Talk:StarCraft (series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the StarCraft (series) article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
The Clawed One (talk), Sabre (talk)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.
To-do list for StarCraft (series): edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Expand section relating to cultural impact, elaborating on non-Korean impact.
  • Reference the Brood War portion of the story section to the "Story So Far" article when part 2 is released.
  • Construct a music section if sufficient sources can be found.
  • Add more references in various places in the article for better verifability.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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 does not exist. We're quite well aware of that, 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)