Talk:Stars!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Knight chess piece This article is within the scope of WikiProject Strategy games, an effort by several users to improve Wikipedia articles on strategy games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
Strategy games To-do:
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:


Moved back; it doesn't need a disambiguation, the exclamation mark disambiguates it. - Hephaestos 08:37, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Fleshed out the PRT's and LRT's and added HE (how could you miss one out? :P) Grey Area 09:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Trading Technology

In which way is it possible to trade technology directly (as implied)? As I recall there are a few ways of doing it, but only by indirect means - such as a battle. - jptdrake

   Good point. I've updated the article accordingly - --Staz 23:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


Made a bunch of changes, mostly to sections on race design. Not all of the LRT were present and the 25k by 2450 rule was explained twice, for example. Since some of my statements regarding common practices in advanced play were highly disputable, I added some references.

Consider adding subsections for each of the fields of research.DaWarMage 20:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trying to bring in line with guidelines

I was trying to bring this in line with the CVG guidelines by removing content that is only of use to players of the game. I can't do that if someone else is reverting my changes, so I'm going to stop now and have another go when (if) I get the time to do it properly.

In my opinion, the information expressed in the article is basic information. Stars! is a very complex game, and I can see how the summary-level detail in the article might easily be mistaken for detail. As I see it, part of the problem is the presentation. Because sections are used for each of the Primary Traits, the Contents index is enormous. If the presentation were were changed to a bulleted list or bolded headers for example, the article would appear much cleaner without sacrificing any quality.
After rereading the content policy, I don't see anything specifically violated by this article, so I presume that the directly linked portion is not the only guideline being referenced here. If my suggestions would be sufficient to clean up the article, let me know. I'd be happy to make the edits. Thanks, Dan Slotman 23:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with the sub-headings being replaced by bullets, so go ahead and tidy it up. Staz 23:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The PRTs and LRTs are bulleted lists now, but I'm sure further improvements are possible. I don't think the bulleted lists look terrible, but nevertheless they aren't as visually appealing as sections.
I changed the references to use the <ref> tag, but I think I may have screwed that up as the same source is being listed multiple times. Perhaps someone can clarify if this is the desired behavior. I know that the APA stylebook would have a single reference entry that would be cited multiple times in the body of the work, rather than the current 1-to-1 rendering. Dan Slotman 17:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Have added nametags to fix this Gible Fog 21:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, currently the article moves from race design on to gameplay. I think it would make more sense for to a reader unfamiliar with Stars! to move from Gameplay to Advanced Gameplay and then close with a discussion of Race Design. Dan Slotman 19:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PRT, PGR, LRT, and other acronyms

Is there much value from using the common acronyms for terms? It strikes me that the proper thing to do would be to write-out all the acronyms so that a lay reader will have no trouble deciphering the article. Thanks, Dan Slotman 17:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mystery Trader

There is a suggestion to merge the Mystery Trader article in with this one, which I think is a good idea, as long as it is reduced in size during the process. Staz 22:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes merge. The Mystery Trader is hardly notable according to wikipedias notability guidelines. Gible Fog 11:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I took another look at the MT page, I'm not sure how to merge it in without reducing it to little more than a comment that it appears randomly and give away stuff. PS been looking for references on the web, there's nothing I can find except fan sites, references to the wikipedia article and S!SN...the web simple wasn't around enough in '95 Gible Fog 09:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
My suggestion would be to sit on it. MT isn't nominated for deletion or anything, and I personally found the information useful. I agree that it can't merged without removing almost all its content. Thanks, Dan Slotman 18:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gameplay clean-up

I have just given the gameplay section its own article under Gameplay of Stars!, similar to the Gameplay of Starcraft article. Whether or not it actually survives there remains to be seen of course. I've removed the more detail-y parts from this article, but what remains should still probably be summarized better. Once that's done, I'm sure we can get rid of that gamecleanup tag. --ADeveria 16:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have severly summarized the gameplay of Stars!, largely ignoring what was already there as its all the the Gameplay of Stars! article. and boldly removed the cleanup tag. After a bit of reflection, I have to agree that it does look a lot more like an encyclopedia entry than it did before. Tantalysing without any real detail...oh well. If the Gameplay of Stars! article survives on its own merit, then the MT probably should too. Gible Fog 14:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--Stwalkerbot 16:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Stars!BoxCover.jpg

Image:Stars!BoxCover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)