Template talk:Star Control original series

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconVideo games Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Stardock[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to re-clarify the template title as "Star Control original series" according to reliable sources, and move the template for consistency. The discussion also led to adding a link to the intellectual property history as "intellectual property". The lawsuit is described in context at articles about Reiche, Ford, and Stardock, including the Stardock template. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shooterwalker: @Jorahm:, it seems you guys do not wish to include Stardock in this template which is named "Star Control" probably due to canon reasons. Unfortunately, 1) they are the legal owner of this trademark 2) unlike other developers listed, they have actually released games in this title in the past decade. --Voidvector (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No one is contesting that the games have the same name, or that Stardock has bought the Trademark for their new series. But Wikipedida isn't organized based on corporate marks. Take Star Fox (1983 video game), which is wholly a different game made by a different team than the Nintendo series. Another similar example is Ghostbusters (1986 TV series), where they also used the same Trademark, but are ultimately separate in every way. There's no connection between the series in-universe or out-of-universe. We have disambiguation pages for this reason, and I'd support creating another navigation template for the Stardock series once there is more than one article. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rule requiring Wikipedia to be organized around in-universe factors, Wikipedia is not Fandom/Gamepedia. Navboxes are as the name state for navigation.
The assertion that there is no connection out-of-universe obviously incorrect. 1) There is a lawsuit on this matter; 2) Stardock bought the trademark with the intention of creating a Star Control game; 3) Star Control: Origins gameplay (even if diff canon) is modelled after Star Control 2. --Voidvector (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not to organize them around in-universe factors is a straw man, and nobody advanced that argument other than you. The determinative thing is that there are no real-world factors either. Different developers, different writers, different artists. The whole point of the lawsuit was that both parties were accusing each other of trying to continue the series without a legal license. Both parties of course argued they were starting their own series, which is why they didn't need each other's authorization. And that's what they settled on going out. A separation. That's also what reliable sources report about the lawsuit.[1][2]
It's very normal to organize subjects into different articles or templates despite sharing the same title, if you look at how we disambiguate Wikipedia:Article titles. Other examples of games with the same name but no in-universe or out-of-universe connection include:
In all of those case, the name was non-determinative in deciding what to include on the navigation template. That's been our best practice across video game articles, in similar circumstances where someone bought or licensed an older Trademark, but made a new game without securing any connection in-universe or out-of-universe. Which is why we don't confuse readers by putting them on the same navigation template, but we do offer soft or hard disambiguation links to help clarify. And if I'm understanding correctly, navigation was your original concern. Or if I'm not understanding your concern, then do me a favor and explain so we might address it in a way that might be consistent with policy, and doesn't involve edit warring. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement "there are no real-world factors either" is obviously wrong or intentional misrepresentation, when in fact the legal case covers both the trademark AND the lore. The existence of the legal case itself is sufficient "real-world factor".
The argument trying to connect "Article Title" makes no sense. 1) The examples you provided are mostly dictionary words 2) Nobody is even remotely asserting that the different Portal titles or different Fable titles are connected in name or in lore. I do not know sufficiently about the other titles to comment. The fact that we have a lawsuit covering Star Control trademark AND lore is reason why this argument does not apply here.
The template does not make any distinction that it is about the dated 1990s series -- it does not have in the title "(1990s series)" or is not located at Template:Star Control (1990s series). As you pointed out, the original developers (Reiche et el) have gave up on the name "Star Control" in order to "starting their own series". On the other hand, we do have more recent title Star Control: Origins.
It is kind of odd that you declare "in-universe factors" "a straw man" when in fact you partook in that yourself in the previous reply by saying "no connection between the series in-universe or out-of-universe".
If you want to follow best practice across video game articles, please look at Template:Fallout series, Template:Wasteland, Template:Warcraft universe, or even Template:Tetris to see how they organize non-original IPs. I am open to re-organizing this template. However, not include Star Control: Origins & Stardock would be anachronism. --Voidvector (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a case of "non-original IPs" since the lawsuit and settlement were consistent that the two IPs are unrelated, other than the name. And when you see the same name for two original series, we've never combined the series the way you're suggesting, with literally every example (Fable, Portal, Fight Night, etc.) showing that we include a WP:HATNOTE for navigation, at most. A lawsuit isn't a real world factor that justifies a combined navigation template, especially where the lawsuit starts and ends with both parties agreeing their works are separate. Take Donkey Kong, which doesn't reference the entire King Kong series on the template, despite being sued by Universal Studios. It shows that a naming dispute is evidence against combining two topics, and at best it's insufficient.
I understand your position. I just don't see any policy or reliable sources that support it. What I don't understand is your underlying goal, if it's not navigation, so that I could maybe start to think about a constructive alternative. Otherwise this conversation is on a fast track to "no consensus". Shooterwalker (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not really sure why you want to redirect me to WP:HATNOTE. If I am truly convinced they are distinct IPs, I would go and move Star Control to Star Control (video game) and make Star Control a disambiguation page for multiple reasons -- 1) Star Control II is a more famous title than Star Control 2) current trademark owner is no longer Toys for Bob/Accolade. My position is that they are somewhat connected.
I am willing compromise by adding Stardock and Star Control: Origins as "Related articles" row in this template. This is to serve as navigational aid for people who played Star Control: Origins to be able to visit the other games, and vise versa.
Your deciding "no consensus" unilaterally is quite absurd. From my perspective, your arguments are rather weak as it is anachronistic (w/o admitting it is), so you are willing to settle for "status quo" to buy time.
My underlying goal shouldn't matter, but I am going to humor your inquiry. I am simply a gamer who played both SC2 and SC:O, I am happy that Stardock is willing to revive (and bring attention) to the franchise. Until release of Ghosts of the Precursors (currently vaporware), the original series is basically dead. To me, your position is simply gatekeeping fanboyism. --Voidvector (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm predicting "no consensus", not deciding, because you have only spurious arguments and now personal attacks. As much as I appreciate your candor about your underlying goals, telling me your happiness about Stardock, your love of their games, or your criticism of the original series or its creators are not relevant goals for how we write Wikipedia content. And it also reveals why you're so persistent with biased arguments that don't have grounding in policy, precedent, or reliable sources about the series. I'm trying to assume good faith, despite your open POV-pushing and projections. So I might charitably try to follow your point about "time", where in the future the new Star Control series might grow, with enough related articles to justify a new navigational template, as we saw with titles such as Fable, Portal, or Fight Night. And maybe at that point the new series will become the new WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, once we apply our guidelines around disambiguation. But Wikipedia articles cover things that have happened already, not things that haven't happened yet. That's why WP:CRYSTALBALL is a policy, and "anachronistic" is putting speculation ahead of reliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm predicting "no consensus", not deciding, because you have only spurious arguments and now personal attacks. As much as I appreciate your candor about your underlying goals, telling me your happiness about Stardock, your love of their games, or your criticism of the original series or its creators are not relevant goals for how we write Wikipedia content. And it also reveals why you're so persistent with biased arguments that don't have grounding in policy, precedent, or reliable sources about the series. I'm trying to assume good faith, despite your open POV-pushing and projections.

It looks to me that your inquiring for my "underlying goal" was a bad faith attempt at fishing out words so you can use to accuse me of being biased, when in fact I was simply trying to connect with you as a gamer/contributor. My positions are founded on both facts from out-of-universe (trademark and lawsuit) and in-universe (similarity in lore and gameplay). I am going to let this slide, since this is not constructive.

So I might charitably try to follow your point about "time", where in the future the new Star Control series might grow, with enough related articles to justify a new navigational template, as we saw with titles such as Fable, Portal, or Fight Night. And maybe at that point the new series will become the new WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, once we apply our guidelines around disambiguation.

Star Control: Origins was released in 2018. It has the same name and is in the same spirit, so there is no need to wait.

But Wikipedia articles cover things that have happened already, not things that haven't happened yet. That's why WP:CRYSTALBALL is a policy, and "anachronistic" is putting speculation ahead of reliable sources.

This is a misapplication of WP:CRYSTALBALL because Star Control: Origins was released in 2018. Also Wikipedia has many articles covering future events/releases.

To help discussion further, I made a table below to itemize the various arguments. Please fill out your positions. --Voidvector (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments for/against inclusion of Star Control: Origins & Stardock as "Related Articles"
For Against
  • Serves as navigation aid in the wiki
  • Star Control: Origins has "Star Control" in its title[disambiguation needed]
  • Star Control: Origins is a modern remake/clone of "Star Control 2" in terms of story, lore, and gameplay[disputed – discuss]
  • Star Control: Origins was released in 2018, as supposed to 1990s
  • Stardock owns the trademark of "Star Control"
  • Stardock had intention of developing a canon game (but Reiche disagreed)
  • Stardock and Reiche were involved in a lawsuit over trademark and lore (the lawsuit itself demonstrates "relationship")
  • Reiche agree to not use trademark in future game release
Most of the time when I ask people what their goal is, they have lots of good faith goals that have nothing to do with your bias towards Stardock. Legitimate goals might be navigation, readability, or accuracy, and those would have legitimate solutions grounded in policy and sources. But you're here to promote a WP:POV that isn't grounded in any sources or guidelines -- even if reliable sources agreed with your bias that "the original series is basically dead", that would be reason to lock this template and effectively archive it. We are both at the risk of repeating ourselves, but I'm going to cite the sources and guidelines again, in the hopes that you'll start to listen in good faith.
  • The same name is not the same topic: See WP:DISAMBIGUATION. For how this applied in practice, see Fight Night / Fight Night, Portal / Portal, Overlord / Overlord / Overlord, Crack Down / Crackdown, Fable / Fable, Star Fox / Star Fox, and Mafia / Mafia. See also their respective navigation templates. There isn't one instance where the new series absorbs the old series into a shared template. In fact, there isn't an instance where they even mention the old series in the navigation template.
  • Reliable sources contradict your claim that the stories and lore are connected: Sources have reported that they are two disconnected series, with separate story and lore.[3] Reliable sources say this was never the intention, or at best, a dashed hope.[4][5]
  • Recency isn't a factor in the primary topic, but enduring notability is. See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The guideline tells us that enduring notability is determined by "long-term significance" and the "original source", both of which favor the 1990s series. We also consider common usage, and one way we measure that is page views, which once again favors the original series. None of the factors in the naming guideline support your position, and being a series from 3 years ago actually hurts your position.
  • Trademark is literally the name. See the first point.
  • Disagreeing to connect the series is a non-relationship: More than disagreeing to connect the series, the parties agreed to make them separate. See the second point.
  • A lawsuit doesn't connect two topics, if anything is distinguishes them: When an IP lawsuit ends with the parties having separate IP, that should establish there is no relationship, at the risk of repeating my second point. But we can also refer to how Wikipedia covers any IP lawsuit that ends in separate IPs. Most relevant would be the video game lawsuit Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. Looking at the templates for Template:King Kong and Template:Donkey Kong, they do not mash the series together. Even if you say the lawsuit is some sort of connection, it isn't enough of a connection to share navigation templates.
  • Future game releases are WP:CRYSTALBALL and we will organize them in accordance with reliable sources and wikipedia guidelines.
Further to that last point, that should give you some comfort that I'm not trying to fight your pro-Stardock bias with some other bias, though it's telling that you keep trying to project that onto me. An opposing bias would be creating a WP:CRYSTALBALL article about the original creators and their well-documented efforts to make a sequel, and then cram it into this template. But there's policies against doing that, and the sources don't support the existence of a "Star Control 4" at all, from anyone.
Another guideline you should familiarize yourself with is WP:COMMONNAME, which is that the original Star Control is still commonly referred to as Star Control. It's not like Portal (video game), where most people haven't even heard of the obscure Portal (interactive novel). Even with the original Star Control being the most common use of the term, the easiest way to disambiguate is to use the common names of the first titles in the series, which is how most people refer to Star Control versus Origins.
This discussion has been going in circles in a while. I keep trying to explain the same sources and policy, with examples, and you keep making unsupported claims that are contradicted by sources and policy. Your underlying motive for pushing these changes is that you are "happy that Stardock is willing to revive (and bring attention) to the franchise. Until release of Ghosts of the Precursors (currently vaporware), the original series is basically dead." I can only humor WP:POV pushing for so long. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the time when I ask people what their goal is, they have lots of good faith goals that have nothing to do with your bias towards Stardock. Legitimate goals might be navigation, readability, or accuracy, and those would have legitimate solutions grounded in policy and sources. But you're here to promote a WP:POV that isn't grounded in any sources or guidelines -- even if reliable sources agreed with your bias that "the original series is basically dead", that would be reason to lock this template and effectively archive it. We are both at the risk of repeating ourselves, but I'm going to cite the sources and guidelines again, in the hopes that you'll start to listen in good faith.

Just because I am fighting for Stardock's inclusion does not mean that I am "pro-Stardock". They are not equivalent. For analogy, "social justice" is not a pro-minority. Trying to equate the two is politicking.

The same name is not the same topic: See WP:DISAMBIGUATION. For how this applied in practice, see Fight Night / Fight Night, Portal / Portal, Overlord / Overlord / Overlord, Crack Down / Crackdown, Fable / Fable, Star Fox / Star Fox, and Mafia / Mafia. See also their respective navigation templates. There isn't one instance where the new series absorbs the old series into a shared template. In fact, there isn't an instance where they even mention the old series in the navigation template.

Trademark is literally the name. See the first point.

You are cherry-picking. The templates I mentioned above show examples of the contrary:

Reliable sources contradict your claim that the stories and lore are connected: Sources have reported that they are two disconnected series, with separate story and lore.[6] Reliable sources say this was never the intention, or at best, a dashed hope.[7][8]

It took 2 seconds me to find reputable sources states otherwise. -- "Without genre-blending space adventure Star Control, we probably wouldn’t have the likes of Mass Effect, so today’s launch of a modern reboot – Star Control: Origins – seems reason to cheer." from Rock Paper Shotgun.
It would appear you are cherry-picking again here.

Recency isn't a factor in the primary topic, but enduring notability is. See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The guideline tells us that enduring notability is determined by "long-term significance" and the "original source", both of which favor the 1990s series. We also consider common usage, and one way we measure that is page views, which once again favors the original series. None of the factors in the naming guideline support your position, and being a series from 3 years ago actually hurts your position.

No contest. "Primary topic" and "naming" have anything to do with our discussion here, which is adding "Related Links" to a navbox. (Maybe you are stretching the rules to apply where they do not?)

Disagreeing to connect the series is a non-relationship: More than disagreeing to connect the series, the parties agreed to make them separate. See the second point.

I am no longer arguing that Star Control: Origins should be added as equal. I am simply arguing that they should be added as "Related".

A lawsuit doesn't connect two topics, if anything is distinguishes them: When an IP lawsuit ends with the parties having separate IP, that should establish there is no relationship, at the risk of repeating my second point. But we can also refer to how Wikipedia covers any IP lawsuit that ends in separate IPs. Most relevant would be the video game lawsuit Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. Looking at the templates for Template:King Kong and Template:Donkey Kong, they do not mash the series together. Even if you say the lawsuit is some sort of connection, it isn't enough of a connection to share navigation templates.

Of course, it does. If Reiche had won the lawsuit in absolute terms, then sure. Stardock still own the trademark.

Future game releases are WP:CRYSTALBALL and we will organize them in accordance with reliable sources and wikipedia guidelines.

Sure. I make no attempt at asserting any facts about future of these games or these developers. (It is my opinion that this thread came about from an attempted straw man.)

Another guideline you should familiarize yourself with is WP:COMMONNAME, which is that the original Star Control is still commonly referred to as Star Control. It's not like Portal (video game), where most people haven't even heard of the obscure Portal (interactive novel). Even with the original Star Control being the most common use of the term, the easiest way to disambiguate is to use the common names of the first titles in the series, which is how most people refer to Star Control versus Origins.

No contest here. AFAIA not pertinent to discussion.

Further to that last point, that should give you some comfort that I'm not trying to fight your pro-Stardock bias with some other bias, though it's telling that you keep trying to project that onto me. An opposing bias would be creating a WP:CRYSTALBALL article about the original creators and their well-documented efforts to make a sequel, and then cram it into this template. But there's policies against doing that, and the sources don't support the existence of a "Star Control 4" at all, from anyone.

I am not pro-Stardock. See above analogy about "social justice".

This discussion has been going in circles in a while. I keep trying to explain the same sources and policy, with examples, and you keep making unsupported claims that are contradicted by sources and policy. Your underlying motive for pushing these changes is that you are "happy that Stardock is willing to revive (and bring attention) to the franchise. Until release of Ghosts of the Precursors (currently vaporware), the original series is basically dead." I can only humor WP:POV pushing for so long.

It is absurd to me that someone would interpret adding a "Related link" for navigation as POV.
I want to point out that you did not appear to have added any arguments/positions in the table column against the inclusion, only attempts at refuting my arguments. This could be an indication that your position is not valid on its own, but rather a reactionary to other's position (potentially obstructionism). --Voidvector (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not taking the WP:BAIT on your table of opinions. We should focus on guidelines and sources, and the source you cited contradicts your own "table" statement that the games share story or lore. From the same source, Origins is a "fresh universe with some similar concepts. That means no menacing Ur-Quan, paranoid Spathi or cheerfully menacing Orz, but the new races below seem a likeably cartoonish set of alt-universe parallels".[9] There are numerous other sources that confirm that the series are separate stories, connected in title and genre only.[10][11][12] [13] [14]
The Wasteland/Fallout comparison doesn't apply here, because both games were developed by Interplay, so those series have a very strong and verifiable real-world connection. Similarly Defense of the Ancients was created as a Warcraft mod on the same engine (first two sentences), so there is another real-world connection that Origins doesn't have. Again, the new series has no connection other than the name and genre, and is closer to Portal/Star Fox/Fable example, where we don't mislead readers by putting them on the same series template.
There are numerous other games with similar concepts to Star Control, but it doesn't mean they should be on a template about the trilogy. Before Star Control was Spacewar!, Starflight/Starflight 2, Archon: The Light and the Dark, Star Command, and Star Raiders. After Star Control was Protostar: War on the Frontier (originally Starflight 3), Solar Winds, Nomad, Sentinel Worlds I: Future Magic, Escape Velocity, Space Rangers, Space Pirates and Zombies, Strange Adventures in Infinite Space, and even Mass Effect. Video game templates have a massive clutter problem, and our policy is to link these relationships in the article body itself. Starflight and Archon would be more relevant as they share real-world developers, but it's better described in context, and to keep a clean template.
We already compromised when you went ahead and added a hatnote, which I support as consistent with WP:HATNOTE and WP:DISAMBIGUATION. If your goal is to help navigation, disambiguation, or just help Stardock, a link to Origins is now at the top of the original trilogy article, which should at least satisfy your logic. My goal is to feature things in context based on reliable sources, and not clutter up the template, which is why Stardock already appears in the article text as well. It seems WP:POINTy to have all of those things, and still open a dispute resolution request. But ok. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Wasteland/Fallout comparison doesn't apply here, because both games were developed by Interplay, so those series have a very strong and verifiable real-world connection. Similarly Defense of the Ancients was created as a Warcraft mod on the same engine (first two sentences), so there is another real-world connection that Origins doesn't have. Again, the new series has no connection other than the name and genre, and is closer to Portal/Star Fox/Fable example, where we don't mislead readers by putting them on the same series template.

That's subjective opinion presented as fact.

If your goal is to help navigation, disambiguation, or just help Stardock

Please stop misrepresenting my point of view. I am simply providing navigational aid for the readers. I want to point out I have been doing this for Star Control since 2007. That's 14 years ago, before you had an Wikipedia account. And today, you feel like you WP:OWN the content here by 1) gatekeeping simple navigational links 2) arguing that my questioning notability of Ur-Quan is a personal attack. --Voidvector (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that DOTA started as a Warcraft Mod is imminently verifiable, as is the fact that Wasteland/Fallout shared key people at the same company. Those games are connected in numerous ways that these two series are not, and even so, this is its own situation. You keep restating your goal to provide a "navigational aid" for the shared title, and I referred to guidelines such as WP:HATNOTE, which you seemed to agree with when you added one. [15] You still weren't satisfied with that compromise, and you've since taken your viewpoint on the series to Talk:Ur-Quan, as well as escalating to the dispute resolution noticeboard. I'd rather continue this discussion there. I have responded at DRN about the content, as well as your conduct including WP:3RR, WP:POV/WP:NPA/WP:POINT [16], and others.[17] I'm kindly asking you to disengage until other parties have checked in. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HATNOTE should've been done in the first place regardless of whether you follow my logic or your logic, so it is not a compromise. In fact, the lack of mentioning of Star Control: Origins at all in Star Control even in the "Intellectual property split" section is likely (I would say) due to some kind of biased whitewashing. In addition, the Hatnote only offers marginal navigational aid -- It does not offer navigational aid for Star Control: Origins to Star Control II or Star Control II to Star Control: Origins, similar titles. You can dispute this all you want, but so far all you have presented are your subjective opinion and cherry-picking of online sources.
Your argument that I am biased has no merit -- 1) Your position has been consistently anti-Stardock; 2) I have been contributing navigational aid for Star Control since 2007 in support of Star Control and now contributing in support of Star Control: Origins, thus demonstrating I am not biased towards Reiche or Stardock.
Incorrectly applying rules and name dropping guideline articles do not demonstrate you have a NPOV.
I should mention from a legal perspective that adding links to navbox does not deprive Reiche/Ford or our readers of anything. While excluding the links, deprive our readers of information about related topics/articles. --Voidvector (talk) 04:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was invited to discuss this by Voidwalker. I am copying and pasting this because I am not sure if I should respond here or at the noticeboard page. I don't think we should add Stardock or their games as it makes the template confusing. All the reliable sources agree that the games don't share anything except the name and some inspiration. The games are disconnected by 25 years and two unrelated companies. I don't know if Voidwalker wants to include or ignore the "in universe" factors but they are also disconnected stories and settings. I followed the lawsuit and I think the confusion is that the settlement makes it sound like the original series will be renamed the "Ur-Quan Masters" franchise but we still call it "Star Control". Its been "Star Control" for 30 years. I don't agree with the bias that "the original series is dead" but you could say the original trilogy officially ended in 1996. Now journalists talk about SCO as a new series even if they hoped for a sequel or prequel. This is explained at the Star Control article with reliable sources and links to SCO. I agree that a list of Star Control related games would be too long and the article already mentions Stardock anyway. I see that Voidwalker added SCO as a disambigation line in Star Control so that should settle it. Jorahm (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DRN Closing Statement[edit]

After discussion at the WP:DRN noticeboard, it has been decided to change the name of this template to Template:Star Control original series with the inclusion of the lawsuit. This is not a permanently binding solution and can be readdressed in the future if needed. I want to commend everyone on a productive and positive discussion. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As of today, I have performed the following:

Thank you all for getting through this. I will look forward to play any games released by any of the aforementioned developers. --Voidvector (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some of your actions aren't what we agreed to at WP:DRN. We didn't fully agree to move the template or how to name the lawsuit link. Moving the template is a big compromise and in return I would ask for cooperation on the link name (which I thought would just be "Intellectual property"). If we can't compromise then we are going to need to revert back to the January version once again and discuss even more. I hope we can just compromise and move on. That goes for everyone. Jorahm (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I likewise compromised significantly by not having Star Control: Origins listed at all, which is actually for the benefit of Wikipedia readers. Renaming is a compromise that came out of you guys denying the list of Star Control: Origins. Should your positions change permitting listing of Star Control: Origins, I am willing to revisit that.

If we can't compromise then we are going to need to revert back to the January version once again and discuss even more.

That would be blatant disregard for DRN resolution. (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT)
Nevertheless, "intellectual property" is not proper descriptor for what the article is. The article is a lawsuit. I am willing to hear your proposal on it. My original compromise for lawsuit link name was

Additionally, name of the link could be changed to anything reasonable as long as it provides readers the context -- e.g. "trademark dispute" or "vs Stardock".

I do not feel "Intellectual property" verbiage alone is reasonable. I understand your position -- you want to paint "Star Control" in a positive light. This is admirable, which is why I looked for precedence and used the phrase "Intellectual property split" (already in use on Star Control) instead of my previous suggestion from DRN of "Intellectual property settlement" or "Intellectual property litigation". Nevertheless, looking to hear your suggestion. --Voidvector (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey guys, I thought this was done. Granted, there were some loose ends but let's not blow this up again. Nothing on Wikipedia is ever changed without a consensus, and if we don't agree, then we revert back to the last stable version. The lawsuit article could easily be renamed "Intellectual property history of Star Control" or "History of the Star Control copyright and trademark" but we don't need to use an entire phrase for a template link. "Intellectual property" is fine. If we really want to continue this discussion I'd prefer to do this with a mediator such as User:Nightenbelle because it felt like we were very close, and they were able to keep us focused on content instead of accusations and personal attacks. If you scratch hard enough I'd tell you that I wouldn't agree to move the template when it has no conflict with any other template, and Nightenbelle was accurate the first time when she said that there wasn't a consensus to move the template as part of the WP:DRN resolution. But everyone makes concessions in a compromise, and I can live with the current version if we can all agree to drop it and get back to editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank Shooterwalker for being the voice of reason. In light of that, I am going to politely drop this objection. --Voidvector (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Other / Universe[edit]

I find listing both

under one line ("Universe") is confusing. First, the term "universe" is unclear and IMHO it refers to the Fictional universe (ex. see Template:Star Wars universe). In that case, Ur-Quan are part of it but the real world intellectual property is not. At first I proposed renaming the universe to 'other' but this was reverted. Therefore I propose a compromise - keep universe with Ur-Quan entry, and add the 'other' with the IP entry. We could also use a different wording instead of other, such as 'related'.

Here's a quick overview of some other templates: Template:The Witcher uses the wording 'related'; Template:Command & Conquer series uses the wording 'other'. This really shouldn't be controversial and listing both entities under 'universe' IMHO is not helpful to the reader. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sticking with the status quo until we can work this out, mainly because this could unravel quickly after a tedious WP:DRN, and no one wants this to spiral again. I do see your logic, but I think it's a stretch. It's odd to criticize the template based on something that it doesn't say, and there is a difference between "universe" and "in-universe". Compare Template:Warcraft universe, Template:DC Extended Universe, Template:Marvel Cinematic Universe, and Template:DC Animated Universe, where "universe" is given its plain meaning, and not exclusively in-universe. The Star Control universe is indeed one of main aspects protected under the intellectual property, and the subject of the recent dispute.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the status quo, but I'd be fine with a subheading such as "contents" if the word "universe" has too much outside baggage for you. For organization purposes, I'd prefer to avoid one-member subheadings, and empty terms like "other" or "miscellaneous". Shooterwalker (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't agree with pieces of that past dispute resolution and I wonder about its binding effect going forward. But I would rather keep the peace and the current version is fine. Jorahm (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The section should be renamed to "Related" and Star Control: Origins should be added there. It's related to the original series even if name only. --Mika1h (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The policy for shared names is at Wikipedia:PRIMARYNAME. Jorahm (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Star Control Origins[edit]

The game definitely belongs in the template. The game is part of the same IP as the previous titles, made by the current IP holders. The argument that it has no connection to the series is therefore false. 181.80.186.119 (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Character articles???[edit]

The creators of Star Control have said that the 2018 Stardock game is unrelated. https://www.criticalhit.net/gaming/star-controls-future-may-jeopardy-legal-squabbling/ The lawsuit was confusing for a lot of people but the settlement very clearly said that the franchises are separate now. Anyway I think someone should add articles about some of the more famous characters like Fwiffo or the Pkunk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.153.95.177 (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP vs lawsuit[edit]

Hi @Jorahm:, I noticed you reverted my edit. I think my point of no WP:SURPRISE is still valid, as I don't not believe that the piped link of [[Stardock Systems, Inc. v. Reiche|Intellectual property]] is a good idea, but I'm open to other suggestions. Intellectual property lawsuit? Intellectual property dispute? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Intellectual Property" was a consensus at WP:DRN after a long discussion between 4 people. The article's official title is the lawsuit but it's really a history of the intellectual property and Star Control trademark is one of the redirects. Maybe after two years it's time to revisit the DRN consensus but I would rather stick with the status quo than provoke another long debate. If you really think the redirect is a problem I wouldn't mind renaming the lawsuit article (which I created and sometimes wish I had named differently). WP:SURPRISE is an essay but WP:HATNOTE is a good guideline and maybe a solution is to just provide an explanatory note to clarify the redirect. Jorahm (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Intellectual property trademark lawsuit" seems like a perfectly fine and succinct piped link for a template. What do you think? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 19:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it's unnecessarily long and doesn't really add anything to what's already there, sorry. What do you think about adding a hat note or modifying the top line of the target article somehow? Jorahm (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Star_Control_original_series&oldid=1107219810"