.

Prose/style

Writing is good, with few or no errors; editors spent time behind the scenes (see Talk pages) on making sure the writing in the article was high quality.

Decision

All good article criteria are met and the article is well-written, and has no glaring problems with sources or images. It's pretty clear that this article should pass GA. More editing is is needed to ever get this article to FA (probably things like further trimming down the subsections on each race and going through carefully to make sure it is all written from NPOV and has no OR; and, more crucially, adding a section on the development of the races, probably including stuff like interviews with the game designers), but the article seems like a good candidate for GA for now. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 16:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Terran or Terrans?

I don't ever recall seeing or hearing "Terrans". Isn't the plural also "Terran"? Colonel Marksman (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, "Terrans" sounds fine to me... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Its definitely "Terrans". I've never seen "Terran" used as plural within science fiction anyway, but certainly as far as StarCraft goes, its definitely "Terrans". -- Sabre (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It's Terran, not Terrans. Anyone who's played StarCraft knows this. Go ask TeamLiquid or any professional StarCraft player, including myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.49.45.76 (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Like Sabre said above months ago... the official site uses "Terrans", and all the walkthroughs I've seen do the same.

And when I reverted your edits, I wasn't just reverting your spelling changes, but also your insertion of personal analysis. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Same on the SC1 official site too, and in the manual and in-game dialogue. Its "Terrans". If 'professional' (used in the loosest sense of the word) players think its "Terran", then they're just flat out wrong. -- Sabre (talk) 11:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

incorrectness on the UED

"It is also seen as an advocate for eugenics, resulting in the mass murder of millions and exile of other unwanted criminals and genetic mutants for colonization of the distant Koprulu Sector of the galaxy in which the series takes place. The UED remains outside the events of the series until Brood War, where it takes interest in the discovery of the Protoss and Zerg, the first contact between humanity and aliens. The player controls the UED faction in Episode V of Brood War." That is what it says, however, the UED wasn't even in existence when that happened, it was the United Powers League, the Earth government prior to the formation of the United Earth Directorate.--24.240.186.162 (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

UED is the UPL after a name change, little more. Given how minor this is, it is more prudent to simply say UED as opposed to being forced to extend the prose considerably to discuss the in-universe and ulimately trivial name change so that readers unfamiliar with the franchise understand. -- Sabre (talk) 12:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't matter, you never hold a new flag to the old of the original before it. Its UPL therfor when the UED took a new flag, its starts a new book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.175.238 (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Species/Race are not synonyms

The article uses words "species" and "race" as synonyms, although, to my knowledge, that is incorrect. Species are "the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species", whereas race is actually a subspecies, a lower level of taxonomy. I propose to replace all mentions of Protoss and Zerg as races to be changed to species, just as it is correctly stated in the title. Should I do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBearPaw (talk • contribs) 21:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. The majority of sources and other writing about SC, including the official site, use the term "races", and I think that trumps the biological difference. Plus, it's fiction. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Needs updating

StarCraft II has been out for some time now, and it brings quite a few changes for the main races (e.g. Introducing the Tal'Darim faction of Protoss and involving the Xel'Naga directly for the first time). Shouldn't these be in the article? Michaelmas1957 (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they should. I just haven't had the time to properly add and reference the new details myself, which is why the article hasn't been updated. Feel free to do try yourself if you can fit in with the existing style. -- Sabre (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. -- Fyrefly (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

---

The article redirects from Aeon of strife, but ha no mention of it. Should this be added? 173.206.130.34 (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Species of StarCraft → Races of StarCraft – Since the Zerg are by no means a single species (which can be plainly seen by reading their description in this article or anywhere else), it makes little sense for this article to be called 'Species of StarCraft.' To state it simply, the Zerg are a collective, similar to the Borg of Star Trek, made up of many species. So scientifically, using that term makes no sense. Also, more importantly, the term 'species' has little-to-no history of usage in this context, while 'race' has frequently been used in-game, in the literature of the game, by Blizzard staff and by players. I will find references if necessary, but I think any players of the StarCraft series already know this. -- Fyrefly (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Seems pedantic, but then why shouldn't we be as accurate as possible? Nominator's reasoning appears sound to me. Jenks24 (talk) 01:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support Fine with me. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• Seems reasonable. No objections here. -- Sabre (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support per nom, and most players get the terminology correct (as in using "races", not species) anyway. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 23:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Aliens & Predators

It's clear that Zergs are inspired by the xenomorphs of the Alien saga, while Protoss are inspired by Predator. Both of them also were put each against other with Alien vs. Predator, with humans on the background struggling to survive, prevail or exploit the two races. I suggest to add this info in the description of both Zergs and Protoss, if possible with reliable sources that credit this influence in their concept and design. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.9.165.98 (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily. While I can see your point, there's been a LOT of debate about whether or not the Zerg are inspired by the Tyrannids of the Warhammer 40k universe, while the Protoss are inspired by the Eldar. A lot of people still believe that at one point, Blizzard was working together with Games Workshop to create a real-time strategy game based on Warhammer 40k, but then GW revoked permission, and since the game was so close to completion, Blizzard reworked the game and turned it into StarCraft. Then again, some people ALSO say that Blizzard directly ripped off the Warhammer universe. Neither allegation is true... though Patrick Wyatt, the producer of Warcraft, admitted in an interview with Kotaku that Allen Adham (co-founder of Blizzard) hoped to obtain a license to the Warhammer universe to try to increase sales by brand recognition, and said "Warhammer was a huge inspiration for the art-style of Warcraft, but a combination of factors . . . nixed any potential for a deal." Until the issue of "who inspired what" can be definitively resolved, it fails the criteria for notability, and therefore does not need to be included in this article. 24.119.145.33 (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)