Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StarCraft units and structures

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The nomination raises the questions of sources and verification, and these points are never addressed: The article is still wholly unreferenced.

I'd encourage every editor to print out and read at your leisure Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Don't skim them, or just read the lead, take them to bed with you and curl up with a nice cup of tea.

The issue of what is "cruft" is not one we should be debating. That is a personal judgment, and not an editorial one, and editors whom have worked in good faith in producing an article should not be subjected to pejoratives. In almost every case, however, meticulousness regarding sources will solve any perceived problems without resorting to disparagment, or even appeal to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

brenneman {L} 01:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A deletion review has been opened. - brenneman {L} 02:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StarCraft units and structures[edit]

Wikipedia is not a game strategy guide. This article consists of nothing but game guide information, such as "a Protoss Zealot has higher hit points than a Zergling but the Zergling can attack faster to balance this out" (and that's in the introduction). There's also a great deal of individual units, each with their own article and useful game guide information such, but this is not the AFD for those. Does nothing that the StarCraft category doesn't do. And so, to summarise: Redundant, game guide (fails WP:NOT), and unreferenced (fails WP:V and WP:NOR). Delete. Proto::type 17:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There seems to be a craze of AfD debates about computer game-related stuff recently; and I have voted delete to almost all of them. They are not suitable for Wikipedia because of WP:NOT. The onus is on people to say why they should be kept. Batmanand | Talk 18:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI looked throuh WP:NOT and didnt see any reference to a game guide at first, I finally found it under instruction manual. So really this page just needs to be modified to fit what it was meant to be, it is currently horribly organized and needs alot of coordinated help from the VG group to Wikify it, but its premise is needed. It consolidates all the units from Starcraft and Starcraft:Broodwar into one place, yes the category can do that as well but it also contains people, places, etc. One thing for sure that needs to be done is to remove the "this unit is better because" references and just have a reproduction of the sheet that came with the games listing units of similar tier with cost and possibly stats. That is all verifiable fact, people can draw their own conclusions from it.Sir hugo 19:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While the data from "the sheet that came with the games" is verifiable, it's also copyrighted. Just making this page into a reproduction of that information sheet would be worse than things stand currently, IMO. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The data is not copyrighted, all that data is available in the game for everyone to see. The exact layout with pictures and such might be though. I also beleive the only copyright notice on it was protecting the Blizzard and Starcraft logos and such as trademarks.Sir hugo 21:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most text is copyrighted by default; if something doesn't have an explicit message disclaiming or modifiying copyright, you have to assume it's 'all rights reserved'. For example, look at the bottom of any Wikipedia page for a copyright notice stating the copyright as GFDL. --ais523 09:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Reply - The sampling bias of WP's editors is fascinating in its own right, but each topic should be evaluated by objective evidence on a case-by-case basis. And anyway, judging solely by the vastness of the chess content on WP, its systemic bias would appear to be toward canonized pillars of culture over the new and shiny. As evidence in this case: over 9.5 million copies of Starcraft have been sold so far; [2] at over eight years old now, it typically has around 70,000 Starcraft games currently being played on Battlenet at any moment, which is about three times higher than during its first year; 46% of over 10,000 voters in a World Cyber Games poll this year named Starcraft, out of eight WCG competition games, as the one they'd most like to participate in, [3] a gain over the prevous year; at eight years old, more professional competitions keep forming, and professional earnings and endorsements are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and have continued rising, while it is one of only two computer games with leagues of full-time professional players; [4] the government of Singapore let a pro Starcraft player postpone his obligatory military service to play Starcraft at the World Cyber Games, out of its support for those "who are selected to represent Singapore at prestigious international sports and cultural events"; [5] in South Korea, two cable channels have programs devoted to Starcraft competition, and schools post students' Starcraft rankings along with their academic rankings. [6] While identifiable ancestors of chess have been around for 1000 years, modern chess would be at least "Chess 7" if they had kept track of different versions, and chess in its modern form has been around less than 200 years, only 25 times as long as Starcraft, while evidence indicates Starcraft has only continued to grow more popular over the past eight years, so it shows no sign of dropping into a void anytime soon. A fairer comparison with the greater body of ancestral games under the "chess" aegis should be to the whole Starcraft/Warcraft family, which has sold over 35 million copies over the past twelve years, and with the newest version, World of Warcraft, accumulating about one million new paying monthly subscribers every three months, since its release around a year and a half ago (the most paying subscribers of any computer game ever, by a vast margin). In sum, there is substantial evidence that Starcraft and/or its descendants will still be of comparable popularity and encyclopedic notability to chess in ten years. If not, I'll AfD this article again in 2016. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 23:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable and not a how-to, and I tend to agree with most of Reaverdrop's comment. JYolkowski // talk 21:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Users wanting this level of detail should buy the manual. The attempt to compare StarCraft with chess is intellectually interesting but fails to convince me. Chess traces its roots back to the 6th century, is played and has been played by far more people, has been the subject of literally thousands of books and the subject of academic studies and publications is a wide range of disciplines, has a highly formal tournament process with recognized Grandmasters, etc. If, in 10 years, StarCraft is of comparable notability to chess, create this level of detailed article then. Rossami (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The debate is not whether this level of detail is needed it is whether this type of information constitutes "Strategy" guide. If I were to say "When playing as the Zerg you need to build alot of Zerglings really fast and try to overwhelm your closest opponent." that would be a strategy guide, where as saying "Zerglings cost 50 minerals for a set of two and produce in the same time as a Zealot which costs 100 minerals making each Zergling more economical" that is no longer a strategy guide. If I had more time to actually edit this article instead of just skimming and fixing small things then I would try and rewrite it. When I first came looking for Starcraft on Wikipedia it was for this particular page, I wanted a page with a link to each units page as well as a place for basic information about each unit compared to other similar units.Sir hugo 12:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Zerglings cost 50 minerals for a set of two and produce in the same time as a Zealot which costs 100 minerals making each Zergling more economical" is strategy guide information. Just because it avoids using 'you', doesn't make it any less game guidey. Proto::type 14:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is that strategy guide information? It is straight out comparison, a strategy guide explains step by step how to accomplish something. Saying this unit attacks faster, or costs less is just stating verifiable fact. Stating that one unit is more economical then another may be straying too close to original research though. I see this as no different then an article listing military aircraft comparing the F-22 to the F-16 and stating that the F-16 costs less and is faster to produce but less capable then the F-22.Sir hugo 14:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Compare with this passage from Queen (chess):

The queen can be moved in a straight line vertically, horizontally, or diagonally, any number of unoccupied squares as shown on the diagram at the left, thus combining the moves of the rook and bishop. The distance it can move is known as the Chebyshev distance. As with other captures except en passant, the queen captures by occupying the square on which an enemy piece sits. Ordinarily the queen is slightly more powerful than a rook and a bishop together, while slightly less powerful than two rooks. Because the queen is more valuable than any other piece, it is almost always disadvantageous to exchange the queen for a piece other than the enemy's queen, unless doing so leads to a position where the king can be checkmated.

I don't think either article is any less encyclopedic. Dividing between providing objective content on specific game mechanics, and actually suggesting or recommending strategy, is the appropriate dividing line between encyclopedic and WP:NOT. Otherwise, where is there a principled dividing line between eliminating specific game mechanics, and eliminating any rules of a game, and eliminating any content at all related to a game or sport? If forms of recreation are encyclopedic at all, providing specific descriptions of their rules or mechanics should be limited only by the same criteria as for anything else, i.e. notability, references, etc. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 19:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Saying that "Users wanting this level of detail should buy the manual" seems a personal opinion having nothing to do with wikipedia policies. One could say that if you want to learn the chess rules you should buy a chess manual. The argumet about the number of people playing chess or playing starcraft or about the age of the games has no relevance with the WP policies. The real difference (not explicitily expressed so far) between chess and starctaft here is that starcraft is a trademark. This could make you think that if we go in the details of the aspect of starcraft we are behaving unfairly with respect to the owners of the trademark. This would not happen with chess. If this is the problem please say it explicitly.--Pokipsy76 14:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to chilling effect of conceptions of trademark - It pains me to see conceptions about intellectual property having this chilling influence on speech. Trademarks and copyrights do not exclude sharing information or opinion. Please do not censor your own communications out of fear of intellectual property. Looking at "behaving fairly" from the other side, would you think it was fair if a company sued someone for telling her friend how many minerals are required to make a Zealot? - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 19:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC) (Disclaimer: although the writer is an intellectual property attorney, this is written as personal opinion and not provided as legal advice. If you require legal advice, retain an attorney admitted to practice in your jurisdiction.)[reply]
Comment - Do we "need" chess or go "gamecruft" intstead?--Pokipsy76 17:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment *sigh* there is no way you can compare Chess to Starcraft besides you can always AfD those articles as well if you want. Whispering 20:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I know they are "different", I just cannot figure out what *policy* are you supposing to apply to accept chess "gamecruft" while not accepting the same for starctaft?--Pokipsy76 20:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You may be interested in a similar AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Units in Advance Wars. - Hahnchen 17:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This (with the sub-articles - on its own, it's pretty much a useless lump of ugly tables) is a detailed guide on how to play Starcraft, and doesn't offer the historical context or copious sourcability of a chess article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - there are no policies about the need of "historical context" or "copious sourcability". Moreover an article like Rules of chess has no historical context and is a "guide on how to play chess" but I saw nobody asking for its deletion.--Pokipsy76 10:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is, however, policy about game guides being inappropriate for Wikipedia: WP:NOT. I'm not wild about Rules of chess, either, frankly. If you think it's unencyclopedic, put it up for deletion. The existance of other inappropriate or borderline articles doesn't justify keeping this awful article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think that Rules of chess is unencyclopedic and this is coherent with my position that describing details about other games like starctaft is encyclopedic too. The incoherent position is yours if you think that the former is encyclopedic but not the latter. I saw nobody saying that rules of chess is inappropriate or borderline. Last: The fact that you find an article "awful" is not relevant at all.--Pokipsy76 11:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is awful because it's a poorly-written game guide. That's pretty relevant. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your opinion about its being "poorly written" is not relevant with the initial motivation you gave for the deletion and is not related to the policies (we are supposed to improve poorly written article, not to delete them).--Pokipsy76 08:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's poorly-written. It's a game guide. It's garbage. It needs to be deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • When people have valid points they generally are able to express them by rational means rather than by emotional slogans.--Pokipsy76 08:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Game guides are called out in WP:NOT. Additionally, this is poorly-written, so there's little to salvage with a merge. Are you done asking me to repeat myself, or need I do it again? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I was just trying to make a rational discussion until you started repeating the same things about alleged "awfulness" and "game guide" without taking in any consideration the objections already done.--Pokipsy76 09:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I've read the above objections. You're harping on the chess and go articles, but I'm unmoved; I don't think they're particularly encyclopedic either. I really think they should be merged into a more-encyclopedic article, which I think is quite possible given the centuries-long history of chess. Not so with Starcraft, which, while exceedingly popular, doesn't have the history or breadth to justify more than a single article about the gameplay itself. Additionally, this article is so poorly-written that it is unlikely to form a useful basis for that single article, nor will it be a useful merge into that single gameplay article. On top of all this, this article is wholly unsourced and unlikely to become sourced.
                        Basically, this is hopeless junk. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 05:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the fence Keep, maybe with some merging I believe that Starcraft units are notable enough to be covered, but this does read like a game guide and one article per unit seems excessive. Perhaps merge all the units to the page for their respective race and have brief information about them there. It's often a fine line between encyclopedic coverage of gameplay and game design and game guide, but I think in current form, these articles are on the wrong side. Transwiki to Encyclopedia Gamia, though. Ace of Sevens 09:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant Changing suggestion. I stil believe this is encyclopedic and worth covering, however, this page seems to contain no information which isn't on the main StarCraft page or the pages about the individual races, so it's unecessary. Ace of Sevens 08:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a clearer consensus, see talk. - brenneman {L} 23:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gamecruft. Artw 00:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep it was really big game in its time and I can see there being interest in this into the future. Is it as big as chess? No. but I think the comparision is largely apt. --Pboyd04 00:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As sympathetic I am to people who work hard on articles like this that might be of some interest to some people, Wikipedia rules are rules. WP:NOT clearly states no game guides. The argument over [[chess] doesn't fly with me, because you don't have articles for each chess piece in Wikipedia describing their moves and role in the game. If you really want to make the Starcraft article consistent with the chess article, provide a brief description of Starcraft units and the differences between available races in the article, or perhaps in one split-off article. Describing them in such detail, however, is without question a game guide. Aplomado talk 00:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess I got owned. I still think these articles are excessive, though. Isn't there a gamewiki for this kind of stuff? It just all seems oddly out of place on Wikipedia. Aplomado talk 01:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per A Man In Black. GassyGuy 00:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP I have read the arguments and I agree with the yay's, not the naysayers ^^ -- Librarianofages 01:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
Dragoons are created from Zealots who have been crippled or mortally injured in combat and are thus unable to continue fighting in their preferred manner - with a pair of psionic blades. They continue to volunteer their services, however; their crippled or mortally injured bodies are placed within large exoskeletons which contain any life-support equipment required by the individual Protoss. Living within a cold and dark environment, Dragoons are very somber compared to their Zealot counterparts. Seeing themselves as fallen warriors they show many signs of lost pride. Based on their quotes within the game; "I have returned", "For vengence", "I am needed", and "Make use of me" it becomes clear that Dragoons feel a sense of worthlessness among the protoss. For this reason Dragoons make a large effort to contribute to Protoss society. Although considered second class citizens compared to Zealots, Dragoons are undeniably valuable. Having both a ground/air attack and a ranged attack they are the all purpose Protoss unit(similar to the Zerg Hydralisk or the Terran Marine). When combined with Zealots they create a simple yet deadly force of long and close range attacks.
God help us all if this is what Wikipedia is becoming. Aplomado talk 01:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would think covering both its place in the fiction of the game and in gameplay would be an appropriate approach. Ace of Sevens 04:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Also, this AfD is not for the Dragoon article in any case. --SevereTireDamage 04:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a game strategy guide -- and no amount of wikilawyering and false comparisons changes that. Where else is it of use except as guide for the game? --Calton | Talk 02:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You're defining game guide so broadly as to be meaningless. Any sort of information could be called a guide. This isn't a guide to playing a game, more an overview of its design characteristics. What sort of nformation about games do you think isn't a guide? Ace of Sevens 02:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was there an actual response or any actual information buried anywhere in that bit of handwaving? "Any sort of information could be called a guide"? True, but utterly a non sequitor, since I'm talking about THIS piece of information.
  • What sort of nformation about games do you think isn't a guide? Type of game (board, FPS, turn-based strategy?), point of game (gathering treasure, surviving to the end, outscoring your opponent?), type of opponents (computer, partner, online?), distinctive qualities (customizable, nearly infinite combinations, biggest seller for a platform), etc. You know, facts (or, to use a meaningless phrase someone keeps introducing to these discussions, "true facts"). --Calton | Talk 04:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I were to write a single article on Draw Poker (actual example is kind of moot, since it's been sub-divided into so many articles on all the variants), pertinent information would include that you use a deck of 52 cards with numerical values of 2-10 and 4 face cards. Then I would have to describe the hierarchy of hands, as well as the betting system. I wouldn't describe the proper ways to bluff or other subjective tactics, as that would be a strategy guide. With Starcraft, the units and structures are equally worth mentioning and pertinent to the game's design, as they are base elements of this very complex game with its rules. The fact that it is a computer game and the subject requires a lot of material to adequately cover doesn't mean it should be dismissed as unimportant, and I believe that it can and should be covered without veering into how-to/guide territory. --SevereTireDamage 05:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the subject requires a lot of material to adequately cover No, it doesn't. The principles are easy enough to set forth. Going into the mechanics in detail makes it -- wait for it -- a game guide. --Calton | Talk 07:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, per cruft, per wp:not. SynergeticMaggot 02:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as original research, cruft, and all other reasons listed above. Wickethewok 02:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, per gamecruft, as how-to guide. I play the game myself, it's a good game, I know lots of people who also play it, but none of that is the point at hand. Tychocat 03:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Transwiki if they take it. A good part of the chass stuff is cruft too btw. (But then again so are minor OC characters). ~ trialsanderrors 03:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and transwiki to appropriate wikis. I also highly agree with Aplomado's most recent comment. Picaroon9288 03:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, per all valid reasons above. ShaunES 04:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • And which "valid reasons" would those be? --Calton | Talk 04:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete gamecruft. Transwiki is potentially a good idea, especially if the article is cleaned up considerably. Dbratton 04:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Regarding the nom: First of all, the quote at the top is misleading, because while it sounds crufty, it actually immediately follows the sentence: Unlike Blizzard Entertainment’s first two forays into RTS with WarCraft, StarCraft went against the typical symmetrical match ups. Instead, each race is given its own unique properties, their own advantages and disadvantages. As such, each unit does not quite match up easily with another race’s. which is then followed by several examples. This seems like a valid encyclopedic description of StarCraft's unit system. Which leads to me to another point: This page, StarCraft units and structures is the one up for deletion, not the sub-pages, which should each get their own AfD and be measured by their own merits, if people feel it's necessary. Remember, we are talking about this single page.

    This article is not cruft and it is not a game guide or instruction manual. It is an overview of the races, units and structure in a notable video game, a key part of the explanation of a complex gameplay system. It does not instruct the players - in that regard is it is pretty useless. It is also not original research, since this straight-ahead comparison of units can be cited from a secondary source such as an actual strategy guide, or just using the game itself as a primary source. I am further swayed by Reaverdrop's arguments. --SevereTireDamage 04:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • a key part of the explanation of a complex gameplay system. A game guide, then. --Calton | Talk 04:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's what peopel think is a game guide, it's no wonder we've been getting these votes. Explanation of design and gameplay issue is not the same things as guide, which is directions, not an explanation. Ace of Sevens 04:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, more handwaving. In what way does "[e]xplanation of design and gameplay issue [emphasis mine] NOT constitute a game guide? --Calton | Talk 07:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained this. Guide is a broad term. Any sort of information could be called a guide. However, the game guide rule is a corollary of wikipedia is not a how-to-guide, which this isn't. Saying you can't cover game design in video game articles, only the publisher, release date, etc is like sayign you can't discuss literary technique in an article a book or cinematic technique in an article about a movie. In most cases, it's whatmakes a game notable. Stating the publisger and story of a game doesn't really you anything about it. Ace of Sevens 08:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just fyi, all the article quotes that SevereTireDamage has listed are all original research or at least information thats not from a reliable source. Determining that "each unit does not quite match up easily with another race’s", for example, is original research as it is an unsourced interpretation of the gameplay of Starcraft. Wickethewok 04:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Everything is original research at some point. All information must originate somewhere. WP:NOR only applies to Wikipedia itself, not cited sources. Ace of Sevens 04:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is it original research? The statistics of each units are facts - the units of different races do not have the same stats and abilities. (This is also a deliberate change in the from earlier Warcraft games, where for the most part, the units on both sides were equal in strength, movement, etc. That is probably why it is noted in the first place.) Those are factual observations, not interpretations - speed, attack, other things are hard numerical values in the game that can compared directly. It is not some kind of subjective value judgment, as you seem to imply. Everything in that opening paragraph is of the same nature. --SevereTireDamage 04:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is short on references, but that doesn't mean it's original research. Basically any review of Starcraft would work for this point, such as this one. [7] Ace of Sevens 05:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete productcruft, fans of this game should start their own wiki, something like Memory Alpha for Star Trek. Phr (talk) 05:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - individual units are up for deletion here. Note that there is a StarCraft wiki here: wikia:starcraft. Wickethewok 05:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I vote delete, but with several major reservations that I feel have to be taken into account. I agree with this particular deletion, but only because the section can be done better justice on the strategy wiki. Wikipedia itself can provide an external link. However, after reading this page, I have to post these reminders since some people obviously don't remember:
  • Reminder 1: There is no official fancruft policy so don't pretend there is. If you voted Delete because you believe there is such an official, binding policy, change your vote because that's not the case. It's a guideline at best, and heavily disputed. Not all Wikipedians have to agree with it.
  • Reminder 2: Starcraft is not just a game, it is a cultural phenomenon. See the compilation of information provided by reaverdrop.
  • Reminder 3: Not knowing something doesn't make it original research. Aka, your ignorance on Starcraft is not an opinion. Sorry, no offense to those who actually know StarCraft material, but anyone who mentioned original research either doesn't know StarCraft or doesn't know original research. A quick google search verifies most of the information. Note that Blizzard, the company that produced StarCraft, has endorsed much of the strategy on this page. Is that official enough for you? See http://www.battle.net/scc/terran/ufire.shtml for example.
Last but not least, this is no reminder but a minor editorial from yours truly. In my humble opinion, the "how-to/advice" and "fancruft" mottos that have become common as "reasons" for deletion are (1) too vague and (2) too dogmatically applied when personal bias would concur with the result. It is impossible to provide encyclopedia information on a serious, potentially competitive or practical topic (chess, Starcraft, football, programming, etc) without delving into "how-to" at some level. Therefore, moderate use of "how-to" information in relevant articles is not be a problem. -- Solberg 06:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg[reply]
Blizzard... has endorsed much of the strategy on this page. I wish you guys would make up your mind on whether or not this is a strategy guide or not. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say whether the page is or is not a strategy guide. Who are "you guys?" Do not associate the opinions of others with mine in order to undermine my own argument. Such an action is referred to as a strawman fallacy. -- Solberg 23:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg[reply]
  • Comment The chess analogy is hilarious. It's like saying we need articles on every episode of Spongebob because we have articles on every play by Shakespeare. Too, too funny. -- GWO
Reply - If this is the point stop using the "gamecruft" argument (that applies to chess (that is a game)) and just say that there is "not enought notability". Actually nobody did.--Pokipsy76 08:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - That's because "not enough notability" would be a lie as reaverdrop has amply demonstrated. Only valid reason for deletion is transwiki. Everything else is just a lie. -- Solberg 09:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg[reply]
Second reply. The amount of space/number of articles a given game deserves should be proportionate to its historical and cultural importance, and its intellectual depth. This is why Chess is like Shakespeare, and Starcraft is like Spongebob. One is a cultural touchstone for hundreds of years, the other will be basically forgotten within 50 years. -- GWO
Reply You're right that the articles a game deserves should be proportionate, which is precisely why StarCraft deserves more pages. As already demonstrated by reaverdrop, Starcraft is historically and culturally notable. It's undeniably the most popular RTS and like several other major games, it has transcended its medium and become notable outside of gaming circles. Prove that StarCraft isn't notable culturally or historically or that it lacks intellectual depth. I'm a tournament chess player so don't try to fool me with poorly stamped comparisons. If you have any concrete comparisons to make with chess, make them now. If you have any evidence that contradicts reaverdrop's, show it now. Otherwise don't bother with the notability argument, it's worthless without any evidence backing it up. -- Solberg 21:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg[reply]
Reply - Why should starctaft be compared to Spongebob and not, for example, to Harry Potter or Lost which do have much more space dedicated to them than the Shakespeare's operas even without sharing the same historical value?--Pokipsy76 23:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear delete per consistency. Punkmorten 08:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Deleting units and structures is the equivalent of deleting any mention of cards from poker or chess pieces from chess. Articles like Rook (chess) are less encyclopedic then this collection of information about each individual unit. I would argue the chess articles are even worse since they actually dedicate an entire article to each piece describing how it moves etc. which is equivalent to this condensed article describing the facts of the "game pieces" which happen to be bits and bytes. I think people are just failing to grasp how large Starcraft is and how much of cultural phenom it is. Terms have arose from this game, not fully directly, but popularized because of it, such as "to zerg". While there is a word, the term gained its popularity through the pieces in this game, much like people using the term "checkmate" when they out do an opponent. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've no interest in this computer game, and find some of the comments about it laughable. Having said that, the comparison between it and chess are appropriate, & it is clearly a notable game. On the other hand, chess is not 'owned' by anyone, unlike star craft, and it requires simple equipment to play without buying a license from a 3rd party. Markb 12:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 12:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT a game guide. Starcraft is an interesting cultural phenomenon, but there is no good reason for structure and unit lists for any game unless it has a very profound and lasting impact (ala Chess).--Isotope23 14:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fact that we have another bad/crufty/minutely detailed article on a different topic has NEVER been a good reason to keep in AfD. If you don't like the Chess sub-articles, nominate them and see what happens. Right now there's a lot of momentum toward consolidation/trimming of extraneous detail on AFD, so you might succeed. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- As bad as this article is, I don't see any procedural or policy reason why it should be deleted. Look at the class descriptions at World of Warcraft for example. A similar situation, just better written and edited. This article just needs a major rewrite, and maybe an excorcism. --circuitloss 14:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep why? because my interpretation of why strategy guides are NOT encyclopedic is related to original research(i.e. my personal strategy) and NPOV restrictions as well as the non-factual basis of such things. I would submit, that many things that are common knowledge(FACTS known by a reasonably large group of people) are worth keeping for those who don't know. A similar thing would be a zerg rush, which, while an element of strategy, is seperately important because it has a massive cultural understanding as to what it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ikanreed (talk • contribs) 09:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    Errr, the "massive cultural impact" of zerg rush (which redirects to the arguably broader topic of rushing) is blunted by the fact that very few people who don't play the game have any idea what you're talking about. Lots of things LOOK important from the inside, but are actually minute details when viewed from a broader perspective. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • trans to gamewiki This article must go other place where it suppose to be. --Wnmnkh 18:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Reaverdrop, SevereTireDrop, Solberg, and IkanReed. This is not game guide material in the least bit. Game guides is under the instruction manuals subheading in WP:NOT. This article has no instruction manual material whatsoever, I think this claim is totally false. It is a table of units in StarCraft, nothing even hints at strategy. Wikipedia will fail in its mission to be the sum of all human knowledge if people try to delete everything that they perceive to be unimportant. Cruft does not harm the encyclopedia in the least bit. The article is not harming those who are uninterested by existing; they are free to choose whether to look at it or not. However, it is still there for those who are interested in it. --Varco 19:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete.
    Answering Varco: this is not knowledge, so we lose nothing if we delete it. Let me explain. The basic details -- such as the fact that different races have different units with different attributes, and require different strategies -- are knowledge, encyclopedic, and belong in Wikipedia, and can usefully be illustrated with representative examples. But full lists of every single unit are facts, not knowledge; they are to StarCraft what a phone directory is to Telephone. One does not need such information to understand the nature of the game, nor its cultural importance; one only needs such information if one is actually engaged in playing the game, in which case there are plenty of better places to get it. So it should not be here. We are in the business of producing a first-rate encyclopedia, not second-rate game guides. — Haeleth Talk 19:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- belongs on gamewiki.org, if it ever comes online, or even gamewiki.net. The main article StarCraft is encyclopedic; the tree of articles it has spawned are not. While I realize WP has more capacity than World Book, let's face it, their editors would have laughed this article out of the room. -- MrDolomite | Talk 19:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Additionally, Chess's articles are acceptable because chess has had immense cultural impacts. Maybe if this game becomes important in society or lasts for an additional twenty to thirty years, this article can be re-created. As of right now, the game is not notable enough to require an extensive list of units and structures. Srose (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide; article is gamecruft hoopydinkConas tá tú? 20:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Emphatic Delete In all of these debates the keep argument keeps getting less and less convincing. This is clearly only useful in the context of playing this particular video game. In my mind that makes it a game guide. I'm a big fan of this particular game but this is completely unencylopedic and is exactly what you would find in a book on the subject.--Nick Y. 22:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My vote is still delete per all the excellent reasons above. Whispering 00:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Transwiki The chess argument is a fantastic one. --JD79 00:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Are you all really that convinced that because we have an article on chess, that means we should have an article that covers in excruciating detail each and every fictional unit in the myriads of computer games in existance? I think anyone who votes "keep" on those grounds is reeeeeaalllly reaching. Aplomado talk 00:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you really that convinced that this is the argument at all? No one suggested covering every fictional unit in the "myriads of computer games in existence" anymore than it has been suggested we cover every book in existence simply because Shakespeare is good. See strawman fallacy and false analogy. -- Solberg 00:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg[reply]
OK. So I must be hallucinating when everyone brings up chess when an article like this is nominated for deletion. Aplomado talk 00:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Um, no one has suggested covering every book in existence. See AfD Thalir. Sometimes they make the cut, sometimes they don't. But, based on the AfD discussions and, as an example, the contents of Category:Real-time strategy computer games, one can say that many computer game articles with extreme amounts of detail have been added. I'm not going to wikilawyer and pull quotes from Jimbo or previous discussions. As to the chess argument listed above, any game invented more than a century ago, which can be played by two people who don't even speak the same language, using very simple objects (think rocks and sand), which has world championship going back to c.1520, definitely falls into the notable category. Is there a grey area between chess and SC? Definitely. Can I understand that editors are excited about things that are top of mind in pop culture and use WP as an outlet, knowing there are others that share an interest? You bet. Another sanity check; would your grandma know about chess, or SC, or both, or neither? This level of treatment of fictional objects in a video game, albeit a currently popular one, is not appropriate for an encyclopedic resource, printed or otherwise. -- MrDolomite | Talk 01:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my question. What on earth is a game guide if this isn't? If I posted the StarCraft manual on Wikipedia, what would it have that isn't covered in these articles other than installation instructions? Aplomado talk 01:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/StarCraft_units_and_structures&oldid=1220911875"