User:Phils/StarCraft

Original StarCraft storyline - Kimera757
I noticed the original StarCraft storyline is missing. I found the Brood War storyline in the Brood War link, but I simply can't find the original storyline wikis.

try Starcraft Story --Cool Cat 15:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Starcraft edits by coolcat
I realised the story thing after my edit but it was late so I went to bed. Puting lead under contents is nicer. As lead is introduction ;). Mainly its easier to edit. I seriously think some information should be put on different pages and be linked where story section used to be so that people like me can easily find it. If you go to history to my post youll see thats precisely what i did. --Cool Cat 15:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why the heck did you ordered the deletation of Gameplay? Its not identical to the multiplayer article. It has more stuff that got deleted from the original article? I am trying to break it up I was not even done editing. It only has been oh I dont know 5 minutes since I post it? --Cool Cat 16:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Article is too large, must be separted. Dont delete other peoples work, instead discuss in in discussion first. --Cool Cat 16:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

About the Starcraft article
Ok, I agree that the players section can move to another article. I think having it as part of a general article about "Professional Starcraft Playing" or something like that would be good though, since it gives the whole section more context (there can still be a mention of the existence of such a thing in the original article since that seems to be becoming more of a general overview). ShardPhoenix 05:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

StarCraft
Keep up the vandalism I told you why it was necessary to break up the article. you agreed and we broke the article into smaller sub categories. Thenn for no visible reason you reverted it. What is your problem? I am reverting the article. I am not deleting information I am merely breaking apart. Dont delete my work.


 * Agreed, Already notified you in your talk page. I see your point and agree with it though we have to limit the information big time. Also everything we put there shoudl be sub articles header. --Cool Cat| My Talk 18:19, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Planets of Starcraft
Heya! Don't merge articles like you did with Planets of StarCraft. Split it. &mdash;Joseph | Talk 06:12, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Try to think ahead of your time. It may be a stub now, but someone will probably edit it and add more information in the future. We have no problem with stubs. Stubs are like the first brick in the construction of a massive building.


 * If the planet is indeed minor in relation to the universe (like Earth, Gyras, Dylar IV, etc) it is justified to be moved into Minor locations in the StarCraft universe. Planets such as Aiur, Braxis, Zerus, etc. are not justified to be merged under a same huge page. Huge pages with a same topic but with different information are bad. It is like merging all automobiles like cars and motorcycles under automobiles that use tires. We try to avoid that kind of format.


 * I'm kind of tired of being a recorder posting the same thing over and over so check out Talk:List of Warcraft characters for a similar conversation regarding formats like this. Basically, we don't want to force visitors to chew information that is irrelevant to what they are looking for. (I'm looking for info about Aiur, not about all the planets.)


 * And just so you know, Zerus, Aiur, and Shakuras survived pretty well and I never saw them listed on VfD until you merged them all.


 * Kudos,   &mdash;Joseph | Talk 16:24, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

No one will disagree about Chau Sara, Mar Sara, or Tarsonis. We don't have much history about them right now. The problem is that you merged *other* articles that are already developed into single articles and that deserve to stand alone by themselves. Comprende now amigo? And no, planets do play a role on the StarCraft universe, the same way that Gondor and Umbar play a role in Middle-earth. We have single articles for those if you haven't noticed. Some of them are 3 sentence stubs that one day will be expanded by someone. You see, not because you see a planet as a territory it doesn't mean that it's not rich in history (one could write a humongous article about Aiur alone taking into consideration all the battles that were fought there). And no, StarCraft is not just a game... it's quite rich on lore. Do you know there are at least 4 official books about StarCraft and hundred of stories created by fans? It's not that simple as you put it. So yeah, split it. You can put the planets I mentioned on some article named Minor locations in the StarCraft universe or something like that if you want.


 * No it's not necessary. Thanks for the split and sorry for the late reply, being kinda busy. Be sure that those minor locations point to the StarCraft universe article.   &mdash;Joseph | Talk 06:00, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

"Request for comment" by Kimera757
(Note by Phils: this unsigned message was left on my talk page by User:Kimera757 on Sunday, April 17. I moved it here.) I've made and edited a number of StarCraft articles recently. However, Edmund Duke and Zeratul still need Wiki formatting. I'm not sure what's wrong with them, so I figured I should ask you to look at them.

On my user page, there's a link of the StarCraft articles I still need to create (to removed dead links) and work on.

PS if you see any errors for Episodes I-VI, please let me know.

StarCraft Ghost units
Now that Blizzard has released concrete info on StarCraft: Ghost units, where should they go?

Does the Terran article, for instance, only refer to Terrans in StarCraft, or in the StarCraft universe? I'm thinking of putting in information on the Terran Grizzly, for instance, in the Terran section. Kimera757 18:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

StarCraft nominated for review
If you weren't aware, StarCraft is undergoing Featured article review. I didn't see a notice about it on your talk page, but I thought you should know as the FAC nominator. I've left some comments on the review page that should be relatively easy to incoroporate.  Pagra shtak  05:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)