Forum:Major Overhaul and Standardization

Ok this is just my opinion on what I believe may improve this site and the articles in general. Please give your input so we can come to a reasonable and balanced consensus on a course of action (... or inaction if it may be the case).

There are many things I think we need to standardize to improve and establish continuity. They would include unit/building images in regards to infoboxes. For instance, I don't think that the image(s) featured in the infoboxes should not be wallpaper or concept art as there will be no uniformity and correlation between such related articles (units/buildigns). I believe that they are better suited to be embedded within the article.

As I've done with Probe, I've used two images which would illustrate the unit's look, purpose, and design in the context of the game. However, I could not find or make an appropriate screenshot of a Probe in the actual game and didn't know where to put it. For unit pages, they should at least include three images which they all have in common: 1, their frame design. 2, their display picture. And 3, a screenshot of it in the game. Now there's a space issue in the unitbox where all three units cannot be fittly (I think that's a word) placed. Some suggestions would be to embed the screenshot in the beginning of the article (as the size of the screenshot for each unit would vary radically, and there will be no consistency if such different images were placed in the unitbox).

Now for buildings, the same should be done however, the display picture should not be shown as they're all the same for one race. This makes it easier as we will only need to show two images while putting the display picture on the race's main page.

We also need to place some pretty colours for some of the templates. It would make them standout more, make them look better, and blah blah blah (I don't wanna bs on this). Anyway, for the Race specific templates (such as Units and Buildings), there should be header colours present that correspond with the Race referenced. Also for the infoboxes.

Another thing are the neat icons within the StarCraft game. (I cant believe I just capitalized it like that... look what this site has done to me) I'm talking about the nicely designed, yellow commands seen in the game. If their images were used either as illustrations or links, it would greatly improve the articles and create a closer relationship with the game itself. Same goes with the small mineral and gas icons. We should use these to our advantage.

Of course, these are all suggestions and not me just rantin on. I will gladly work on them, but I think we should come to an agreement first in order to accomplish congruity (I have no clue what that word means but it seems to make sense). -- Xallium (talk • contribs) 03:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

-- You can make things pretty, but that's not what this website needs as far as standardization goes at this very moment. Have you read any of the articles? They are childish, biased crap and completely unprofessional. Reading about "strategy" makes me nauseous. There is no right or wrong way to play the game, or correct usage of units either. Strategy sections should be aimed at helping players figure out what to do with these units or how to deal with them, not telling them how to use them! Example is the Defiler article that I'm revising. "Plague gives zerg armies a huge edge in latter battles, acting like a devastating area of effect attack that evens the odds. Marines and science vessels are particularly good targets." -- This was obviously written by someone younger than 17 and filled with opinion that doesn't belong. And they use a poll as a reference?

1. I see some terms in here that have no articles of their own. "Spellcaster", "Harasser", and "Snipe". Please, if we're going to use terms, let's use some official ones or make referenced articles to them. This may be Starcraft, but it's still Wikipedia, and is extremely embarrassing.

2. We need to get rid of all this personal opinion and original research as much as possible. Finding references aren't easy, but that's not what I'm talking about. Clean up the articles so they don't sound like they were written by screaming teenagers.

3. Get rid of all "unit lore". Why have two small articles about a unit when you can combine it into an almost-decent sized article? Colonel Marksman 20:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * We've realized for a while that the strategy articles and sections need a lot of assistance. As you've realized it is difficult to ensure the quality of strategy content and I don't think we've come up with a satisfactory solution to that in terms of what constitutes "valid" sources or "experts". You are most welcome to try your hand at the problem,


 * As for unit and lore article splits, first and foremost this was done to give room for units that appear in both SCI and SCII and which are likely to accrue large strategy sections if things get going. Units that only appear in one game... those are less obvious. I think the working idea was to make the split if the strategy section became large. The split also helps to organize the gameplay portal we've been tentatively thinking about.
 * - Meco (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)