Talk:Zerg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Zerg article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

	This article is part of WikiProject Computer and video games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	CVG Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
CVG To-do: edit  Gaming Collaboration of the week: X-Men vs. Street Fighter Expand: New CVG Articles, List of Nintendo trademarks, Normality, Pac-Man World 2, Operation Flashpoint: Elite, Call of Juarez, Galactic Civilizations II: Dark Avatar, Ford Street Racing, Betrayal at Krondor CVG Peer Review: Super Transformation, Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games, Yoshi, Turok: Dinosaur Hunter, Black Isle's Torn, Rise of Nations, Kirby (Nintendo), PlayStation 3, Mega Man Zero 4, Luigi Cleanup: Shiny Entertainment, Age of Mythology, Serious Sam II, Mario Kart: Double Dash!!, Ted Price, Betrayal at Krondor, Little Fighter 2 Merge: Current Events (Update needed!) / Deletions / Essential articles / Workshop / Magazines Assess and Prioritise articles (Log)

Contents 1 Removed links to subarticles 2 Major merge 3 Larva fact 4 Build restriction "nearly eliminated"? 5 Way too long? 6 Zerg vs. X 7 who deleted the "Hydralisk" image 8 Lurker Facts Incorrect 9 tagged for cleanup 10 Merge 11 Few Problems 12 "Zerging" vs. "Zergling" 13 Major edit 14 Better images? 15 Redlinks Galore 16 Give me a break! 17 Redirecting deleted articles to appropriate races 18 The History Sections 19 Infested Terran 20 64.131.234.204 and Zerg Units section 21 Citations 22 LOL we need to mention Zerg Units... P.S I poon u in starcraft... 23 There needs to be... 24 wait a minute? 25 Zurg / Zerg spelling 26 to zerg

[edit] Removed links to subarticles

I have removed links to the various sub-articles since there wasn't really anything here yet. I suggest a different approach for this article than for the previous ones: Instead of creating a list-stub for each unit, building etc., these could be listed in the main article in tabular form. Coming up with a good table would be a nice creative task. --Eloquence 05:32 25 May 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Major merge

A lot of pages need to be merged into Zerg, Terran (StarCraft), Protoss and StarCraft, this article is one of them, see details on Talk:StarCraft#Major_merge_needed

[edit] Larva fact

I doubt I'm the only one who's seen this. Larva can die even when their hatchery is still standing. If a hatchery is built near a tree, many times the larva will wander into the small patch of land that the creep doesn't cover due to the obstruction.

[edit] Build restriction "nearly eliminated"?

Least efficient building method, extreme building restrictions. Zerg structures can only be built on a creep. A creep is formed by either an hatchery (Zerg's main structure) or by Creep Colony. (note: on some StarCraft maps the restriction is nearly eliminated.)

Does anyone know what's meant by the phrase I've highlighted, and whether it's true? If not, it should be deleted; if so, perhaps it should be elaborated. --AlexChurchill 16:44, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

I think the person who wrote that is referring to maps like Sunken Defense, where creep is programmed in. In Shared Bases maps and derivatives, if you have a Zerg teammate you can always build on HIS creep, but you'll both still be causing headaches for your Protoss neighbor. Marblespire 04:28, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The creep kinda has advantage though. Protoss And Terran can't build on it. 216.56.38.130 14:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Way too long?

Seriously. My opinion is that most of this belongs in wikibooks, not wikipedia. Particularly the stuff on strategies. This goes for alot of the other SC stuff, eg. Terran (StarCraft) and Protoss--Fangz 21:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

In my oppinion, they should remain in thier current form and not be edited, docked. Most people who have the time and patience to wiki "Starcraft" Probably want to read about the history of the Sons Of Korhal and the History of The Protoss. - Pace

[edit] Zerg vs. X

These match-ups need a bit of work. I'll try to work on them a bit. Specifically, I'll include the role of each unit it the match-up and common build orders/strategies. Anything else I should or should not do? --Morzas Merix 16:11, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] who deleted the "Hydralisk" image

Hey, who deleted the hydralisk image, and why?

Pece Kocovski 03:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Probably because the image was in a bad location and didn't correspond with the text. I happened to like the hydralisk image too. BeanSoldier 22:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lurker Facts Incorrect

The Lurker is not invisible to opponents unless it's burrowed. As it stands, it reads like it's invisible all the time.

24.15.167.167 02:40, 9 Dec, 2005

[edit] tagged for cleanup

This article needs the strategy info taken out. That stuff goes in wikibooks, not here. Night Gyr 22:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Most RTS articles have strategy included. Kimera757 19:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

They shouldn't. To quote WP:NOT:

Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Wikibooks is a Wikipedia sister-project which is better suited for such things.

The information should be transwikied to Wikibooks. Instructional information belongs at wikibooks:StarCraft:Strategy Guide. We already have a book there in progress, so once that book holds this information, it should be deleted from the article. I'm retagging it. Night Gyr 07:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Those three articles should not be merged. They are very detailed and stand well alone. Merging these articles with Zerg would lose a lot of useful information. It is not fancruft. Look at all of the Half-Life subpages. Starcraft should reach that level of detail and professionalism. bob rulz 07:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I agree that they shouldn't be merged. The articles each contain enough unique information about their specific subjects that the general article (Zerg) does not need to go into. TwistedSword 21:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Keep as set up. Kimera757 17:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

How long do we keep those tags there before we delete them? Kimera757 17:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Few Problems

Zerg is the slowest race to start building units, even if using hotkeys.

In advantages, there should be "Hatchery, Lair, or Hive"—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.152.145.87 (talk • contribs).

No, there shouldn't. It's not an "advantage" per se, just a gameplay attribute. Also, please avoid giving out hints (but thank you for contributing!). --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 20:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Zerging" vs. "Zergling"

I've noticed that in the intro, there's a paragraph that says, 'the word "Zerg" (verb) or "Zergling" is the act of using mass numbers to achieve an objective'.I'm fairly certain that the term "Zerging", as a verb, is a form of "to Zerg", and shouldn't be replaced with "Zergling", which is a creature. I'm changing it back. --T. S. Rice 06:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think "insect strategy" would better descrive this.

[edit] Major edit

I just went through and did a major edit of the entire article up to "buildings." Hopefully my 2+ hours of editing are effective... T. S. Rice 10:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was a helpful edit. This article has been in need of some cleanup for a long time, I was just too lazy to ever get around to it. I was wondering why you kept all that deleted stuff in the bracket thingies that hide the text instead of outright deleting them? bob rulz 22:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a habit of mine to leave stuff that I want to delete in comment tags for a couple of days to see if anyone objects. I'll go ahead and delete them now. T. S. Rice 23:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better images?

What about some images that do not come directly from the game itself (like concept art and such) I mean images like this one: http://www.artbytav.by.ru:81/art/zerg.jpg, that I just googled.

Well, if you can find some that are acceptable to use under copyright laws then feel free to use them. Good luck finding any though. bob rulz 02:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redlinks Galore

• There are redlinks galore following this. I will remove them later (if no one else does), but right now I must go. Bp28 21:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• I removed a bunch of the redlinks in this article. I still have concerns (of course) on the encyclopedic nature of having very specific information for each unit. For example, such details as the amount of HP a unit has or which structure can increase a unit's speed. I don't think this adds anything to the article and much of it is original research (like the stuff that says what a particular unit is good for), or at best is content taken from a SC guide. Opinions? Wickethewok 04:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Nvm, someone seems to have already removed this material now. Wickethewok 12:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Give me a break!

Give me a break! Is there some sort of new vendetta ongoing against what some people perceive to be fancruft again? Mentioning the things that were just deleted are essential to the understanding of the game and the species. Deleting it is pure nonsense. It's ridiculous. Perhaps some of the more specific game information should be cut out and the descriptions trimmed down, but deleting it outright is ridiculous. bob rulz 02:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirecting deleted articles to appropriate races

Perhaps some of these should be redirected to the articles for their appropriate races. Bp28 10:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The History Sections

The text sounds suspiciously like the text from the manual for the Zerg race... we need a re-write! humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 07:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

By "Zerg manual" do you mean the history section of the Zerg in the manual for the game? If so, then it's not even close to a copy of it. bob rulz 11:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infested Terran

Why does Infested Terran redirect here when this page doesn't contain all the information that were in previous version of Infested Terran? --Voidvector 07:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

all generic units redirect to their appropriate races' page. see here: [1] 129.21.109.54 17:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 64.131.234.204 and Zerg Units section

I've moved text marked as "unfinished" from this page to Talk:Zerg/units because it clearly does not belong in the article yet. Upon reading some of the text, though, it's very apparent that this new text is glaringly strategy-oriented, which we decided at [2] wouldn't be allowed. What should we do, exactly? Comrade^4·2 03:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

Um, why is there "citation needed" footnotes on where it says what the Zerg look like? I mean, you need a citation for a visual comparison that anyone can make? It's easy to see that they do resemble the aliens in films listed, even though it is vague. --Eridani 1026, 1 October 2006 (EST)

[edit] LOL we need to mention Zerg Units... P.S I poon u in starcraft...

I put some species at the back of my head. Try to contribute more and write about the units like the terrans and protoss!! Sorry about the mutalisk and queen being in ground units.. im too busy today i cant fix it.

-User:Storkian <-- my username in wikipedia

Um, hate to break it to you, but we've had a large number of long discussions on the topic and so far the general trend is that it's not important to include each individual unit - that kind of information is more suited to a strategy guide, and Wikipedia is not a strategy guide. We will probably have to delete your contribution, even though you might have put some honest effort into it. (I might be wrong on this one; we'll see what others have to say.) --Comrade^4·2 01:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

ok i get why all the units were removed from this page, but why not from the other two races? on those pages there is a complete rundown of all the units. with the other two pages the way they are, the variation of this page makes it seem incomplete and shabby. but thats just me, maybe i'm crazy--Manwithbrisk 21:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not make a new page called Zerg units and buildings to list them and link to it from this page? --63.65.45.102 17:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] There needs to be...

...some mention here of the obvious descendancy of the Zerg from the novel Starship Troopers. Even if there is disagreement, there needs to be some discussion of the likelihood, which I believe is strong.

[edit] wait a minute?

Wasn't this article longer? And wasn't there individual articles for the different Zerg units, because i remember there being one before?

Pece Kocovski 05:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't here when those articles were removed, but as far as I know, they were removed because they are considered unencyclopedic (i.e. WP:NOT), and more appropriate for StarCraft strategy guide websites. --Voidvector 05:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zurg / Zerg spelling

The most recently patched version of StarCraft still uses the spelling Zerg, not Zurg as the article suggests. See Blizzard's site as well: http://www.battle.net/scc/zerg

'Twas vandals or something. I think the problem has been fixed. Comrade^4·2 09:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] to zerg

doesnt 'to zerg' mean to overwhelm in an early stage, or just suddenly?

and there seems to be no mention of them being completely organic without any technology, even having exclusively organic buildings and weapons, nor that their entire force is created by metamorphing originally out of larva--Lygophile 09:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)