Talk:Jim Raynor

Vulture
The perfect vehicle for a relatively young ruffian.

I don't know if it's correct to call Jim Raynor "fundamentally good". In the raid on the Jacobs Installation, he and his troops will, if given any opportunity by the player, slaughter the unarmed civilians who are evacuating the station. Perhaps we can assume that's an oversight by the mapper? --Blain Newport 16:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

In the line "With the exception of his Marine form, both Raynor's Vulture and Hyperion have slightly higher fire rates than their normal counterpart." Is the "With the exception" part really needed there since it goes on to specifically state it's for the other two forms? I'd think it would only need to be one, and it's redundant right now. DeMyztikX 22:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Anon: Is that portrait really of jim raynor? it looks more like arcturus to me

Liddy & family?
Perhaps I'm remembering wrong, but I believe I remember Raynor saying Liddy "wasted away" following the death of their son, in the first Starcraft book Liberty's Crusade. Currently the article says "What happened to Liddy is not known, but it is hinted at the end of StarCraft that the rest of Raynor's family were killed by the Zerg." I can't confirm this right at the moment, but I will be able to soon, so I will correct this sentence later if it turns out that my memory is correct. 128.95.2.234 19:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have access to the book at the moment, its some 100 odd miles away from me, but that sounds about right. -- S@bre 11:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Kerrigan on Battle.net
The way that the first paragraph in the trivia section is worded, it sounds like the link to Infested Kerrigan saying "Help me Jim Raynor, you're my only hope" is a recent thing, related to the announcement of StarCraft II. I think there needs to be some sort of clarification that this link has been around for over a year before the announcement of SCII. Nimelennar 20:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Raynor article re-write as of 17:42 BST, July 18 2007
All of you people wondering why Clawed One and myself were redirecting articles to their prospective species can now see why. We've been working on the redirected articles in draft userspaces to implement out-of-universe styles and provide a more full fictional character article, generally based on structures of articles provided (or worked on) by Deckiller (considering he's the one rewriting the WP:FICTION policy, it's useful to try to get it to satisfy present and potential future policies on the matter). The Raynor article is the first to reach some sense of completion, there's not much more we can do in userspaces (and besides, having bots spam your talk page every five minutes over orphaned images is not fun). Please note, most characters will not be getting a main article back because under WP:FICTION the information isn't available to warrant one. These characters will be combined in a "Characters of StarCraft" overview page, which will address each one from an out-of-universe perspective and give general details on development, reception and merchandise of the characters. Characters with main articles will have that template in their section on the overview page linking to the relevant main articles -- Sabre 16:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As of July 18 2007, the article has three primary sources (basic facts), four secondary sources (for developed sections on the character, although some more would be appreciated) and a heap load of tertiary ones (from SC Legacy's encyclopedia, used only within appearances as reference for the events of a mission.). -- Sabre 16:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Current state of the article
Currently, this article is built around three things: a lengthy plot summary covering only Raynor's role in the story, an interview with the voice actor, and an article at Gaming's Edge (which has pseudonymous authors and no apparent editorial control, making it a lousy source).

There's just not a lot of substance here. The Gaming Edge article probably shouldn't be used as a source, and after that all you have is the Clotworthy interview. As things stand now, this could probably be merged into List of StarCraft characters. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It has to be considered that the appearance section does not cover a single medium, but multiple games and novels. I'm now going to use some of the Final Fantasy articles Deckiller pointed me in the direction of as they are properly classified as "good articles". For instance, Squall Leonhart's section on his appearances in just one Final Fantasy game take up five paragraphs and around the same length of the page that the Raynor article covers for four games (including SC2 and Ghost), and three novels. Considering that the Leonhart article is classified as a good article, the appearance section for Raynor cannot be seen as lengthy. As for covering only Raynor's role, the article is about Raynor, not anyone else, and therefore should focus on Raynor's dealings.


 * I will agree that at the moment there is not much substance, but that's why we've moved it back out. When compared to the article on Rinoa Heartilly, another article with the good article classification, the development section is fine - the Rinoa Heartilly article discusses the graphical creation of the character from one source, whilst the Raynor article discusses the creation of the character from a voicing perspective - but both discuss what the relevant designers/actors wanted the character to emerge as. Some further development would be good, but not necessary. As for the reception section, it is short and that Gaming Edge article isn't brilliant, but Clawed One and I aren't going to just leave this article in sandbox until it's perfected (there's other things we want to work on), we just wanted to lay a suitable groundwork that is sustainable. I'm sure that there are other, more reliable sources out there - that's why we flagged that section up as a stub, other people can look around for them as well.


 * When compared to the previous entirely in-universe plot description version of this article and the good article status articles Deckiller pointed us towards, this new version is a massive step forward in the right direction. The article does not need to be merged, it just needs some further work over time. Besides, with the onset of SCII, the development and reception sections are liable to increase substantially, and enough character information is available under the currentWP:FICTION to warrant a detached article. Raynor's character, along with at the very least Zeratul and Kerrigan, are recieving main articles because there is significant potential for growth of out-of-universe information.


 * I also recall that at one point during our original (yet flawed) attempts to redo the Zeratul article, you wanted us to model it along the Superman one. If you want articles on game characters to all reach that level, then your expectations are way too high. Hence why we are following articles of other game characters who despite having a similar amount of information available, have been successful in achieving the good article status and why we are seeking the opinion of Deckiller, who not only did major work on these articles, but is also rewriting WP:FICTION. This rewrite is not perfect. But it is a start. -- Sabre 18:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking at the other articles S@bre provided on the FF characters that are classified as "good", I see no problem with the article. Squall has a much larger in-universe game appearance section, and Rinoa's development section has only a lone source. As well, much of what the two articles have as sources are just citations from the in-game dialogue, which is pretty much what we have with citing the game script on SC Legacy. Raynor needs the development and reception sections fleshed out a bit, but for now it's fine.


 * It's also very important to remember that before May of this year, finding any sources on StarCraft written after 1999 or thereabouts would be exceedingly difficult. It has been ten years since the game originally came out, I don't think anyone would expect recent news about him. But, with the advent of SCII, StarScraft, and Raynor as well, will see a re-rise in popularity, and more sources regarding him will follow. It's all but certain. The Clawed One 18:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to point out, in response to the lengthy plot summary, that it's no longer than the FF articles. Three paragraphs is not "long" in any definition. The Clawed One 18:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see why this couldn't be cut down to a paragraph or two on Clotworthy's interview and a paragraph or two of plot summary and put into a list. It's less a comparison to exemplars and more "I don't see so much information here that it needs its own article."

Keep in mind that WP:WPFF merged a bunch of its character articles despite them having passed GA. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And I still don't see why either change needs to be done. We have sourced it properly, both third-party and primary, written it out-of-universe, what do you want? Please, tell us outright, "what can we do to improve the quality of this article". I want to know, what will it take, tell us what we need to do and we'll do it. The Clawed One 18:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Because this is mostly bloated due to plot summary. What you need to do is find more well-sourced content that isn't plot summary or merge this to a list. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 4 paragraphs is not "bloated". And as mentioned, other sources will be found as SCII becomes more prominent and further data about Raynor's role in the game in released. The Clawed One 18:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep it nice people, we don't want a repeat of what happened last time things got out of hand, and I can see this rapidly going down that way. I can see where AMIB is coming from, he simply feels that a full article isn't warranted due to a lack of extensive content, not that he wants to delete it. Bearing in mind we haven't completed the characters article yet, there's plenty of time to see what other editors will do for the article whilst we finish the other articles off. We can't merge it anywhere if the character overview article isn't complete. If a consensus is met that supports merging this into the that main article after sufficient time has been given to testdrive the Raynor article, I will support that, but I don't believe it is necessary.


 * More well-sourced content will be useful, but we (as in everyone, not just myself and Clawed One) can sort that out slowly over time. I see no need to run out immediately to find decisive references and content. We've laid the groundwork, now we and others can get properly involved - Clawed One and I can only do so much in sandbox, its time to let the other editors get their hands on it and improve it. All three of us should just take a step back, relax and wait. If deemed fully necessary, we can merge it, but let's just see how things proceed without us extensively involved for a while.


 * However, the appearance section, as I explained, only appears bloated due to the amount of mediums involved. We've cut down what was the entirety of the previous version into a few paragraphs. In a main article like this, it doesn't need cutting down further, and doing so will start to compromise the information in the section. -- Sabre 19:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Four paragraphs of redundant plot summary when there's only one source for any content unique to this article is bloated.

Sabre asked for my opinion on the article as it stands. It is decidedly lacking in its current state. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is definitely improved; however, there still might be only a borderline amount of out-of-universe information in the article (it's definitely on the edge, just like Rinoa Heartilly; however, I still haven't finished adding some stuff to that article). Once the character cast article is complete and if it is still relatively short, you might want to merge. If not, then this article could probably stand on its own right now without too many problems. &mdash; Deckiller 18:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The plot summary isn't that long; it's really only 4 paragraphs (first two sections and first paragraph of the third section). &mdash; Deckiller 19:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The well has been tapped dry. Right now, it's still on the border: there are several paragraphs of out-of-universe information (development section, a couple paragraphs in the "other appearences" section, and the critical response section). Maybe merchandise? If not, it'll be on the edge. Although subarticles cannot meet the same notablility standards as main articles, fictional subarticles should have "significant" out-of-universe information from primary and secondary sources. This article definitely has some, but it's an amount where a definition of "significant" could go either way. I wouldn't mind seeing this as a separate article if the main cast of characters article is rather large. &mdash; Deckiller 20:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help in adding to the article Deckiller. I'm currently trying to get the characters article up, but there's still a long way ahead - there is a sizeable 16 characters in the article, and I'm still filling in individual character information, but I've only done one section on dedicated out of universe information. In regards to merchandise, there isn't any of Raynor to my knowledge, but I've covered the ones I know about in the character overview article. It's going to go slower because it seems that Clawed One has become disheartened over the whole thing and given up. Zeratul and Kerrigan are the only other ones really worth considering a main article for, but the amount of information available isn't much more than here, so a rethink and a merge (as AMIB suggested) could be in order. We'll see, time will tell.
 * After that, I need to start work on reintegrating the factions. None of these need a main article, so my planned approach is to totally tear up the species pages and put them in there, with all plot information in the articles being isolated within the faction sections so the rest of the article can focus on the out-of-universe information. StarCraft is held in high esteem for it's three unique styles of play, not to talk about that in the respective species pages (without slipping into game-guide mode) seems silly. -- Sabre 10:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

SC2 Jim Raynor
Should it be mentioned that Jim Raynor is now an alcoholic in SC2 and seems to have a previous affiliation with Tycus Findley or should it wait till SC2 is finally put out? Sources of this information was revealed from BlizCon and videos of the story mode featuring Jim can be seen on http://www.gametrailers.com/game/4868.html A(S)XiaoXShekki 04:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, all that is mentioned. The Clawed One 04:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:VG Assessment
A good article, in my opinion. My suggestion would be to apply for good article status. We need more good articles on video game characters, and with some effort, this article can become featured. Some comments are below. The article I base my suggestions for improvement or addition on is Batman.
 * The infobox could use more non-StarCraft specific information. See the superhero infobox used in Batman. The creator(s)/writer(s) of the character, publisher information, date of the first appearance etc. Some more detail there.
 * The lead contains some StarCraft specific information (e.g. age) that may not be true for the second game.
 * The lead is too short - summarize the rest of the article per WP:LS.
 * The prose needs copy-editing for weasel words, in universe style, and general errors.
 * If this is all there is to the critical reception of this character, remove the template.
 * Remove the white border around the easy rider image.
 * Though primarily a game character, the role of the character in the novelizations of the game could be elaborated upon.
 * In citing the website "StarCraft Legacy", make it clear that the actual scene is cited, not the website. StarCraft Legacy on its own is not a reliable source. Instead of:
 * StarCraft Episode V, mission 5a: Emperor's Fall (Ground Zero). Blizzard Entertainment. Transcript.
 * The latter is based on - with the huge number of links, one might consider adding the functionality of citing a specific part of a video game, and adding transcripts, to.
 * The latter is based on - with the huge number of links, one might consider adding the functionality of citing a specific part of a video game, and adding transcripts, to.

Rated B-class, Low importance. I have decided to place this article on my watchlist for a few, and therefore can be reached for further comments here. User:Krator (t c) 12:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the assessment. I'll see what I can do. -- Sabre 16:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just redone the format of the references. Is it now more appropriate? -- Sabre 12:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, splendid. User:Krator (t c) 17:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Easy Rider (StarCraft).jpg
Image:Easy Rider (StarCraft).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 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 06:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)