Hello, Omega20, 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.
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. In addition, all images must be sourced when you upload them. 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!
Wikia recently changed the search system. If you are a registered user and don't like how the search system works now, go to your Preferences, "Under the Hood" and "Advanced Display Options". Select "Enable Go-Search" to fix the issue, then press Save. Unregistered users should register to use the direct search method.
We look forward to further collaboration with you in the future. Thanks for stopping by and, again, welcome to the StarCraft Wiki!
Grendel Brood Edit
Garm Brood Edit
When talking about dead Broods, please use the past tense. Thanks.
Sourcing images Edit
Just a note on battle names Edit
Some of the battle names, such as "Battle on Korhal", aren't very descriptive. (Korhal has been fought over a few times, such as Kerrigan and allies attacking the UED there, Kerrigan attacking her former allies there, the Protoss attacking Schezar's Scavengers there, etc.)
There's a lot of real-life battles with similar names, and they're generally given more descriptive article names on wikipedia. (For instance, Battle on Korhal could be Battle on Korhal (UED vs Dominion).) Kimera 757 (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes please. I think we should name them like "Battle of Korhal (Liberation of Korhal)", using "Battle of [Place]" and the name of the mission, when possible. Kimera 757 (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: Battle of TarsonisEdit
Battles can contain smaller battles. For instance, the wikipedia article of the "Battle of France" covers the entire "mini-war" between Germany and France in World War II. "Within" it, there are multiple battles.
"WarBox" could be used for the episodes, and perhaps for the entire Brood War conflict (as well as things like the Enslavers conflicts). However, I believe it would not be appropriate for an article like the Fall of Tarsonis. That's a battle, one that basically ended the Rebel Yell conflict. Kimera 757 (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: President Edit
Did it say so in the panel itself, or just the page that hosts the video? I don't recall President being mentioned om the video.
The Matriarch and Tribe names Edit
We generally don't use tribe names in Brood War (same with zerg brood names) as they don't really "mean" anything. The software of StarCraft "hard codes" the names. It's better to just use the force names.
On another note, Matriarch is a zerg unit. If we made an article for the term Matriarch (for Raszagal), it would be another article, such as "Matriarch (title)" or "Matriarch (Dark Templar)". Kimera 757 (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
We don't have a Dark Templar flag yet (I suspect we'll have to wait for the manual to see that one) and we don't have a combined forces flag (for the Fleet of the Matriarch) yet either. (Or for the Fleet of the Executor in Omega, which is still a combined force.)
Meco has asked us to use the <br/> tag rather than the <br> tag when adding flags to articles. Something to do with xhtml vs html... Meco explains that on his talk page.
For battles, I've been trying to use wikipedia format. Unless we don't know the nation name, only the nation name should go under the side tag, while "Squadrons" should go under the forces tab, so:
:Alpha Squadron strike force
In regards to the occupation tables, I personally think they're more trouble than they're worth. Unlike the succession tables, they're essentially repeats of the character box info and while some of your templates are useful and others aren't, the occupations seem universally superfluous. Still, obviously people like Jim Raynor have switched allegiances quite often so I think it's best to get feedback from you and any other interested users before wholly removing them.--Hawki 11:34, January 1, 2010 (UTC)
You make a good point about the occupations. Still, the problem is the manual of style. For instance, characters like Raynor have many switches of allegiance, so the occupation table serves us well. On the other hand, characters like Horner only have a few, so the table isn't needed so much. What I'm concerned about is where we draw the line and what such deviations will do to the manual of style. I guess for now at least I'd recomend using the occupation boxes where they're warrented, but still leaving the info in the character boxes.
As for the succession boxes, I think they're useful when used correctly (e.g. leader of the zerg) but should not be used arbitrarily (e.g. leader of the UED Fleet-DuGalle was the first and only, so it isn't needed).--Hawki 12:21, January 1, 2010 (UTC)
Q&A forum topic Edit
Do you have a screenshot of the tactical info in Spanish? It might be good to have to complement the English readout. We'd just have the English file page have a link to the Spanish one saying "for clearer image" or something. - Meco (talk, contribs) 22:47, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
You may have noticed that the mission database images are overlaid by little black horizontal lines. They are not better quality than some of the ones already there. It would be better to take the images straight from the mission itself.
Also, always look to reusing existing images rather than uploading new ones. The key is to consolidate and get more with less.
Finally, there is no "mission" classification for images. If it's a shot from in game, it's "game". And generally one should try to name images based on the main focus of the image if possible, and not the mission name. This also makes categorization easier, - Meco (talk, contribs) 23:13, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
It does exist and porobably the reason that you do not believe it exists is first: I have not get a bloody piture, second not that much text in the article, third no links because i dont really know how to set up a link, and forth u dont believe it exists so to u it doesnt. And those are my reasons, plus my computer is extremely old.
Thank you =)
Ohh and by the way im sorry for the bad hand writing, i was in a hurry.
Thank you! =)
Then if you don't know to to set up a reference link just post whatever link you may have here (or even on the article's page itself) and I or other user will do it for you. Omega20 13:41, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
Zanu sporg12 Edit
Sorry, I dont really understand the whole wiki process. And im sorry but i got some pictures of the planet but they are in PCX format instead of good old JPEG. Sorry but im trying to put it in a diffrent format but it is quit dificult.
Thank You For Understanding!=)
You don't need to put in in jpeg. As long as the pictures are in one of the following formats it'll be fine: png, gif, jpg, jpeg, ico, ogg, pdf, xcf, svg, mid, odt, ods, odp, odg, odc, odf, odi, odm.
You can do it even with paint if you don't have more advanced programs. Regards. Omega20 14:23, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
Zanu sporg12 Edit
sorry, i was just very angry with something and i just took it out on the wrong person. Im very sorry for the meanness
The population of Korhal Edit
How can the population of Korhal be only 6 000 000 000 if it is an ecumenopolis?--Svetoslav 16:44, June 26, 2011 (UTC)
The 6,300,000,000 figure comes from Blizzard SC2 Korhal's official page, here: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/game/planet/korhal Then, in the article itself it is stated that a large portion of the planet has developed into an ecumenopolis by the fact that, from space, the planet itself looks covered by a single, continuous city (aside from the still irradiated unhabitable areas). Also, the fact that the planet houses 8 major conurbations, 5,592 residential districts and 1,012 industrial zones all together seem to support this fact. It is of course far from credible, since Earth has a larger population and similar size, yet it has not developed into an urban-covered world. Still, these are the data we have been given, so... :) Omega20 22:27, June 26, 2011 (UTC)