Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Starcraft)
WikiProject iconVital articles: Level 5 / Everyday life GA‑class
WikiProject iconStarCraft has been listed as a level-5 vital article in Everyday life (Sports). If you can improve it, please do.
 GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Good articleStarCraft has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
September 12, 2008Good article nomineeListed
September 22, 2008Good topic candidatePromoted
December 15, 2010Featured topic removal candidateDemoted
February 23, 2011Good topic candidatePromoted
July 5, 2013Good topic removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Good article

"4 races" should be 3[edit]

the article opens by stating the game focuses on the conflict 4 races, which includes the Xel'naga, however there is only 1 xel'naga at any point during the series proper (Amon) there are other xel'naga, however other than amon and various minions of his the xelnaga are not in conflict with any of the other 3 races. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Starcraft II split[edit]

@Joy: I disagree with how you're splitting the article here. This article is about the franchise as a whole, not just the original games. It looks like nearly all content about StarCraft II has been removed but it should still be in this article. That "Starcraft II" has become a entity distinctive from the original "Wings of Liberty" release and Blizzard clouded their own waters, I agree, but "Starcraft II" remains part of "Starcraft (the franchise)" -- ferret (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no 'franchise as a whole', it's a common story and company, but two different groups of games, which have rather different characteristics, sources covering them, audiences, etc.
I tried to verify the claim that it's one big franchise before doing this, but I couldn't - our article here linked to a 2017 pamphlet that didn't split off SC2, but it didn't actually say what the article said had said, so I actually had to fix that first.
Essentially, I don't see a problem with listing SC2 prominently here, but it has a whole story of its own, and there is very little conflict because the sources are mostly separate in the real world anyway. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not understand of your response. "StarCraft" is clearly a franchise, with multiple game releases that share a universe and characters, plus novels, board games, comics and the tie-in with Heroes of the Storm, which refers to the property simply as "StarCraft" regardless of which game the characters are pulled from. Blizzard does not sell "StarCraft II" merchandise, only "StarCraft." While you might treat "StarCraft II" as a sub-series within the franchise, the franchise is clearly the parent topic and has to cover the full set of games. "StarCraft" (the 1998 game) is not a separate series. It's a single game with a single expansion pack. -- ferret (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are merchandise and other artifacts more critical to the description of the video game franchise than the actual video games? Or are you saying that it's not a *video game* franchise, but rather a generic media franchise at this point?
Ultimately, I disagree with the claim that the 1998 SC game is not clearly distinct from the SCII game series. They literally had it remastered *separately* from the sequel, surely that's proof enough that it has a life of its own (if you're not already convinced by the existence of the Brood War esports scene etc). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW I don't necessarily disagree with the claim that StarCraft can describe both. Certainly it seems that the original authors conflate everything in I do however think that readers can clearly distinguish the SC1 from SC2 series, and going into the details of SC2 on the page that primarily talks of SC1, seems redundant. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I still don't follow you. Video games have remasters all the time. Of course, StarCraft (1) is a distinct and still popular game. That doesn't make it a separate series? StarCraft, as a franchise, is primarily video game but certainly goes broader and Blizzard definitely does not treat the two games as separate IPs or series. -- ferret (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does make it a separate series, of course, I'm literally arguing for treating them as two separate series, as that is what happens in the real world. But I guess we're mostly in disagreement as to how to delineate the two in context of *both* being able to be something that a reader would expect to search for as "StarCraft". I'm not going to dispute the revert as it is, just keep separating SC2 stuff properly in the lower levels of the Wikipedia hierarchy, and see where this gets us. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I 100% agree with StarCraft II existing. Blizzard released Wings of Liberty as if it was a standalone game, which would have two expansions, but over the years that situation quickly became muddy and now it's a game unto itself with something more akin to... content packs? I'm not sure StarCraft II should be described as a series but as a video game that has three campaigns. However, regardless of what form StarCraft II ultimately takes, it's definitely part of a broader "StarCraft" franchise. -- ferret (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We know that internally, Starcraft is only 1 IP within Blizzard, as Titan (later Overwatch) was designed to be their fourth after Starcraft, Warcraft, and Diablo. There is no reason to try to treat "StarCraft II" as a separate series from "StarCraft". It is a separate game, it has notable expansions and a notable remaster, but they all belong in the StarCraft franchise. --Masem (t) 14:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will add that the massive amount of changes to treat "StarCraft II" as a wholly separate series from the first StarCraft game is completely inappropriate, follows none of the sources or standard practice, and needs to be undone. As ferret says, we can treat "Wings of Liberty" as the default target of "StarCraft II", but that still is a game with expansions and remasters but all within the StarCraft franchise, not a seperate series. --Masem (t) 15:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 to all of this. I'm honestly kind of baffled that we're even having this discussion because I really don't understand the rationale behind treating the two games as separate series. They share a common story, common characters, common gameplay, common developer, etc. etc. That the sources sometimes talk about them separately is unsurprising given that they came out in different decades and not a reason to consider them separate series. DocFreeman24 (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Joy, I tried to verify the claim that it's one big franchise before doing this, but I couldn't is going around this entire thing backwards... you should be trying to prove the novel idea that an IP is being treated as two separate things. Blizzard doesn't treat them as two separate things, no common sources I've seen do either. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree in a case like this where no evidence has been provided that they are separate series (outside of personal opinion) the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim not the people disputing it.-- (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait a second, how do you mean Blizzard doesn't treat them as separate? They each have a separate official website vs. In, they're likewise separate topics, the menu shows them side by side, with links being and respectively. I don't understand the mention of IP - intellectual property? Do you mean by that there's like common patents and copyrights on the underlying code and other artifacts? How does that factor into the general encyclopedia's understanding of whether they're one topic or two? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I went spelunking a bit, and found e.g. the 20th anniversary page at which implies it's all part of the same series in their mind, and then they link a factsheet document which says "It may be StarCraft’s birthday, but all our universes are joining in on the celebration. [...]" and then proceeds to list separately StarCraft II and StarCraft Remastered. I think there's certainly a case to be made that SC2 is part of an overarching SC franchise by extension, but to go from that to claim that it's not a franchise in and of itself and that it can't be considered separately from SC - is really pushing the boundaries of what's reasonable. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see you repeatedly seem to confuse individual video games as franchises. I'm not sure how else to read your responses? Starcraft (the original 1998 game) was the game whose anniversary was being celebrated. They then proceeded to list all of the active games that would be part of the anniversary and what would be done in those games. The rest of the quote you brought up is "when you log into your favorite Blizzard games". Games, not franchises or series. -- ferret (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Likewise, for a game to have its own website and forum topic is the norm; it would be far more extraordinary if a new game in a series didn't get its own official website.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I will yield the issue of 'franchise', but that still doesn't mean much for the basic distinction of what gets an article. To take a hopefully pertinent example, World of Warcraft is a separate article and we're not insisting on having that explained completely within Warcraft just because it's part of the same franchise. I suppose it's easier there as they didn't have a separate moniker for the first game that went out of use by present day? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Warcraft isn't a GA. And I'll concede that StarCraft likely needs a reassessment considering it's promotion age, but it's simply more complete, and our (Wikipedia's) video game series articles differ a lot from each other. Even so, your example doesn't quite work, as Warcraft does mention and cover World of Warcraft. While your edits here at StarCraft removed nearly all mention of StarCraft II, including from the timelines. StarCraft II is not a franchise/series. It's a game with expansion packs that has undergone drastic changes in how it's sold since release. We certainly need to improve how we represent that, but what's been done at StarCraft II isn't really right, as it casts it as something it's not. In reality, the current state of the game is that WoL dropped it's subtitle and became free to play. While HoS and LoV remain paid expansions. WP:COMMONNAME perhaps suggests that WoL simply needs moved, with updates to denote it's original name, and when it became F2P. -- ferret (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Erm, StarCraft isn't a GA either, as the template above indicates it has been demoted since 2013, or am I misreading something?
WoL single player campaign also became free to play, but the multiplayer isn't WoL, and that's just as relevant for the composition of article - if not more, as that thing is the basis for the esport, not the campaign. We also have an apparently very popular co-op game mode in there, that has little to do with WoL per se.
I went through the three article intros and their lead sections all describe SCII as a 'trilogy', which seems quite fair. I don't think there should be much question as to whether the trilogy itself is notable, only whether it's best to have particular details here or there. I'm perplexed particularly by the music section, which is quite detailed (a stark contrast to e.g. the coverage of the co-op mode). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
StarCraft remains a GA. The topic was demoted, because Starcraft II related articles were NOT GA. StarCraft II has had multiplayer from the start with the release of WoL. It didn't come separate. Everything that is F2P is essentially from WoL, with the exception of the coop mode which came later on. -- ferret (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, so the GA review refers to the Sep 2008 version? Those 49 KB have to be a far cry from these 100 KB.
The multiplayer version of the game has substantially changed over time, there's reams of data on Liquipedia on the various patch changes. I'm not sure if we could find any relevant source out there that would actually say that what is played these days is called "Wings of Liberty". I'm not sure what you mean by what is at StarCraft II not being right - what would you expect to see there? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just wanted to chime in to say that reading this has been a trip. The argument is so bizarre that I don't even fully understand it. StarCraft II is a separate series from the original StatCraft? Is there some confusion that this article is about the first game and you aren't aware that there's StarCraft (video game)? --TorsodogTalk 06:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This position is no longer argued by anybody, I've already relented and re-listed SC2 games as part of the SC 'series' (as in, the infobox argument, categorization, etc). The thing is, SC2 as a concept, while part of the SC series, is still quite distinct, verifiable, and notable, and should have its own article. The question is how much of which content is included in these articles. Right now the SC2 article doesn't go too much into the story, as that seemed reasonable to state in one place (in this series article), and it's also very much unreferenced. It does go into a fair bit of detail about its constituent parts, mostly where cited references specifically mentioned SC2 rather than the SC series as a whole. Let me tell you what is bizarre - so many people finding it appropriate to chime in here, while blissfully ignoring the glaring deficiencies of the article content here and in the rest of the articles covering the topic. I mean the whole concept of this being a GA, while its first section is woefully under-referenced and explicitly tagged for cleanup for years now, that's just silly. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I meant no disrespect. I was just very confused about the nature of the discussion at its core. And it isn't bizzare for users to chime in on talk pages, as it is what they are here for, afterall. The users discussing here are doing what they can to improve Wikipedia, I'm sure. --TorsodogTalk 07:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since the position that Starcraft II as its own distinct series or franchise is no longer advocated, we should just focus on whether Starcraft II should get its own standalone article. I agree with the split as we are already a decade from the release of Wings of Liberty, where a lot of retrospective sources tend to discuss the overall game and its expansions as a whole as opposed to separate assessments which sources tend to do. There is still a lot that can be covered from a gameplay perspective, especially co-op mode which is woefully undercovered at the moment as I am aware that plenty of sources exist. Perhaps most of the developmental info from Wings of Liberty can be quoted or moved to the main SCII article as well. Haleth (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's no reason why we cannot treat what is currently StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty and move that to "StarCraft II" under COMMONNAME (mentioning the subtitle in the lede), and otherwise minimizing all other disruption. The expansions can remain on their separate page. The only thing that would be needed is a bit more expansion to discuss the free-to-play transition and changes (there's only a para that I see right now). --Masem (t) 13:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be clear, though I've said similar, I 100% agree with Masem. -- ferret (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Haven't followed the whole discussion but I broadly agree with Masem's proposal, including moving WoL to just "StarCraft II". (plugging my own shit) You can look at Final Fantasy XIV for a decent analog to this situation for inspiration. It was initially only about the base game (A Realm Reborn) but became a hub page that covers FF14 as a series on top of covering ARR in detail. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FFXIV isn't QUITE the same, though its close. It's not a "hub" so much as Square dropped the subtitle (Similar to Blizzard and SCII), and the primary topic was clearly on the second release rather than the first. So the original 2010 was disambiguated out of the way. In the case of SCII, there is no first-now-closed game. WoL's subtitle was simply dropped and it was made F2P, with the subtitle now explicitly referring to the campaign content. -- ferret (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, there's actually a reason that occurred to me after going through the many hundreds of incoming links - there's a shitload of content about each particular release of the trilogy, and indeed right now after my review of all links that had been pointed at the WoL article, actually about half literally refer to the WoL specifically, and about the same amount refer to the game in general. From the perspective of readers trying to learn exactly what was this WoL game in 2010-2012, why it got so many accolades, etc etc, it's completely legitimate that it keeps its own article just like HotS and LotV have one. In general, I would advise the many commenters here to actually go through some of this material in Special:WhatLinksHere and get a better understanding of the coverage of SCII on the English Wikipedia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, WP:COMMONNAME is not actually a relevant rationale here, as Blizzard itself on its official website does not call the entire game WoL. If we look at the Wayback Machine e.g. in 2014, the year after HotS was released, had redirected to and in turn that page had no mention of WoL or HotS. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
COMMONNAME doesn't have anything to do with official naming or what a company calls their product. COMMONNAME actually explicitly tells us we don't have to heed official naming, but common naming. -- ferret (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We use the policy on commonly recognizable names to resolve any conflicts between official names and common names; in this case, there is no such conflict now, and there hasn't been one for more than half the lifetime of the topic. It's really fairly clear cut, but our articles seemed to have been stuck in the status quo of 2011... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]