Hello, Simpsonsfan1992, 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!


At least address the factions question - why is this needed? What is the rationale for the factions category when the organizations category exists? At best, I could see a defunct factions page, because by default, any faction group was active at a point in time.

Either address this, or I'll commence deletions.--Hawki (talk) 22:05, July 31, 2016 (UTC)

This is your last warning. Give your rationale. Xel'naga factions are non-existent, so again, explain.--Hawki (talk) 22:14, July 31, 2016 (UTC)
And...banned.--Hawki (talk) 22:16, July 31, 2016 (UTC)
Unbann me please. I didn't see your messages. I didn't make a factions sections. That is in defunct. As for your why is it needed. There are dozens of factions in StarCraft. We need to at least have a category for them so someone can look though without having to do massive research to find a specific organization. Simpsonsfan1992 (talk) 22:27, July 31, 2016 (UTC)
Every faction so far is grouped in Category: Organizations, with numerous sub-categories. Your factions page was a repeat of this format. Every faction is so far grouped in one of these sub-categories. Looking at your history on other wikis, you seem to have had a tendency to arbitrarily create categories despite lack of consensus and/or pre-existing categories as well. If you want to suggest further sub-categories, you can, but for now, the ban will remain for three days.--Hawki (talk) 22:33, July 31, 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry I didn't know there was another page for that. Thank you. Sorry about that. Simpsonsfan1992 (talk) 22:55, July 31, 2016 (UTC)


This is the second time this has happened. If you want to make edits, fine. When those edits are questioned, at least have the decency to address those questions. Since you can't, or won't, look at those questions, I'll ask:

  • What is the basis for the government in exile category? Are there enough examples to justify it (I can think of perhaps one, the Dominion per the events of Brood War, and one entry in a category hardly justifies its existence).
  • What is the basis for the CRF to fit that category?
  • What is the basis for the Terran Dominion to be considered a defunct government?--Hawki (talk) 05:41, August 4, 2016 (UTC)
    • The goal of the Confederate Resistance Forces is to overthrow the Terran Dominion and reestablish the Terran Confederacy. It was made up of former members of the Confederacy and generally regarded as a significant enough force the UED took them in.
    • That was a mistake. Meant Confederacy. Simpsonsfan1992 (talk) 05:44, August 4, 2016 (UTC)
The CRF was a group devoted to restoring the Confederacy, that much is true. However, that doesn't automatically make it a government in exile. We know of only two members of the group (Duran and Emillian), which notably doesn't include any senior Confederate military or government figures, and the former's motivations are very unlikely to have anything to do with restoring the Confederacy. Also, the CRF has been labeled as a commando squad, so it was hardly a significant force in the greater scheme of things.
Even if we accept the CRF as a government in exile, it's about the only example of such a thing that exists in the setting. One entry is hardly enough to justify a category.--Hawki (talk) 05:50, August 4, 2016 (UTC)
Ok Simpsonsfan1992 (talk) 05:54, August 4, 2016 (UTC)

Re: ConfederacyEdit

Concerning the Confederacy, it's possible that they were an atheistic state, but it's only really circumstancial evidence. One is in Liberty's Crusade, namely the "limited tolerance for other faiths." You might be able to read into situations like Bountiful and the Church of Besainted Pelagius as examples of religious suppression. However, religious suppression doesn't necessarily come from state atheism. Off the top of my head, Catholicism was suppressed in England during the Reformation period, as Henry VIII veered towards Protestant doctrine and founded the Church of England. You can also point to examples today where a religion in one country enjoys special priligages over others, if unofficially. The state can be religious and still suppress other religions.

If I had to guess, the Confederacy wasn't religious, but it doesn't come near enough to the UPL to make its religion "state atheism," and it's too circumstancial to dictate that it was. Just simply what we see today - tolerant of religions up to a point, less tolerant of more fringe cults.--Hawki (talk) 06:34, August 4, 2016 (UTC)

  • But it implied in the novel that by Mar Sarah religious types, it was talking about religious people in general. And considering its the year 2500 the odds of organized religion being considered serious like humans in 2016 regard it are zero to none I don't find it that the Confederacy would be religious, but suppress other faiths. Simpsonsfan1992 (talk) 07:18, August 4, 2016 (UTC)
I said above that the Confederacy was unlikely to be religious, but the full line is "along with a couple of religious types that didn't agree with the Tarsonian limits of tolerance for other faiths." Key word on "other," implying that some faiths are quite acceptable, which fits in with many secular nations.
We also know that by this point in time, organized religion still exists in the K-sector. The Church of Besainted Pelagius, the Anaranjado Noventa, Bountiful as a whole, etc. As I mentioned above, one could draw the impression that because all of these groups are fringe ones to some extent or another, that the Confederacy suppressed religion, but fringe cults exist in secular societies regardless. Basically, all we know is that the Confederacy frowned upon some forms of religion. I don't think that's enough to declare it as being a distinctly atheist state.--Hawki (talk) 07:31, August 4, 2016 (UTC)
Really because I implied other faiths as those not of the offical state ideology of divinity of man or some other quasi-religious dogma. Faith isn't just excluded to religion.
First of all organized religion existed even in states that banned it like Albania, Soviet Union, China, North Korea, and also had state sanctioned religious organizations, but generally suppressed recognized religion and are regarded generally as state atheist regimes because they overall suppressed organized religion. Simpsonsfan1992 (talk) 07:47, August 4, 2016 (UTC)
I doubt the Confederacy would take much from the UPL consdidering that the supercarriers left 2 years after the UPL was founded, and that the K-sector inhabitants have every reason to hate the UPL. Also, the Confederacy has never had some 'core ideology' behind it expressed - certainly nothing like the Divinity of Mankind or the Khala. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. So far, the only hard evidence is the "other faiths" line. There isn't enough to conclude that it's an atheist state.--Hawki (talk) 08:18, August 4, 2016 (UTC)


Stop reversing the chronology, it's like that for a reason. It goes least recent to most recent. So, for example, the zerg base of operations should start at Zerus, not end there when being listed.--Hawki (talk) 22:42, August 4, 2016 (UTC)

Why not go from most recent on top to least recent on bottom? Simpsonsfan1992 (talk) 00:58, August 5, 2016 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.