Wikipedia just marked the article for deletion. They will discuss about it, there are some opinions againts the deletion but the deletion is predictable. Christo161 14:51, April 3, 2012 (UTC)Christo161

I'm not sure if we're going to keep this page, due to a new policy on fanwork. In the meantime, the link to the Wikipedia page is here:

Store that page somewhere. Wikipedia always deletes articles like that. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 22:01, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

I am the author of both pages, but I dont have an account here. Only in wikipedia, but I think they will delete that page. You can use all information from there. Even the screenshots. And you can find videos on youtube:

Why don't you sign up for an account here then?


Please note this article is too extensive for this wiki. It should be moved to the StarCraft fanfiction wiki or a similar wiki. However, the information will be stored as it won't last on Wikipedia. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 00:26, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

Glancing at the avaliable info...if HunCraft Interactive is a company in the same vein as, say, Aztech New Media (see StarCraft: Insurrection), it may be worthy of inclusion, along the lines of StarCraft: Stellar Forces. If a grassroots company though, I agree this should stay on the fanon wiki--Hawki 04:40, April 1, 2012 (UTC)
The Night of the Dead article used to be this big, before it got its own wiki. There is still a NotD article here, but it's small, and has a link to the NotD wiki. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 13:03, April 1, 2012 (UTC)
The closest thing to HunCraft already included is Stellar Forces, in that both are unauthorized ("fan") expansions.
The inclusion of Stellar Forces actually seems to be in line with the interim fan content inclusion policy: it was "recognized" by Blizzard, if in a negative way. If that's the key rationale for why it's kept, then HunCraft I would support deletion since it has no recognition either way.
On the other hand, if Blizzard's involvement is not a major factor for keeping Stellar Forces, then that may open the door for HunCraft and other fan-made content. (And it would mean more work is urgently needed on the policy.) - Meco (talk, contribs) 03:36, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

Here are the Hungarian reviews (scanned from magazines):

Christo161 18:16, April 4, 2012 (UTC)Christo161

Blizzard recognized this mod but I dont know the details. I will ask about it. I know only that the publisher of the blizzard decided to allow this game published as a free downloadable version, because the small number of Hungarian customers. Christo161 18:16, April 4, 2012 (UTC)Christo161

By recognition, I mean significant recognition. Insurrection and Retribution were authorized add-ons, and are mentioned on the SC1 site. Stellar Forces is not, but strong legal action would count as significant. Then there is fan content (maps, comics, etc.) featured by Blizzard.
HunCraft does not seem to approach any of these. It seems the extent of Blizzard's involvement was quietly answering a few questions, or making a few legal points behind the scenes. No commitment on Blizzard's part, as with the cases above. - Meco (talk, contribs) 19:06, April 4, 2012 (UTC)

So by the new policy, does this fall into the "other impartial sources" or not?

If it stays, the only image I imagine will stay will be the loading screen. - Meco (talk, contribs) 15:48, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

With all those images uploaded, I think this really needs its own wiki. There's no way all those images will be in this article. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 22:44, April 16, 2012 (UTC)
Second Edit: Maybe...I think some images are allowed, but only what's functionally necessary.--Hawki 22:53, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

I think by our own policy it can stay. Blizzard has recognised other minor maps, and I'd say the magazines count as an impartial source. All the info should be kept to the page of course, but I think it should be okay.

(By way of example of sources, having it recognised by Blizzplanet or Team Liquid for instance, isn't a case of impartiarl sourcing, as their foundation is based on a Blizzard universe bias. Stuff like magazines and general game sites (e.g. IGN) are impartial sources because they have no pre-disposition to any one media. If such an impartial source recognised the game, enough to give it a few pages worth, I think it meets the notability guidelines.)--Hawki 22:53, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Those were over-the-top edits. It seems like we're in a stalemate, so I'll just say this: make a HunCraft Wiki. It's a short time. You have a week to set it up, and I'll help move the articles there. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 12:35, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

So I spend half a day editing and now it's locked?--Deepstrasz 13:10, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

Plot "summary" was not much of a summary. (The only part needing work is the plot section, the rest should stay as it is.) I am going to try an par down the wall of text to something more appropriate. There are parts that are... unclear; once I'm done, I will unlock the article and you can add the necessary clarifications. - Meco (talk, contribs) 13:17, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

So I guess this: is shorter than mine ?--Deepstrasz 13:24, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not shorter. I'd be surprised if it were (this is not to say it can't use work). The StarCraft storyline article has two things going for it. First, it tries to cover the central storyline drawn from all official sources; that's a lot of material. Second, it covers official material, which means being somewhat more expansive is acceptable.

The second part is particularly salient to this article. HunCraft is not official, it's not authorized, which means it falls very far from the core purpose of the wiki. Therefore, it gets one article, and the contents of that article had better be distilled. - Meco (talk, contribs) 14:21, April 18, 2012 (UTC)


In that case, I can live with having a HunCraft article. So:

  1. Intro paragraph (what it is, relationship with Blizzard)
  2. Description paragraph(s) (development, features)
  3. Plot paragraph(s)
  4. External links

Short and succinct. No mission-by-mission descriptions/walkthroughs, and that sort of thing. - Meco (talk, contribs) 23:11, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

One more summary about the story here: Christo161 00:32, April 18, 2012 (UTC)Christo161

Since AlexOdhin on seems to be our Deepstrasz, perhaps Deepstrasz can write the plot summary, preferably without the commentary and adding enough context so it makes sense. - Meco (talk, contribs) 01:02, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

I've finished with the plot section... for now. It still seems a bit long, so if anybody has other ideas to distil it be my guest. Saying that, if there are necessary clarifications/factual corrections needed, make them now. - Meco (talk, contribs) 15:11, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

Hey thanks.--Deepstrasz 16:51, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

Could somebody clarify on the talk page the sequence of events pertaining to the use of the two gates on Aiur and their guardians? (Who uses, or tries to use, which gate? Is there a set of guardians for each gate? Or just one set guarding both gates?) - Meco (talk, contribs) 17:12, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

Only the Warp Gate in the north on that specific area of Aiur where Cerebrate Gzorn (situated in the south-west) planted himself. So those two ancient guardian Archons are only seen after High Templar Fenidus liberates them from their Statis Cells and escapes through the Gate. This happens after your Zerg forces reach the Gate. The Archons teleport to Gzorn's location and obliterate him. I recommend you play the game, it's worth it.--Deepstrasz 20:30, April 18, 2012 (UTC) Oh yeah and it's not Psi Manipulator manipulator because the Psi Manipulator is a building. And the space platform where the plans of the Phatom are is nearby Raxid (at least from what I've understood). Oh and it's infection not infestation because the Zerg hyperevolutionary virus is a microorganism ;).--Deepstrasz 20:45, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.