Talk:StarCraft/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

Current Status

The article has been made a FA and is currently fairly stable. Some rewording/improvement in the consistency and clarity of the writing sytle might be welcome. 59.167.77.211 05:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

"Space opera?"

I changed this to "science fiction" as space opera seems the wrong categorization to me, and as the article on space opera describes that genre as emphasizing romantic adventure, interstellar travel, and space battles, none of which are main elements in Starcraft (though one must assume that interstellar travel takes place, and there are a few space-station battles). If anyone can help me out with a better subgenre, I'd appreciate it, but the assignment of the game to space opera seems highly specious (though perhaps there's something I'm missing?). Zabieru 08:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't consider space battles a main element in Starcraft? Are you sure you played the same game the rest of us did? O.o You should note that many people do not consider the term "space opera" to be offensive. I'm a fan of Star Trek and Star Wars and I consider both of them to be examples of space opera: they are romanticized and worry more about human drama than scientific believability. The way I see it, StarCraft fits the space opera bill quite well; it lacks any discussion of scientific issues and their impact on the future, so I don't see how it's science fiction. What's the big deal? -Kasreyn 09:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Err, well, space battles? Nope, didn't see any, save for a few space-station boarding ops. Unless you define "space" as "any place outside Earth's atmosphere," that is. Most of the battles are ground battles on other planets. There's a connection to space opera, but I don't see that Starcraft is firmly within the genre in the way that, say, Star Control, Starlancer, or the like are. It's closer to military science fiction.
If you care to look at the gaps between the platforms in the "platform" maps (such as Zerg mission two, if I remember correctly), you will see a starfield below them. This indicates the platform is adrift in space. Thus any fighting that occurs on the platform is a space battle. Additionally, the cutscene with the Wraiths attacking a Confederate buoy is clearly happening in space. "Space" is here defined as any place outside a planetary atmosphere, of course. -Kasreyn 06:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Sure, and I noted that as an exception, but really, take a look at Homeworld or Freespace, and tell me Starcraft had space battles in the same sense that those games did. Or look at the space battles in Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, or Babylon 5. Starcraft has some battles that take place in space, but not the kind we see in a lot of other space opera (except in the cutscenes, that is). Zabieru 23:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I support the inclusion of a link to the space opera article somewhere in the text, perhaps under influences, but I just think the link is too tenuous to support a statement at the head of the page that Starcraft is space opera and nothing but space opera.
Zabieru 05:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I actually agree with the "space opera" tag. The 'romantic adventure' aspect is quite prevalent, such as in the Terran campaign (reference the Raynor Rebellion and Loss of Kerrigan to the enemy), and I second Kasreyn's reasoning about why it should be categorized as a space opera. However, I happen to agree that this is science fiction as well. Honestly, there are spaceships and aliens that are coming to unleash holy hell. How is it not?JeebusSez 05:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
There's an influence, sure. Many of the works cited under influences do contain links to the space opera article. I don't think Starcraft as a game is a work of space opera, though, for which see above. I'd love to see a mention and a link in the influences section (or if no one beats me to it, I'll write it when I'm not sick anymore), but I don't think a flat-out statement that Starcraft is space opera represents well either one. Someone who reads that knowing what space opera is will find that Starcraft doesn't feature the kind of Lensman/Star Trek plot they're expecting, but instead seems to be all about building a little town and fighting land battles. Someone who reads that knowing what Starcraft is will then think "Oh, if I want to read stories about desperate battles between aliens and marines, I should pick up some of this E. E. Smith and David Brin stuff." They'll be dissappointed as well. A bit about how it draws from space opera and military science fiction would be great, though, in the context of a list of influences.
Zabieru 05:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm certainly willing to make allowances for your being sick. (Get well soon! :) But I still contend firmly that it is space opera. There's nothing to be ashamed of in this. But the Protoss psi powers, the cloaking fields, not even a passing mention of how FTL travel is performed - these are the points of interest that would be addressed in science fiction. See, in science fiction, the point is to address the intersection of future / altered states of being and society (usually altered due to changed technology) on drama and human behavior. Space opera foregoes the analysis and technical inquiry, and sets an exciting and dramatic story in a stereotypical, and thus easily accepted, setting: the future.
In fact, the reason space operas are called that is due to "horse operas", the denigrating term devised for shows like "Bonanza", which were recognized as being merely another form of daytime drama mounted on horseback. I don't think it's anything to sneer at, it's honest entertainment. In the stereotypical western setting, we don't worry about guns jamming or horses dying under us (unless required by plot). We gloss over the details in order to enjoy the action. In space opera, we don't worry about why faster-than-light travel works, or what happens to the soul of someone who is teleported. They are dramatic devices used to move the plot forward. As Gene Roddenberry admitted, the transporter was created because he didn't have the budget "to land that big mother every week". He found a creative solution to his problem, but it certainly wasn't science fiction. Fantasy-fiction is the ultimate example of this reductive principle of dramatic writing: we never waste time worrying about why magic works because it's magic!
Starcraft had some game mechanics (like I've mentioned, such as cloaking and psi powers) which could have been explained. They could have had Kerrigan go into a thirty-minute lecture on how her cloaking field bends light around her body. Thank god Blizzard had better sense than that!! It would have ruined the pacing and dramatic tension of their excellent story. Science fiction is totally inappropriate for an action game like Starcraft; only a dramatic, exciting, and operatic story could be the equal of the game's battle sequences.
Anyway. That comment went rather longer than I intended! ^_^;; I won't press the point any further, I just was wanting to say that... -Kasreyn 06:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that anything with unexplained science is space opera and not science fiction. For one thing, I'd say space opera IS science fiction, it's just not hard SF. Second, plenty of hard SF doesn't explain all of its tech. Read 'The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress' and explain to me how bone decalcification works. Granted that Heinlein knew, he didn't explain it in the book. Contrarywise, some space opera spends a good bit of time talking about tech, for instance the Miles Vorkosigan books or David Brin's Uplift universe (granted those are new space opera, but even in the Lensman books there's a solid bit of tech talk). And there's a lot of fiction that's certainly not space opera which posits possibly unrealistic and certainly unexplained technology, for instance Ursula LeGuin's Hainish cycle. To draw another example from Star Trek, Roddenbery at ne point commented that in a police drama, you don't see the detective pick up his revolver and explain how it works before putting it in his holster. So why would a Starfleet officer explain the use of a phaser? That's a good general principle of science fiction, whether your tech is rigorous or just handwaving. So we can't strictly say that anything unexplained is not science fiction.
To me, space opera has certain themes of (space) travel and drama (see the space opera article for more) and is not defined as 'fiction with a futuristic setting that does not rigorously examine technology.' In this regard, Starcraft has some aspects of space opera, and so deserves a mention both ways, but isn't so definitively space-operatic that I'd put it in the header. By analogy, Star Trek is a TV space opera. and could say so in the header. Firefly wasn't, though it had a lot of space opera influence, so its header should say space western or SF western, with the space opera bit in the body of the article.
Perhaps another reason for my reservations is that Starcraft's gameplay utterly fails to support the narrative premise of its cutscenes. The cuts, taken as a sort of film, do make up a kind of space opera, but when you break that up with a bunch of base building and troop leadership, as enjoyable as those elements are, you lose the narrative. Space opera has a traditional focus on character (whether it be the Chosen One/superman plots of classic space opera or the character-driven stories of new space opera) and that's just not present in any but a very few RTS games. (Don't take this as a slam on the game. The cutscenes do a good job of framing the action of the game, I just don't feel that because the cutscenes were pretty much space opera, we can then say that the game was, given the radical difference in style and content between the cutscenes and the gameplay.)
I do enjoy the discussion, so there's no need to apologize for pressing the point, but I don't want our debate to get in the way of having the article in an appropriate shape if I'm the only one who wants this out of the header. What's your view on my inclusion of this reference in the Influences section? Zabieru 23:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

In fact, will we all be happy if I just add that in to the influences section? I think that's the right place for it. I'll do that in a sec. Pardon me if my responses here are a bit disjointed, I'm sick at the moment. EDIT: Done. Zabieru 05:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think starcraft is both. It has a aliens and spacecraft so it is science fiction, and it has a deeper story then most science fictions movies/novels/games would have.

Well, to end this argument once and for all, Starcraft is science fiction. If you explore you're Starcraft CD-ROM, you will find a PDF containing an explenation on the history and makings of the Starcraft universe, so, HAH!! Death Dark

Backstabbers

This looks like vandalism. Source? ~PG

huk, everyone is talking about that 'vandalism' over at http://www.teamliquid.net MyCube 01:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a question for more experienced wikipedians: Do most featured articles suffer such vandalism when featured? This article has been hit pretty hard today. Is it simply that this is a game and draws a "less mature" crowd (no offence intended) or does it get regularly abused (looking thourgh entire history now)? Thanks in advance. badmonkey 07:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, featured articles on the Main Page do tend to draw a lot of vandalism, especially when they're about pop culture stuff like video games. --King of All the Franks 07:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Aye, pop culture articles and articles about controversial personalities are a big favorite of vandals. From my experience with Link (Legend of Zelda) (the other video game-related FA I worked on), this page will see a few days of intense activity before returning to relative stability; that includes vandalism, nonsensical and redundant edits from fans who do not bother to read the whole article before concluding that we forgot to mention something important. On the other hand, being on the main page also attracts a few solid contributors who will take care for this article over a longer period of time, which is good. If you look through the history, though, you'll notice that this article has reached relative stability some time ago already; there isn't much left to say about the game that's general enough to be in this article, as opposed to one of the related sub-articles. Most recent activity was preparation for the main page. Cheers. Phils 08:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been looking at other video-game articles, and all of the major ones have always had vandalism and unwanted changes by random people, so this is no different. Death Dark

Suggestion for Influences

Is it possible to expand a bit on the influences from Warhammer 40,000? The current wording ("...may have had an influence") seems to me too weak if you consider the actual similarities between the StarCraft universe and that of Warhammer 40K. In fact, there is definately enough material for a new page, which i might add would interest a lot of people. I don't know how to present such a page, as it might seem as speculation, but many similarities are crystal clear, for example the Space Marine Dreadnoughts and the Protoss Dragoons, both are mechas of some sort, containing the remains of warriors fallen in battle that continue to serve in this way. This sort of thing is more that a "possible influence", in fact it could be ground for a lawsuit if the StarCraft universe wasn't so well integrated and presented.

Similarly, the phrase "Others believe that the game contains subtle references..." just doesn't sound right, for example, in the case of Space Battleship Yamato. The Terran unit in question is a Battlecruiser, in space, and is equipped with the Yamato Cannon, which is pretty much identical in function to the one in the anime. This is also stated firmly in the Terran (StarCraft) page.

An idea would be to rework the influences section to discuss and present the extent to which StarCraft borrowed from various sources (especially Warhamer 40K) and sucessfully tied everything in a unique universe that can stand on its own, really more than the sum of its parts. This is part of the reason that the game was loved so much after all. The developers themselves make no attempt to hide it either, in fact they are proud to acknowledge their sources, as seen on the games ending credits. A good example for that is the Protoss Reaver unit; it is identical in its form and elaborate animation to the Ohmu from Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind. Hayao Miyazaki is in the Special Thanks list. 62.1.111.152 05:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. The nice thing about Wikipedia is that you can implement all these suggestions yourself! Just make sure that you keep the wording clear and concise, and that you explain how the content you cite was an influence to StarCraft. Arguably, pretty much all science fiction that came before StarCraft influenced it in one way or another, so we need to restrict ourselves to obvious influences. If you can, provide authoritative sources (i.e.: no non-notable personal blogs or fan sites, but verified statements from Blizzard employees, interviews... )to back your claims. Phils 08:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's another fact that backs up the fact that Starcraft is a computerized version of Starship Troopers: in the book the Terrans are fighting the bugs (which one relates to the Zerg) but they are also fighting a race of humanoids known as the "Skinnies". By the way Heinlein described them, they are almost the precursor to the Protoss in the game. Having read the book, I just wanted to point this out so someone in future might add it in the Influences section. Knight45 16:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section moved here

I removed the trivia section, and I hope someone can incorporate it into the text. For contributer-popular entries such as Starcraft, the trivia section will ruin the FA quality of the article. What starts out as a few items, will become an overgrown mass of bullet points. Don't allow your work to deteriorate -- keep the trivia section out.


Removed: "The popularity and pervasiveness of Starcraft in the online gaming community soon gave rise to the term Zerging, where typically, a swarm of players in an online game all attack a target in an indiscriminate and uncoordinated fashion in order to overcome the resistance through sheer numbers."

Lotsofissues 09:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


A man died for crying out loud

I see that Phils removed the News section about Mr. Lee dying from playing over 50 hours of Starcraft. And this isn't worthy of being in the article because...? How many people die from playing a video game? Lee probably deserves his own article. David Bergan 21:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem I see with this is that it could have been because he sat in an odd position for 50 hours, or could be that he was using a windows computer for 50 hours or anything like this. The reporting style is that of sensationalism. It does not fit in well with an article about a computer game for such snippets of, for a better word, gossip. Unless, in this instance, a coroner rules that it was the playing of the game that actually killed him then it is not admissable. It might be that he did not take precautions whilst playing (take breaks, drink liquids, eat food etc...) so the actual game was irrelevant. -Localzuk (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Well yes, it wasn't Starcraft itself that killed "Lee." I've played the game continuously for 7 years and at my physical last month my doc said I was in excellent shape. Lee played it continuously for 50 hours and died from exhaustion. As Aristotle would remind him, the pleasures of life must be enjoyed in moderation. But anyway, it was Lee's addiction to Starcraft that caused him to ignore better judgment and take a break to eat and sleep.
If a man dies of a heart attack while there is cocaine in his body, we say the cocaine addiction killed him. If a man dies of exhaustion with his face on the keyboard and zerglings flickering on the screen, we say the Starcraft addiction killed him.
Believe me, I love the game every bit as much as you do. But I don't understand how info like this is not encyclopedic. It is an exceptional story verified by several reputable news sources. (You must have noticed the buried links I planted to two other links when you went to remove the section.) If for no other reason, it is notable for humor alone. Gossip is based on news you get from your friend, not news you get from several independent journalistic websites. You don't need coroner testimony or trial transcripts to make something notable. But if you insist on using that as your standard, I'll go ahead and gut any other parts of this article that isn't legally documented. David Bergan 05:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
If he died of exhaustion then it can only be included with a reference to that. eg A man died from exhaustion after playing StarCraft for 50 hours with references. You cannot just claim that he died from being addicted to the game. With reference to your common usages of the how people died - they are all correct in that people would say that the addiction killed them, however writing it in that way is not encyclopedic. If it can be rewritten in such a way to state that the man was addicted to the game (and include a reference for this) and that he died from exhaustion (with a ref) then it could have a place, but as it stands it isn't admittable. If there are badly written paragraphs such as this already in the article, I will join you in removing them. (EDIT: Bah! Forgot to sign, will sign now) -Localzuk (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Guys, the article only claims that Lee died after 50 continuous hours of Starcraft which is both factually correct and notable. It doesn't say he was "killed by Starcraft" or "killed by Game addiction". Nobody's trying to make an ideological point here. --Ryan Utt 19:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
That is still no use. Stating that he died after 50 hours of game playing is irrelevant to this article. If the person had spent 50 hours using Windows XP would that have been reported, sensationalised, and then included in the Windows XP article? I think not. It should only be included here if it is reworded in a suitable way, but then I would still not really agree with it being present as it is not actually anything to do with StarCraft. -Localzuk (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
To answer your question: If somebody just loved using Windows XP and was using it recreationally and was so immersed in the Windows XP experience that they continued using it until they suffered organ failure, keeled over, and died, and the event was documented and widely reported in several news outlets as a "windows XP casualty" then, yes, I think it would be appropriate to include 1 cursory sentance about the death under the Windows XP article. --Ryan Utt 19:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this is where we differ. It just doesn't seem encyclopedic to include sensationalist reporting. -Localzuk (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

No, where we differ is that I actually think somebody playing Starcraft until he dies is genuinely incredible, whereas you think it's "sensationalist". --Ryan Utt 20:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it is incredible due to the nature of the media. If I knew more facts about the man's health before hand, mitigating circumstances etc... then I may find it incredible. It is not incredible that a man who did not follow standard guidelines for using a computer dies whilst playing a game - it is almost expected. It would not be incredible that a man dies from eating too much of a foodstuff regardless of guidelines. -Localzuk (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
So which is it? Are you skeptical of the story because you suspect the media intentionally left out pertainent details about the player's health in order to "sensationalize" it? Or do you think the player simply disobeyed (nonexistant, but I'll let that slide for now) "standard guidelines for using a computer" and therefore the consequences of his actions are not notable? --Ryan Utt 21:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Both, with the latter greater than the prior. To put it this way, if the man did not drink for 50 hours, it is not too unexpected for him to have died. It does not matter that he was playing the game, it is coincidental to the incident and is actually due to a more deep routed addiction to computer gaming rather than this specific game.-Localzuk (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Localzuk... did you read the 3 websites that refer to the event? They say that he had been previously fired from his job for playing too many computer games, in addition to dying from exhaustion. How is this not an addiction? David Bergan 15:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes I did, however, this just shows he was addicted to 'computer games'. Not specifically this game. I am quite shocked that people see this as a an important event for this particular game. The article that is now linked to barely references the game as well. If anything this should be included on the Computer Game article or addiction article. -Localzuk (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If people were often dieing while playing games, then I would say you were right: another death would not be notable. But how many deaths are caused by exhaustion suffered during a marathon gaming session? I only know of one and it happened while the player was playing Starcraft. You have demonstrated no other deaths. Show me that such a death is a casual event and I will agree with you. --Ryan Utt 16:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


Before the dead horse is beat, let's summarize. These seem to be the arguments:

In favor of inclusion

  • A man was so addicted to Starcraft that he neglected good judgment, got fired from his job, lost his girlfriend, stayed up playing way too long, "forgot" to eat, and collapsed minutes after he told his friends he would come home after this last game.
  • He died a few hours later in the hospital from exhaustion and heart failure brought on by playing Starcraft so obsessively that he didn't eat or rest.
  • Human death is notable.
  • Notable events go into the article.

Against inclusion

  • Not sure what killed him... could just be a coincidence that he died playing Starcraft
Pretty obvious from the articles what killed him, exhaustion. What caused the exhaustion? The man liked Starcraft so much that he suspended common sense.
  • Writing that addiction killed someone is inaccurate.
If a man dies in DWI car crash, did the alcohol kill him? No. Was it a factor? Yes. Do we talk about drunk driving fatalities in an alcohol article? Yes... unless the fatalities are so significant that it spawns its own article, and I don't think we have enough significance in one instance to establish a Starcraft fatalities article. If we do, we still link it to Starcraft.
  • The reporting is sensationalist
But yet it is factual, notable, and relevant to the article.

There is no case against inclusion. Now let's move on to where it should go and how it should be worded. Notice that there is a Lee Seung Seop article already. (I didn't start it.) David Bergan 20:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well thanks for summarising it so badly. My objection is that it is not notable for anyone to die by ignoring safety guidelines. It is not notable for someone to die from an addiction. It is barely relevent to this article that he died after playing a computer game. The key factors are that:

  1. He died due to exhaustion, after ignoring guidelines due to an addiction to computer games
  2. The game was barely related to this death - he could have been playing any game, and as such it is not notable for inclusion on this article

I value life above anything, being vegan, a human rights campaigner etc... so I do think it is terrible that this happened, I just don't think it should be included due to my reasons as set out above.-Localzuk (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

On point one, we agree.
On point two, let's go a bit further. If a person robbed a bank after playing the game Thief, would we just say that he robbed a bank after playing a video game? The reader is left with... which game? Pacman? Citing the specific game is just as important as citing a specific book or movie if one were to lead to a crime. We don't just say that the guy who killed John Lennon had "a book" when we know exactly which book he had, The Catcher in the Rye. Now I don't think that the themes in Catcher influenced Mr. Chapman to kill John. And I'm not going to prevent my son from reading the book based on that incident... the virtue of a book is not tarnished simply because it is related to a crime with a deranged man. But it is notable material for the Catcher article.
But in the Lee case, we not only have the coincidence of Starcraft being on the screen when he died, but also the fact that the game's addictiveness led him to suspend better judgment and fatally exhaust himself. At the minimum we need to state this in the article to warn readers that they too may fall prey to Stacraft's addictiveness.
This is one of the reasons I object. You have misinterpretted the event as an addiction to StarCraft, rather than the actual addiction to computer games as stated in the references. If you, who is fighting to keep it, misinterpret it so grossly then others will too. This has to be addressed and I see the only real way of doing this is to remove it from this article and include it in an article about addiction. -Localzuk (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Most simply, to answer your reasoning he could have been playing any game, I reply that if he died playing another game, we would include it in that game's article. David Bergan 22:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
And I would say as above, that it shouldn't be included in either as it is not important to the event that the game in question is mentioned. It should be included in an article about addiction not about the specific game. I do not think I can win this as people are quite adamently for including this reference, however I still think it's inclusion is not jusitified.-Localzuk (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Localzuk, I agree with you completely. It is insane to suggest that this is relevant information to the Starcraft article in any way. It does not advance knowledge of Starcraft in any way. It simply "proves a point" that Starcraft can be addictive and is a very popular game. And to be honest, this is not the first time I heard of somebody dying from playing computer games. This should be in the article about addiction, not about Starcraft, because it does not advance knowledge of the game in any way. It does not tell you how to play the game, it does not tell you the storyline of the game, it does not talk about its sales record, it talks about addiction. It could have happened with any game, therefore, the fact that it happened with Starcraft is irrelevant. Maybe add this info to the addiction article. Just not the Starcraft article. bob rulz 00:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I have to agree that it doesn't really belong here. It does, however, belong <<HERE>>. Pattersonc(Talk) 7:39 PM, Monday; January 30 2006 (EST)

You have a good point, Localzuk, and I did misinterpret your position earlier. However, I'm not convinced, and don't think I ever could be... I just don't think wikipedia is "supposed to" make grand abstractions about every event in life. Lee's death is a notable piece of trivia that is connected to Starcraft. There are zillions of examples of this in wikipedia articles... we write about cheating in the article about the game show Twenty-One even though any game show could conceivably have cheating. By your reasoning, we would be better off writing an article about game show cheating in general and remove such info from any articles about specific shows that had cheating.

A notable killer who had a book in his pocket gets that trivia written on the book's page... even though it says nothing about the content or virtues of the book. A notable composer gets the trivia written that Hitler used his music throughout World War II, even though Wagner had no such intentions or involvment in the war and the songs themselves say nothing about Nazism. The movie Barbarella gets the trivia written that one character from it inspired the name for singing group Duran Duran... even though nothing in the movie has anything to do with 80s pop.

See how your method of writing articles would take everything like this out of wikipedia? If there is a majority against me, I'll concede the argument... but I'm not sure that your logic is completely thought out. Notable coincidental appearances of article subjects usually get referenced. And that's what Lee's death is. David Bergan 07:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Your examples are of extremely notable events and have been discussed by scientists/police/criminologists (the book), historians (music), musical critics etc (duran duran). This event is barely referenced by even the articles posted. The fact that it was StarCraft is not really important to the fact. Also, you mention that there is a lot of trivia on wikipedia - and I am against most of this. For example Homer Simpson contains nearly all trivia and IMO should either be deleted and started again or rrewritten completely. Trivia is only useful to an encyclopedia if it is notable and most trivia on this site does not meet the site's notability criteria. Also, the entire point of the encyclopedia is to create abstractions about events in life - else you will gain an insanely chaotic website that no longer resembles an encyclopedia.-Localzuk (talk) 08:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Localzuk. Since you seem to agree with me that we can't extrapolate your abstraction principle through most other articles, then this boils down to only one question: Is Lee's death notable per Wikipedia guidelines? I just re-read all the relevant sections of the guide pages and found nothing that rules this out. Lee's death is verified by reputable news organizations, it has a significant hit count on Google, and there is no guideline against trivia of this nature. (If you think about it, almost all knowledge can be considered trivia in one sense or another... the word is subjective.) So, the ball is in your court. If you can back up your statement that the entire point of the encyclopedia is to create abstractions about events in life with WP guidelines, we'll go from there. But you can't expect other users to bend to your personal guidelines just because.
The consensus from other articles suggests that most people do not agree with your personal guideline and instead believe that documented trivia is notable. You yourself said you didn't have a problem with the Barbarella/Duran Duran trivia, so I don't see why you're opposed to this. A man dying of exhaustion from playing a game for 49+ hours is much more astonishing/notable. This makes me think that you have some other reason against including this (don't want the game tarnished with a manslaughter allegation?) and are making up your rationale ad hoc. You aren't petitioning the WP guideline boards for new standards, where your argument would be fleshed out in view of all wikipedia articles, but instead you seem to be picking one fight about a piece of information that you yourself find distasteful. But of course, I may be interpreting you wrongly, just as I was earlier... David Bergan 16:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
My main point is that the game in this case does not matter to the event. It could have been any game and therefore should not be on this article. As I said earlier, it should be on the Computer Games article or the addiction article. It would be fine to have its own article and then link here but I do not see it as a notable thing to do with this article.
I do not see it as bad taste, as it should be reported. I see that it is not relevant enough to this article for inclusion (one reference to the game doesn't make it notable enough for this article - the references do make it notable for the articles that I have mentioned though. -Localzuk (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
And Chapman could have had any book in his hand when he killed John Lennon. Round and round we go. I think we agree that the Lee Seung Seop article should mention Starcraft. And we agree that an article on computer game addiction should mention the incident (as well as Starcraft specifically). Then I think it should be in the Starcraft article just like other trivia of this nature we find in other articles. Love it or hate it, you have to agree that Wikipedia practice includes these kinds of things on all sorts of pages, and gets tacit permission from the guidelines to do so. You have personal article standards that don't agree, and my personal standards do agree. How do we resolve this dilemma? By consulting official standards first and the widespread practice of other users second. I've offered my case for how the former is mute on the topic, and the latter is on my side. David Bergan 17:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • " The movie Barbarella gets the trivia written that one character from it inspired the name for singing group Duran Duran... even though nothing in the movie has anything to do with 80s pop." Are you serious? How could a 1960s movie have anythign todo with a 1980s pop band? The direct cause and effect relationship is notable. This Trivia, IMO should only be placed on the Duran Duran page. Having it in Barbarella really isn't necessary. As for Simpsons Trivia taking up most of hte article, why not create a 2nd article titled "Simpsons' Trivia (TV Show)". Trivia of a substantial nature is very notable. I'd alsi like to reitterate that someone dying while wjileplaying Starcraft doesn't belong here. If there was a page that listed way people killed themselves foolishly, likethe afore mentioned Darwin Awards, then I would mention the game they were playing. Pattersonc(Talk) 12:00 PM, Tuesday; January 31 2006 (EST)
Yeah, go figure. Fact is that it is on the Barbarella page. And I support it there... when I clicked on the page to read about Barbarella, I wasn't expecting to be informed about Duran Duran, but glad that I was. I know and remember how they got their name now because I read it on the Barbarella page. That counts as an increase in knowledge, and I'm thankful for it. Thus I support trivia linked both ways (ie on the Barbarella page and on the Duran Duran page). David Bergan 17:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The only way I see that we can solve this is to vote on it, afd style. So:
Hmm... So that won't be very good. Anyway, having just had a look at the articles/guidelines/policies presented by Dbergan, I found this: The insistent insertion of a Factoid into an article against the wishes of other editors is a violation of consensus. In this case, the information being inserted is indeed a factoid as it has little relevance to the article, and is misinterpretted by many. As one of the users below disagrees with a vote, the outcome of the vote is kinda pointless (as stated here. Also, on the Wikipedia:Trivia page, it states The opposite exists also: things that are interesting without being really important. For example, the Guinness Book of World Records contains, apart from many world records that are "important", several "trivia" world records. So wikipedia will not mention each and every "world record" that is interesting, but only those that are also important. This to me sums up the reference to this incident on this page. It is interesting, but not important enough to be on this article. It also states Wikipedia's general trivia policy is, however, not to promote inclusion of trivia in the main namespace. -Localzuk (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Interesting... So how does one tell the difference between notable trivia and notable relevant info? David Bergan 20:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Well in this case I think it can be shown by the fact that the person died from exhaustion due to being addicted to computer games (which is expanded upon in the linked article as he was also fired for this). Whereas the article mentions that he was playing a particular game does not make it an important point, as it could have been any game. The key fact is that it was an addiction related death. It is important for that but not this. An example of notable trivia would be to use my earlier example of Homer Simpson. In his article there is trivia about the inconsistencies present regarding his age. This, I would venture, is important trivia. Whereas a list of all the foods that he has eaten, or the fact that his email address was chunkylover54@aol.com is interesting but not important. -Localzuk (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm going to take a break from this discussion for a bit. I'm getting married on Saturday, and taking a honeymoon thereafter. Hopefully some other users will chime in. Have a good couple weeks, Localzuk. David Bergan 22:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, hope everything goes well for you. -Localzuk (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)