FANDOM

Hello, {{PAGENAME}}, and welcome to the StarCraft Wiki!

The StarCraft Wiki aims to be the World Wide Web's most comprehensive database on the StarCraft Universe and we're always pleased to have new contributors. If you haven't already, consider [[Special:Userlogin|creating a user account]]. An account gives access to additional features, and it is valid for all other Wikia wikis as well.

Please be familiar with the StarCraft Wiki's guidelines and policies. All additions to content articles must be appropriately referenced; unreferenced contributions may be removed. If you need further assistance you may post in the forums or send a message to an administrator.

Please remember to sign your posts to talk and forum pages with four tildes (~~~~). This automatically adds your username and the date and makes it easier to see who's saying what!

We look forward to further collaboration with you in the future. Thanks for stopping by and, again, welcome to the StarCraft Wiki!

Ability BoxesEdit

Please work on your editing. You've placed refinery upgrades into the assimilator and extractor articles. Also, ability templates rarely get their own articles, and the articles themselves are not placed in the ability boxes category. Mostly they're kept on the unit page.--Hawki (talk) 08:12, December 8, 2015 (UTC)

CategorizationEdit

There's no need for a co-op missions category. Not only does the campaign category already cover it, but there aren't any exclusive units to the mode bar the Shadow Guard, and even then, it otherwise covers the standard campaign tech tree, if spread out through the commanders.--Hawki (talk) 09:23, December 8, 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, the co-op mission units don't need a category. The campaign units classification already applies to them.--Hawki (talk) 09:29, December 8, 2015 (UTC)

Strategy ArticlesEdit

I don't have time to go through your strategy edits right now, but two things to keep in mind. One, units are treated as common, not proper nouns (i.e. shouldn't be capitalized). Secondly, try to avoid using "you" when writing the article. "You" is a form of informal language that's better replaced with terms such as "players" or similar non-pronound terms.--Hawki (talk) 07:58, January 12, 2016 (UTC)

Article StructureEdit

Articles are structured the way they are for a reason. Development always goes at the bottom of a unit article, and the overview section is reserved for lore-based info. Expand as necessary, but don't mix and match.--Hawki (talk) 22:07, February 1, 2016 (UTC)

AC - Coop Edit

In the future, if you make a major change like this to the templates used on a page, please let a staff member know so the templates can be moved to the new names. Otherwise we just have a bunch of redlinks in one hand and orphaned templates on the other. DrakeyC (talk) 04:38, June 2, 2016 (UTC)

Broken TemplatesEdit

Please make sure to not add images and templates that haven't been created or uploaded. Either upload the images/templates before you add the link them or comment them out like I did in the Alarak page, that'll allow you to just erase the comment when those have been uploaded. Broken links like that make the page very hard to read and may as well have nothing there, and considering the Alarak co-op page has been getting a lot of traffic we want to make it as presentable as possible. Subsourian (talk) 04:27, September 10, 2016 (UTC)

Balance Updates Edit

About 12,000 bytes worth of balance updates vanished from the StarCraft II version history article. Were you putting that information somewhere? PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs 22:28, September 11, 2016 (UTC)

I've been diffusing them into "StarCraft II version history/<insert article>" over the past few months. See example. --Falconeye (talk) 22:07, September 12, 2016 (UTC)

Dividing StructuresEdit

Hold off on dividing structure articles between SC1 and SC2 for now. As it stands they're already pretty short and we were only doing it for units because of their length. When Hawki comes back he can make the final decision on whether we do it for all or none or just defensive structures but I think for now best to leave it as is. --Subsourian (talk) 12:01, May 26, 2017 (UTC)

Article EditsEdit

Please stop dividing units. Something like co-op mission articles for commanders is fine because there's a wealth of information for them. Creating separate pages for hero units is redundant when they already fit on the pre-existing page, and are without such a influx of info.--Hawki (talk) 13:19, August 24, 2017 (UTC)

HeadingsEdit

Please use headings for abilities/upgrades rather than bolding. It makes navigation much easier.--Hawki (talk) 09:59, December 6, 2017 (UTC)

For the second time, stop removing the sub-headings.--Hawki (talk) 20:15, December 6, 2017 (UTC)

CategorizationEdit

Stop ignoring edits. If you want to make a case for why the articles should be categorized as such, do so, but until then, accept the decisions made.--Hawki (talk) 01:04, December 28, 2017 (UTC)

This is your last warning. If you continue edit warring, punitive action will be taken.--Hawki (talk) 01:06, December 28, 2017 (UTC)
Why am I in trouble for following standard tree categorization? Packs are an organization, Packs is a race. Am I wrong in this? should I instead tag Primal zerg with breeds and characters? --Falconeye (talk) 01:11, December 28, 2017 (UTC)
"Packs are an organization, packs are a race?" Think something went wrong there.
The individual categories you lsited are fine where they are for the most part. "Primal zerg packs" however should be kept as a sub-set of the primal zerg category, as the primal zerg category is currently also a sub-set of "Zerg Organizations." There's a rationale on the primal zerg talk page that I did back in 2013, but basically primal zerg should be in both "races" and "Zerg Organizations" (I can live with them no longer being in the "Zerg" base category). Races because the primal zerg are biologically distinct from the Swarm zerg. In biology, part of the classification for separate species is when the two species can't interbreed and produce fertile offspring, and so far, there's been no indication of the two doing so. Swarm zerg can produce Swarm zerg, Primal zerg can produce primal zerg, but they can't make the jump.
As for "Zerg Organizations," the primal zerg are there as well because part of the distinction between them and the Swarm zerg is on the cultural level as well. Similar to how the Zerg Swarms get organization articles, the primal zerg get categorized like this as well, because on the political level (far as zerg can be political at least), they have a completely separate command/pack structure from the zerg, and have worked in unison within that structure (Zerus arc in HotS). Ergo, if the primal zerg are a sub-category of "Zerg Organizations," then the "Primal zerg packs" category should be a sub-category of "Primal zerg," not "Zerg Organizations."--Hawki (talk) 01:19, December 28, 2017 (UTC)

Be More Careful Adding InformationEdit

When it comes to the statistical info on Co-op articles, make sure you test things before they get added. There was just a giant kerfuffle on reddit because you added that the Significant Others bonus was multiplicative without testing it, when it's additive. Things like that make the wiki unreliable to the community. Just please make sure the stuff you have is tested and has sources. --Subsourian (talk) 01:26, June 16, 2018 (UTC)

HeadingsEdit

I've said this before, and I'm saying it again - stop removing headings, and stop putting gameplay info in lore-based sections.--Hawki (talk) 05:20, July 9, 2018 (UTC)

Recent EditsEdit

This is another warning in response to your edits, you added Khalai technology to every protoss subcategory. The Void Seeker is not Khalai, but you put all starships under it. The Wrathwalker is not Khalai, but you put its robotics category under it. This has become a consistent problem as seen earlier on your talk page.

You also undid the races category for Primal Zerg, something Hawki explicitly explained to you why it is the way it is, and in fact threatened to take action because you kept undoing. This does not mean you can just undo it months later. I notice you do the same thing in regard to article headings when told you we separate upgrade and abilities into subheadings for ease of navigation.

We’ve given you a good amount of leeway, but I find myself having to patrol your edits most of all. We all make mistakes in regards to editing, lord knows I do too, so we're fine with you helping out, but check your edits and do not keep trying to change things we've told you not to change. --Subsourian (talk) 12:10, July 8, 2019 (UTC)

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