Template talk:StarCraft series

We need to change this box. How about something like this Template:Sw_jediknight_cvg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kross (talk • contribs)

Yeah, this template is horribly ugly, and isnt consistent with most navigation boxes in Wikipedia. Remy B 08:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

A bit astandard as well - Any objections to me rewriting it with template:navbox_generic? MrZaius^talk 06:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Starcraft Tools

Should we add tools such has StarEdit and Scummedit in the template?. --SkyWalker 16:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say no. They're probably best linked from the StarCraft page itself. -- S@bre 16:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed?

There were names of characters from Starcraft in the template before, which allowed users to go directly to the article for them. Is it removed for a particular reason? Oidia 05:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because the character articles were redirected whilst full work was being done on them outside of the Wikipedia mainspace. Most of these articles were reinstated in oblivious protest, but there's no point adding them back - when we are done only three characters will have main articles, as all characters will be contained in an article similar to Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. That article can then be added to the universe section of this template.

Following that, the locations will be merged into a similar single article, which will also be added to the universe section, and the factions are being put into their (fully revised) species articles, so there's no need to re-add locations and factions either. And when we're done, the StarCraft universe article won't have any point in existing (if it even does now) and will be put up for AFD. -- Sabre 18:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Insurrection and Retribution

I think "Insurrection" and "Retribution" must be removed from the template because:

1. They do not have an independent article of their own. Their articles are deleted. There is only a line about them in StarCraft (series), but there is already a link to that article in the navbox.
2. Unlike Brood Wars, they are not video games. They are just a bunch of files with .scm file extension (StarCraft Maps) and work like any other set of custom maps. Why should they be there and not thousands of other map packs? Remember that Wikipedia is not an advertisement platform for map packs.

Fleet Command (talk) 10:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

1. The articles weren't deleted, they were merged since there wasn't enough to sustain fully fledged reception or development sections in full articles, but nothing in WP:NAVBOX disallows links to article sections (I'm sure we could probably dance all day around the fact it doesn't expressely allow them either, but impeding user accessibility in this case for the sake of technicalities in the wording is pointless). There's more than "only a line about them", there's an entire section dedicated to these add-ons in the series article, and linking to this section is useful for quickly getting to the information on a valid related topic, which is ultimately the point of these navboxes.
2. A little more assumption of good faith would be appreciated, instead of essentially accusing me of advertising my favourite stuff. These are not like any other set of custom map packs, which could have been made by anyone with Campaign Editor. These two packs were made by companies, not fans, and most importantly have official status with Blizzard as authorised add-ons. When Wayback Machine finishes its maintenance and restores server functionality, this link will validate that. They were packaged and sold as proper video game products with Blizzard's consent, regardless of their installation means being equivalent to a custom map pack. The links in the navbox allow readers to be aware of these less well-known yet still official add-ons, and give them quick access to the information.

Sabre (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

1. They are deleted; "merged" is just euphemism. (Nothing is left of the main articles.) And I don't remember having mentioned WP:NAVBOX at all. It is commons sense that there is no need for three links to the same article in a simple navbox. If I were supposed to link to every single line in the article that I deemed important, I could fill this navbox with billions of links.
2. Oh, yeah! The good ol' AGF, baby! When someone runs out of reason, he says "assume good faith", without even reading WP:AOBF! Okay, here you go. Reassuming my serious composure, not everything that is "official" or "authorized" is allowed in Wikipedia. But this discussion belongs to the article and is not our concern here: What I was trying to point out is that even if there is a link to these items, the links should not be in the "video games" section. They are map packs, not video games. And let's not forget that they are not the only map packs in Wikipedia. For the time being, let's defer the entire argument regarding not including the links at all to #1.

Fleet Command (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

If that is the attitude you are going to take, I fail to see why I should engage with you at all. I asked you, politely, to assume a little more good faith because I disliked the insinuation that I had placed these links here as advertising. I might have read too much into that initial comment, but if you just wish to be rude about it and accuse me of lacking reason, then there is little point continuing this discussion. I pointed to WP:NAVBOX as the relevant guideline on navboxes; apt, since this is a navbox. I don't need to wait for someone else to bring it up before I mention it.

"If I were supposed to link to every single line in the article that I deemed important, I could fill this navbox with billions of links". Did I suggest that you do that? No, that's impractical, silly and not at all what I meant. I believe that for the case of these add-ons—and these things should be treated case by case—that the link to the section where the add-ons are covered with some substance (not single lines) is useful to the reader for purposes of navigation between the games that comprise the series. And they are treated as games, namely expansions not too dissimilar to Brood War, by what sources we have. That is a fairly reasonable approach to improve how quickly the user can access the information; these links serve a separate purpose from the series link, a shortcut if you will. Maybe the Insurrection/Retribution links should be combined into a singular link since they go to the same place and are alongside each other. They are separated from the main games by the brackets, the common way of dealing with expansions and add-ons amongst the video games column of these sorts of navboxes. -- Sabre (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

First, that is a great suggestion. I completely agree with creating a "Spin-off" link. This opens up the potential of adding a dozen of other authorized custom maps to the article later. So, I believe we have a consensus? Permission to make it effective?

Second, Sabre, I would like to say this once and for all: Quit commenting on editor's attitude and comment on the contents on only. I did edit my initial message and removed "your favorite", so any continued discussion to this effect would be argumentum ad hominem. (Since you are an admin, I remind you: Argumentum ad hominem is explicitly prohibited in clause #2 of NPA.) And mind you, the "you" in "your favorite" is called expletive you, which the British use to refer to general public. In other words, I was saying that no one is allowed to publish his favorite thing in Wikipedia, which is true per WP:NOT. Fleet Command (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm! Look at those CD covers. My copies of Insurrection or Retribution did not have those respectable CD covers. Strange! But now I see why you think they are full-fledged video games. There is an English proverb that essentially says dress brings respect, and they have respectable CD covers. I just wonder if you had seen "Starcraft: Fall from Grace". Fleet Command (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)