Jump to content

Talk:StarCraft/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

New article

The purpose of this article is to cover the products of that comprise the ever-growing StarCraft series, so that they can be summarised more efficiently in one place. Its a replacement for the mess formerly known as StarCraft universe.

Some areas still need work, such as the cultural impact section - there's more to StarCraft than just South Korea. The Brood War portion of the story overview also needs referencing to the "Story So Far" when part 2 is released - in this case that published overview is far better than referencing directly to the game's missions as I've done in other SC articles. In addition, some development or review commentary on StarCraft novels could be added to bolster the novel section, as well as some more information on the Amazing Stories articles.

I did consider the possibilities of adding a music section, but I couldn't find appropriate sources: I found an interview with the composer - but it was talking about Warcraft - and an interview with a guy who worked on sounds for Ghost, and there wasn't enough information to construct a decent section. If anyone can find some sources with decent coverage on SC music, feel free to create a music section. -- Sabre 11:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

UPL

I'm not sure if it ever explicity mentioned in the manual whether or not the UPL organized the colonization program, only that Doran Routhe organized it. It states that he is a UPL scientist, but it hints throughout the passage that he did all of this without the knowledge or authorization of the UPL. It even says "Routhe was able to secure thousands of UPL prisoners to use as guinea pigs for his secret plans". Is that secret to the general population, or was it secret even to the UPL? I'm wondering how this section should best be worded, because to say that the UPL itself commissioned the program would be misleading, as there's nothing to suggest that they did. bob rulz 18:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The section is only supposed to be a brief overview and as Doran Routhe is a scientist for the UPL it tends to imply that at least high ranking people knew (how often does say, the US president commission things that the public not hear about?), add that to the scale of the people involved and that the UPL had non-secret colonisation programmes to the solar system and the UPL made it the ATLAS stuff public afterwards according to the Metzen interview, just saying the UPL did it is far easier. If it were a more indepth section, I'd agree that some refining is needed, but the section needs to be kept as short as possible. -- Sabre 18:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:VG assessment

Wow! This is a pretty sweet article. I'm rating it B, High (though, as always, it's difficult to come to a definite conclusion on Importance).

The main problems I usually have to deal with have been addressed, though I would mention a couple of things before going for GAC:

  • Citations are, on the whole, awesome. There are still a couple of bits which appear to be unsourced, such as the last part of the Merchandise section and the last paragraph of the Story Arc section. Comb through the article to find others.
  • Cultural Impact needs expansion. In fact, I'd suggest sticking this as a sub-section of a Reception section.
  • There are a lot of one- and two-sentence paragraphs. These will hold you up considerably during GAR, so I suggest merging them.
  • I'd suggest writing a gameplay section, unless the major points have been explained already. Some screenshots accompanying this section would also be helpful.
  • Could do with a few more external links.

Apart from that, there isn't really much else to suggest. Have a look at the series articles at WP:VG#Example articles. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. Hope this helps, Una LagunaTalk 19:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Plans for StarCraft articles?

This is probably a good place to ask, so I do. Are there any plans for a big change in StarCraft-related articles? I have been seeing a lot of these coming by on WP:VG/A, and StarCraft II has been on my watchlist for a while to help with the anti-cruft.

Specifically, what are the plans concerning the following articles?

This is just out of curiosity and an offer for help in the form of editing and/or feedback. User:Krator (t c) 01:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we've got plans for them. Myself and The Clawed One, supported by a couple of other editors who have offered their services, have had plans for this since we sorted out the character articles.
  • Terran (StarCraft), Protoss, Zerg, Xel'Naga and Psionic technology (StarCraft) are being put into a collective Species of StarCraft, covering the development and reception of the species (in both lore and gameplay) as a whole (as species specific development information is hard to come by) and adding commentary on physiology, gameplay aspects and factions, basically following a "how do these things work" approach as opposed to the current "what do these things do" approach - ie, not laden with lots of unnecessary plot that is already sufficiently covered between the game articles and the character articles. The article will allow the Xel'Naga, psionic technology and the factions to be covered in a notable environment, something that that cannot be done in separate articles. This article is next on the agenda, and is about 80% complete.
  • List of locations in the StarCraft series will be entirely redone as Locations of StarCraft, giving development and reception data on graphical elements of the game and on the construction of the worlds. The planets in it will be categorised by the medium in which they are prominent: in the official games, authorised add-ons and novels, and I hope to offer more than simply what role the planet has in the lore.
  • We may create a StarCraft novels article to properly cover the novels in an encyclopedic and notable way as some novels have notability but others do not. Hopefully it will have an overriding theme throughout, such as Chris Metzen's influence on the development of the novels.
  • Eventually, full rehauls will be done on Insurrection (StarCraft), Retribution (StarCraft) and StarCraft: Ghost to get them properly sorted out, while pushing for GA on StarCraft: Brood War.
  • I personally have no plans for StarCraft Campaign Editor at this time, but I'm sure we'll get something done for it.

-- Sabre (talk) 09:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

They all sound like great ideas. Mind if I offer my services, too? bob rulz (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Merging of Insurrection and Retribution

Insurrection and Retribution, despite efforts of combing the web for sources, lack any major notability. I can find only one review for each: one from GameSpot, and the other from a less known review site. Due to this, I think merging them in here will be a good idea. This means we cover them as the minor products they are. It shouldn't mean that the article grows by much, I should think that the current summaries only have to undergo minor modificiations. -- Sabre (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

After looking over the two articles, merging does sound like the best course. The only one that might be able to stand on its own is Insurrection, but it would probably never move past B-class. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC))
I've gone ahead and redirected the articles. After comparing the main articles with the summary, I don't really think that there's much that can actually be added from the main articles as the summaries pretty much cover everything relevant, so I've left the summaries on this page alone. -- Sabre (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Stellar Forces

The "starcraft universe" does not exist in the tangible world. I just thought I'd share. Oh, I see the recent addition of the Stellar Forces was removed again. Strange that it is deemed "not real". The irony is deafening. I further see that the atricious blankspacing is back. 128.214.133.2 (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That makes little sense, I can't see the context of your statement. Firstly, no-one has stated that the StarCraft universe actually exists. We're quite well aware that it doesn't, that is why we are not approaching the subject from a in-universe perspective. Stellar Forces was only just added for the first time to the article (so it has not been removed again), and has been removed as it is not a part of the official series, rather a third-party production that its creators were sued over, as opposed to being an official or authorised product. As such, it does not really belong in this article, but if it can be backed up by reliable third-party sources there's no reason it cannot be covered in the article on Blizzard Entertainment, as if it is notable, it will be for the legal side. And no-one has blanked any pages—if you are referring to Insurrection and Retribution, they were not blanked, they were merged as they fail notability guidelines. There is a distinct difference. -- Sabre (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Starcraft. The game. The entertainment computer application. This is not about a fictional neverland, a universe that someone substitutes for the one we all agree to share, for a variety of reasons (perhaps lack of percieved affection, I dunno). (Blackspacing (n.): to insert or remove linefeed characters of the standard ASCII set in order to create or remove blank lines in a document.) 128.214.133.2 (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This article's not about the game, this article's meant for summarising the series built from the game: the expansions, the novels, the various other spin-off products. The article for the game itself is over at StarCraft. The fictional aspects of the series are covered in Species of StarCraft and Characters of StarCraft, but again, they don't treat their subject matters as though they actually exist, rather they're written to conform with Wikipedia style guidelines for fiction. I do apologise if I'm still not understanding what you're getting at. -- Sabre (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Well, this should be fun. 2nd review. I'll start GA process things in about, how about in 15 hours. Sound fair? Good. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 01:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments I am not going to review it, but I have two comments:
  • first paragraph in the "Games" section has no references;
  • the cultural impact should be expanded; I believe this is one of the more influential games in history, and talking only about critical reviews is not enough. TV stations in SKorea were established only for this game (I believe they were the first tv stations dedicated to a single game). Also, th professional competitions should have a few sentences. Nergaal (talk) 06:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Image check

Otherwise pretty good.

  • Comments
  • 26th century in the lead shouldn't be super scripted.
  • Do you mind making ...released; these are authorized expansion packs to the original which focus on other characters and settings based at the same time as the main storyline. into a sentence without the semi colon
  • Ref 73b is over 3 years old. Do you mind finding a newer source?

That's all for now. Don't worry, I always start small and work my way up. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 21:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Those images don't need a specific source; the important thing to note is that they are the cover art for the games' boxes. I think the semicolon is appropriate and useful in this case; I have replaced the reference with one from April 2008. Gary King (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Be sure to use non-breaking spaces throughout, such as 10 million in the lead, or 800 percent in the Reception and cultural impact section. I think there are more, but I'm not sure
  • I agree with Nergaal, as according to this, the South Korean government has endorsed the game.(You might want to get a better source, though)
  • I think the lead should have one more paragraph, as the article has about 22,000 characters. Perhaps a section about the games itself could be created, and a reception paragraph after
  • Do you mind adding a cite for Using the Warcraft II game engine as a base... Thanks
  • The pack began development shortly... The pack seems rather informal. Try using the team, or development team

Pie is good (Apple is the best) 22:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

All done. The reference you gave doesn't mention the government; it mentions the Korean television stations dedicated to the game, which the article already mentions. I've added a paragraph about the series' development to the lead. Gary King (talk) 03:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it does. Try Crtl+Fing The South Korean government visited E3 many years ago and decided that they needed to bring their nation into the modern era. They chose StarCraft as the game which they would endorse.
Ah; I thought you were talking about the actual story on the page rather than a comment. Gary King (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I've redone the video game box art images so there's a collective photo of all currently released video games, and I've updated the fair use rationale on the novel image. All fair use rationales should now check out. -- Sabre (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The covers of StarCraft, Insurrection, Retribution and Brood War Do you mind stating something like (counterclockwise from the top)? Thanks.
  • Something not related to article When I give out a GA star, who should I give it to? You or Sabre?
  • Be consistent in American/British spelling. Some conflicts I noticed include behavior/behaviour, -ization/-isation. Choose one or the other.
  • Try using an info box like {{Infobox Media franchises}}

Pie is good (Apple is the best) 15:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

All done. I didn't use the infobox because it's new (two weeks old; it's only used in two articles) and still has a few kinks to work out. There is no GA star to give out; you give the star to the article. Gary King (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the use of the infobox in the article. As said, it's not been fully worked out, and could very well get rather messy with the length of stuff to put into it, especially in consideration that none of the novels have articles, but instead link here. Its also not an essential, see Halo (series) and Age of Empires, a GA and a FA, neither of which use any infoboxes. -- Sabre (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Roger. I was just taking suggestions from the Peer review automated script. --Pie is good (Apple is the best) 20:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
What else needs to be done? Gary King (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Where exactly in Ref 14 state that it includes the new mission?
  • [1] FYI
  • Although developed and published by Aztech New Media it is authorized... Do you mind adding a comma after Aztech New Media?
  • The second novel, entitled StarCraft: Liberty's Crusade, serves as an adaptation of the first campaign of StarCraft, focusing on a journalist following a number of the key Terran characters in the series. Written by Jeff Grubb,[49] it was the first StarCraft novel published in paperback, in March 2001. Move the March 2001 somewhere else, please.
  • Ref 61 doesn't say that ToyCom made the toys.
  • What makes http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/113938 a reliable source?

Man. The reason I haven't been posting concerns, is mainly because I couldn't find any concerns. You two are excellent article writers, by the way. I feel tired looking 2 hours for 6 concerns.(Which would be the concerns above) I would pass it here and now, but address these concerns first. --Pie is good (Apple is the best) 23:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  • StarCraft: Revelations was authored by Chris Metzen and Sam Moore, two Blizzard employees, and was featured on the cover of the magazine with art by Blizzard's art director Samwise Didier. Cite please?
  • Blizzard Entertainment also licensed Wizards of the Coast to produce an Alternity based game entitled StarCraft Adventures. Cite?
  • In the Adaptions and Reception and cultural impact, don`t refer to the authorized expansions as being authorized expansions. Just call them expansions, as its clear that they mean the other one.

--Pie is good (Apple is the best) 23:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed all nine concerns. http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/113938 has been replaced, the ToyCom statement has been backed up with another ref, the information on Revelations is in an already used reference which has been added to the end of the sentence. The N64 secret mission's been cited to an interview on a related subject, but it does clearly mention the existance and canon of an N64 secret mission - not ideal, but should be sufficient. The reference for the Alternity game isn't brilliant, but it serves the purpose of showing that an Alternity game exists—references for that are rather hard to come by, only other two I found was a review in Russian and its Amazon page. -- Sabre (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion

Being interested in the games, and seeing that this needed a second opinion, I thought I'd offer a hand.After just giving the lead a quick sweep I noticed a few things that need to be addressed. Hopefully the problems don't represent the shape of the entire article. - Yohhans talk 20:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  • the adaptable and mobile Terrans, the insectoid Zerg, and the enigmatic Protoss - I feel like a lot of this is POV. How are Terrans more adaptable than the other two species? Sure, their buildings can have expansions on them, but I don't know that this qualifies them as more adaptable. Also, from this sentence we have no idea that the Terrans are human, nor do we know what the Protoss are except that they have a mysterious quality to them.
  • It mentions that the galaxy in question is the Milky Way. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we are ever told what galaxy this all takes place in. The blizzard website definitely doesn't mention the Milky Way. I'm not sure about the manuals/books though as I am at school and don't have access to these. If it is the Milky Way, please cite it (not necessary in the lead, but in the History section).
  • With the first video game, StarCraft, released in 1998, the series has grown to include a number of other games as well as eight novelizations, two Amazing Stories articles, a board game, and other licensed merchandise such as collectable statues and toys. - Snake sentence. Chop it up. Also, the first part is in passive voice. "Collectible" is spelled wrong.
  • Just a comment. Does this look like the semicolon after Brood War is just a comma to anyone else: "expansion pack, Brood War; the game's"? Because that's what it looks like to me and it made this sentence very confusing. It wasn't until I read it in a monospaced font that I understood the sentence.
  • the Xel'Naga genetically engineer the Protoss → the Xel'Naga genetically engineered the Protoss - Please do a general sweep for minor prose issues like this.
  • Check for correct placement of linking. For example, in the body Blizzard Entertainment is linked in Spin-off titles when it should be linked at its first appearance in the Main series section.
  • The first half of the paragraph talking about SC: Ghost needs citing. As it stands, ref 35 only covers the statement about the title being "indefinitely postponed".
  • I have to head off to class now, but I will add more later. - Yohhans talk 20:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Terrans is a common science fiction term for humans. Going into that detail is what the wikilink is for, I don't really see the need to clog up the introduction with describing the species any further than that. Besides, its fairly obvious when reading the story paragraph that that the Terrans are humans. "Engimatic" is a term used often in the marketing of the series, for instance, on the back of the novels. As it is used in official merchandise to describe the Protoss, it seemed ideal to use in a similar context here. The same goes for the adaptable Terrans, this isn't so much a reference to the gameplay style, but official sources, particularly the game manual, tend to make a big deal of the Terrans been adaptable, flexible, masters of survival, etc etc. This isn't POV, it's just using the same word from the primary sources to describe the races in those sources. A reference shouldn't be required, but I can replace "enigmatic" with the less mysterious and wikilinked "psionic" if you want.
    • Although never referred to by the name Milky Way, its made fairly clear throughout the manual of StarCraft that the game takes place in the same galaxy as Earth. Merely giving it it's proper scientific name for the benefit of a wikilink can't really be taken as original research. It shouldn't require a reference.
    • Done.
    • Looks ok to me, I didn't see any problems when reading it.
    • WP:WAF tells us to write about fiction in the present tense, rather than the past tense, so "genetically engineer" is the correct presentation.
    • Done.
    • Done. -- Sabre (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Aw, why did Yohhans say I will add more later. I would've passed it, but I'll let him take as long as he wants(hopefully not longer then me) Pie is good (Apple is the best) 01:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I just really want the article to be worthy of that little green icon. :) The issues I have are small and can easily be fixed. - Yohhans talk 03:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Last comments:

  • The Overmind is not mentioned until the second paragraph of the Story section. As it is such an integral part of the story, I think it should be mentioned earlier.
    • There's really no convienient place to insert further backstory for a single character. Again, its the role of the wikilink to expand on the character's role. -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • During the assault on the capital, Arcturus Mengsk abandons his psychic second-in-command, Sarah Kerrigan to the Zerg, who capture and infest her, creating their "greatest agent". - "greatest agent" needs to be attributed to a source.
  • The Zerg are then attacked on their primary hive cluster by Protoss forces commanded by Tassadar and the dark templar Zeratul, who through assassinating a Zerg cerebrate inadvertently allow the Overmind, the Zerg's supreme leader, access to the location of the Protoss homeworld Aiur. - Cumbersome sentence. Needs to be broken up.
  • In Brood War, the Protoss led by Zeratul and Artanis are trying to recover from the death of the Overmind and begin to evacuate their surviving population to the dark templar homeworld under a fragile alliance between the two untrusting branches of the Protoss. - Also a rather cumbersome sentence. Additionally, it would be good if you could name the dark templar homeworld.
  • On the dark templar homeworld, they are misled by Kerrigan - You have not yet mentioned that Zeratul formed a reluctant alliance with Kerrigan. Do that before talking about Kerrigan's deception.
  • that a new Overmind is in maturation. - Awkward phrasing
    • Sorry, I really can't see what's wrong with that bit of wording. Perhaps you can reword it to something you think is suitable, as its difficult to reword something when you can't see what's wrong with it. -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
      • There is nothing wrong with it. It's perfectly fine wording. I guess it just reads funny to me since I never see that phrasing. I would have written it as, "On the dark templar homeworld, they are misled by Kerrigan into attacking the Zerg in order to advance Kerrigan's quest to secure power. This deception comes after she reveals that a new Overmind is beginning to mature." - Yohhans talk 13:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
      •  Done, reworded accordingly. -- Sabre (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • After defeating a retaliatory attack by the Protoss, Dominion and the UED which results in the destruction of the UED fleet, Kerrigan, supported by her Zerg broods, becomes the dominant power in the sector. - Confusing sentence. Needs rewording. The main problem is the clause "which results in the destruction of the UED fleet". It disrupts the flow of the sentence.
  • with the sequel still in development. - Sequel? I assume you mean Starcraft II, except you haven't mentioned it yet except in the lead. The lead is there to summarize the article, not be a building block from which the rest of the article can draw information.
    • The sequel is mentioned in the lead, and then again in the introduction to the games section. Both paragraphs aim to summarise the content that follows it, and StarCraft II is elaborated on in the games section. I can't see what you're getting at here. -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
      • It is mentioned there, but not by name. That's all I was getting at. Anyway, I think it's easy enough to assume that StarCraft II is meant here. Don't worry about this comment. - Yohhans talk 13:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Try not to overlink. Real-time strategy game, Milky Way, cerebrate and cut scene were all linked multiple times (not including the lead). Please go through and fix the rest.
  • It was later compiled with StarCraft and ported to the Nintendo 64 as StarCraft 64. The port was released on 13 June 2000 in the United States. - Just mentioned this in the previous paragraph. While not guaranteed, it is likely that your readers have a memory better than a goldfish.
  • The expansion's story continues only days in the wake of the conclusion of the original game, following the moves of the Protoss to ensure the continued survival of their species, the rise to power of the infested Sarah Kerrigan over the Zerg and introducing a new threat to the sector of the galaxy with the intervention of the previously silent witness of the Earth government. - Long sentence is long.
    • It doesn't seem to long to me, or any grammar checks I put it through. It's far easier to summarise the game's story in three quick points like that than to break it up and have to increase the amount of words used. -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Inserting a few words to increase understanding is never a bad thing. Read it as is, and then read a chopped up version: "The expansion's story continues only days after the conclusion of the original game. It starts with the Protoss' struggle to ensure the survival of their species and continues with the intervention of the UED into local Terran affairs. The livelihood of both the Protoss and the previously silent Earth government is then threatened by the ever-increasing power of Sarah Kerrigan and her Zerg brood." I don't know, I guess it's just me (It does make sense that you would be biased to your own writing), but the latter flows better to me. - Yohhans talk 13:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
      •  Done, reworded. -- Sabre (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • silent witness of the Earth government - Might be better to just say the UED since you have already mentioned them. Also, get rid of the link to the UED.
  • In addition, the expansion introduces a total of seven new units with different functions and abilities, improved artificial intelligence behavior, new graphical tilesets for terrain and improved scripting tools to the game's level editor to facilitate cut scenes using the in-game engine. - Long list-y sentence. Chop it up. Something like, "In addition, the expansion introduces new features and improvements. A total of seven new units with different functions and abilities are included, the artificial intelligence behavior was modified, new graphical tilesets for terrain were added and the game's level editor received improved scripting tools to facilitate cut scenes."
  • The expansion received critical praise - is the "critical" necessary?
  • Uhmm... Maybe I'm missing something here, but how is this: http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/insurrectioncampaignsfs/players.html a source for "and as a result of its lack of success, it is not widely available"
  • during the second episode of StarCraft - second episode? .... You mean Brood War? Needs rewording I think.
  • As with its predecessor, Insurrection, Retribution does - I think it's safe to assume that we know the predecessor is Insurrection.
  • and consortium of multiplayer levels. - consortium? I think you may be looking for a different word here. How about, "and an abundance of multiplayer levels."
  • As with its predecessor, Insurrection, Retribution does not include .... As with Insurrection, Retribution is not widely available, and Blizzard - I don't suppose we could be more inventive with our sentence structure?
  • suspicion began to grow that Blizzard would cancel the game. - Suspicion from whom?
  • following the intrigue around the type of character in the original StarCraft. - Needs rewording. Also, who was intrigued? I know I was always more interested in Zerglings and Firebats. Ghosts were just the things you had to train so you could set off nukes. Granted, this is my opinion, but that's kind of the point....
  • StarCraft's success also prompted third-party - "prompted" sends the wrong message. I think "inspired" would work better here.
  • "level editing software" should be linked further up in the article rather than here.
  • Many over-linking issues in the Development and Adaptations sections.
  • It has been stated that development on the game began in 2003, shortly after Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne was released. - By whom? Also, citation needed.
  • focusing on a journalist following a number of the key Terran characters in the series. - focusing ... following ...
  • The trilogy acts as a link between StarCraft and its sequel StarCraft II, with the first installment, - "with" is a poor linking word. I would suggest simply a full stop after Starcraft II, and start a new sentence with, "The first installment ..."
  • Two more upcoming novels have been announced: I, Mengsk by Graham McNeill and Spectres, which will be a sequel to DeCandido's Nova. - Citation?
  • Since then, StarCraft remains one of the most popular online games in the world. - "Since then" is redundant
  • StarCraft was the best-selling PC game of 1998, selling over 1.5 million copies internationally. - Errr... a couple sentences back, it says that a total of 1.5 million copies were sold in 1998. Are you telling me that no copies were sold in the US? I find this hard to believe.
    • 1.5 million copies were sold in 1998 over the whole world. Last time I checked, the US was part of the world, so that figure includes US sales. I can't see any problems here. -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Right, the US is part of the world. But this sentence says that in 1998, over 1.5 million copies were sold internationally. As the game was released in the US, I read this sentence as, "In 1998, more than 1.5 million copies were sold in countries outside the United States." But a few sentences previous, it says that 1.5 million were sold "worldwide" meaning the US AND all other countries. Either you mean to say in both places that 1.5 million copies were sold worldwide and are being redundant, or the information is wrong somewhere. - Yohhans talk 13:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Ah, I've just caught onto what you mean. It is repeated above, so I've removed the sentence in question. -- Sabre (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • establishing a successful pro-gaming scene. - Might be good to link to professional gaming.
  • popularizing the use of unique sides in real-time strategy games. - Unique sides... I have no idea what this means. Explain please?
  • Although the first two expansions were not - You've strictly been calling them "add-ons" throughout the article, why change now? Especially since I think Broodwar is the only official expansion.
  • IGN stated that it was - I do believe we have lost track of what our antecedent is referring to. What is "it"?

That's all I have. The prose needs some good touching up before I would say it meets the requirement of "well written." Beyond that though, I'd say the article is in good shape. After these (numerous, but minor) issues have been addressed, I'd be happy to throw in my support for giving the article a GA certification. - Yohhans talk 03:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, done. Reasons provided in response to review points I disagree with, rest just marked as done. You'll forgive me if I say that I think that you two have been holding us to a standard somewhat higher than is actually required for GA; this has been the longest and most enduring GA I've dealt with. -- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
You're probably right that that is the case. I suppose the problem is that I spend too much time lurking around FAC, and so I'm more nitpicky than a GA reviewer should be (I've never done a GA review before). I did try to get it done in a timely manner though, as I know that the first part of the review took a few days to get through. In any case, I think the article is in great shape now and deserving of GA status. Sorry if it seemed like I was being a little harsh in my assessment. I really like the work you have done with the Starcraft articles. Now if only the Diablo articles were up to snuff as well (Warcraft? Pah. I lost interest after Warcraft III was released.). Feel free to turn this into a GA at your leisure, I like pie. - Yohhans talk 13:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I agree. When I said yeah, go ahead, I didn't mean go overboard trying to make it an FA. Overall, it was good after it left my hands, but now, if it went through a short peer review, it could be FA. Don't trust me, though, ask those nitpicky guys at FA. ;-) Pie is good (Apple is the best) 19:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks muchily to both of you for the review, its proved interesting. As this was the last StarCraft article to be passed as a GA/been audited in peer review, I can now put up a good topic candidacy for the StarCraft series. -- Sabre (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Korean Starcraft Manga

I noticed a Korean Starcraft manga named "Starcraft" The story is basically a slightly reimagined one from Starcraft: Broodwar. Can anyone confirm if Blizzard authorized this?116.122.184.93 (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Novelizations: Section headings?

Recently I split the "Novelizations" section into multiple subsections, with a heading for each book. Someone disagreed and reversed. I believe the subsection headings are warranted. The section is illegible as one big wall of text. It's way too hard to see where one book ends and the next begins. I have made a new edit where I have simply put in paragraph breaks for each book. Any opinions?SpectrumDT (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not one big wall of text, it's three paragraphs, broken up by the first four novels—the ones in the StarCraft Archive—later novels, and other literature. It's easy enough to follow, and we're not meant to provide lots of detail on each book here (as section headings would encourage) as that puts undue weight onto them or, if they remain short paragraphs, looks bad for presentation. Short paragraphs for each book just look wrong and are discouraged when aiming for good prose and especially the brilliant prose requirement at an FAC. Believe me, three medium length paragraphs is the best way to go. -- Sabre (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I do not believe you. It is a big wall of text, and I do not find it easy to follow. I have added a bulleted list of books to provide an overview. SpectrumDT (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
This article has since been reviewed for GAN and FTC since 10 September, which means people with key knowledge of Wikipedia style guidelines have reviewed the article. None of them voiced any concerns about not being able to follow the novelisation section, and they would have if they had any, or the article would not have passed those nominations. I'm sorry you alone can't follow it, but adding a list destroys the presentation of the article. -- Sabre (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge discussion of two expansions: Retribution_(StarCraft) and Insurrection (StarCraft)

Found at: Talk:Retribution_(StarCraft)#Merge_of_article.

travb (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Prequel Demo

Don't know if this has been covered or not, but a demo was released in the September, 1998 edition of Computer Gaming World magazine, issue # 170, that introduced 5 missions that acted as a prequel to the events in the original. Can anyone help me hammer out the details; I mean, is it something that needs put it? Magus732 (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No, its not really needed for this article. Its covered at StarCraft#PC_expansions; as its a demo, it relates directly to the single game and is better covered there than in the series article. -- Sabre (talk) 11:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Heaven's Devils?

AFAIK, Starcraft II: Heaven's Devils is an official novel. I believe it should be added to the novelization section. —Ynhockey (Talk) 18:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. -- Sabre (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Starcraft II

Shouldn't this article be updated to include SCII? --☣EternalEclipse☣ TALK 01:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Koprulu Sector proposed for deletion

I'd be happy to see this rescued, if concerns are addressed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Vespene redirect?

Vespene redirects here, but the word "vespene" doesn't appear in the article text to give me an idea of why.--Theodore Kloba (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the term Vespene Gas (which also redirects here) has its origins in the game. I am not a gamer and had no idea of this. Trying to find out what Vespene Gas is using Wikipedia failed, because there's no mention of it in this article. Thanks to any knowledgeable person who corrects this. 71.47.220.206 (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I found a couple of sources ([2] and [3]) which show that crystals and vespene gas are the main currencies in the games, but couldn't find anywhere sensible to write about them in this article. A 'gameplay' section might be missing, describing generally how the games play, but I'm not 100% sure about that. Sam Walton (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

SC Retribution Release Date

The most I get from ANYBODY when I ask this, they say it came out in late 1998. Any further information? Tfan101 (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 13 December 2015

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.

Moved as proposed per consensus; the franchise has overtaken any individual installment as the primary topic; when this occurs, the franchise becomes the primary topic. bd2412 T 15:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

– (1) The series is the common name. Google searches indicate that searchers are looking for the series at this point rather than the first title. (2) The series has enough entries to meet WP:NCGAMESDAB's recommendation, which makes sense here. czar 21:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Support: I support this and it makes sense. StarCraft should link directly to the series as they have made many more games since and people searching would most likely want to find out more about the entire series rather than the single game that came out in 1998. Marty2Hotty (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Per nom. -- ferret (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • We had considered this at the time of Wings of Liberty but decided the series wasn't quite the length it needed to be (this was also prior to the "Blizzard is doing 'full' expansion packs for SC2' decision). I will give an unqualified support for this move, per the nom. --Izno (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose first, support second redirect StarCraft to Starcraft (disambiguation) and move Starcraft (disambiguation) to Starcraft In ictu oculi (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
    I think the video game series called StarCraft is clearly the WP:PTOPIC. What policy/guideline reasoning do you have to move around the disambiguation page? --Izno (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – Thought about this carefully. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, we should look at incoming wikilinks and article traffic as well, and right now, both measures do not support the move. The series article gets only a third of the traffic that the video game article gets (in fact, StarCraft II actually gets a lot more as well), and has about 25% fewer incoming wikilinks in the article namespace. Despite these statistics, I'm still supporting the move. I think the number of expansions, board games, and other media-related items associated with the franchise have dwarfed the original game by a wide margin at this point. The third criteria mentioned by the nom, Google results, is probably the most important and stands as a clear indication that various elements of the franchise are just as likely to turn up in the results as the original game. It's time to make the move. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Support per WP:NCVGDAB. The series (franchise) is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC at this point. Common usage in reliable sources no longer primarily refers to the first game. Searching also suggests it is the primary topic between other non-game related topics of the similar name. Since primary topic would take the game's title, the game can be dabbed with "video game". —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, for all the reasons given.–Totie (talk) 02:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Although the video game came first, other things named after it, the other things eclipse the old video game. Oppose any StarCraft (disambiguation) because all topics are variations on the one topic. The CamelCase is significant. StarCraft should be listed at Starcraft (disambiguation), where the PT of starcraft is astrology. Possibly, StarCraft could be a WP:CONCEPTDAB page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2015 (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.

Move cleanup

A lot of ground to cover here. I've hit many of the obvious areas, and the templates. There's a ton of links though. In many cases the articles probably are fine referring to the series, I've been mostly updating clear references to the first game. -- ferret (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

StarCraft III?

Do we know when and if we would get a StarCraft III? Tfan101 (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The last installment for SCII has just been out for 16 days so don't go there yet. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 06:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Can't say much about Starcraft 3, but a mission pack is announced starring Nova in 3 episodes consisting of 3 missions each, starting to be released in June this year. Blizzard has said these occur in the aftermath of Amons destruction. see here: Starcraft II: Legacy of the Void. The mission packs are designed to keep players engaged with Starcraft 2, so if one were to speculate... SC3 won't be coming anytime soon. Scourge Splitter (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on StarCraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Checked - Apriestofgix (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on StarCraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 26 external links on StarCraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Rush deletion discussion

Rush (video gaming) has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush (video gaming), if anyone involved with this article might be interested in weighing in. —Lowellian (reply) 04:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on StarCraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Music section

I've made a start on a music section (it really does need one); there are other interviews with Brower floating about; I'll start to make some additions as I go along. Cpaaoi (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on StarCraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Shadow of the Xel'Naga draft

There is an abandoned draft of a retired Wikipedia editor at User:S@bre/StarCraft: Shadow of the Xel'Naga that will probably be deleted at some point unless an editor here decides to take it up. Or, you could nominate it for deletion yourself if you don't find it helpful. Daask (talk) 06:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

It appears to have 0 sources, so it's likely to go the way of deletion. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:StarCraft/Archive_1&oldid=1137202236"