The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The nomination raises the questions of sources and verification, and these points are never addressed: The article is still wholly unreferenced.

I'd encourage every editor to print out and read at your leisure Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Don't skim them, or just read the lead, take them to bed with you and curl up with a nice cup of tea.

The issue of what is "cruft" is not one we should be debating. That is a personal judgment, and not an editorial one, and editors whom have worked in good faith in producing an article should not be subjected to pejoratives. In almost every case, however, meticulousness regarding sources will solve any perceived problems without resorting to disparagment, or even appeal to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

brenneman {L} 01:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A deletion review has been opened. - brenneman {L} 02:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StarCraft units and structures

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a game strategy guide. This article consists of nothing but game guide information, such as "a Protoss Zealot has higher hit points than a Zergling but the Zergling can attack faster to balance this out" (and that's in the introduction). There's also a great deal of individual units, each with their own article and useful game guide information such, but this is not the AFD for those. Does nothing that the StarCraft category doesn't do. And so, to summarise: Redundant, game guide (fails WP:NOT), and unreferenced (fails WP:V and WP:NOR). Delete. Proto::type 17:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI looked throuh WP:NOT and didnt see any reference to a game guide at first, I finally found it under instruction manual. So really this page just needs to be modified to fit what it was meant to be, it is currently horribly organized and needs alot of coordinated help from the VG group to Wikify it, but its premise is needed. It consolidates all the units from Starcraft and Starcraft:Broodwar into one place, yes the category can do that as well but it also contains people, places, etc. One thing for sure that needs to be done is to remove the "this unit is better because" references and just have a reproduction of the sheet that came with the games listing units of similar tier with cost and possibly stats. That is all verifiable fact, people can draw their own conclusions from it.Sir hugo 19:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While the data from "the sheet that came with the games" is verifiable, it's also copyrighted. Just making this page into a reproduction of that information sheet would be worse than things stand currently, IMO. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The data is not copyrighted, all that data is available in the game for everyone to see. The exact layout with pictures and such might be though. I also beleive the only copyright notice on it was protecting the Blizzard and Starcraft logos and such as trademarks.Sir hugo 21:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most text is copyrighted by default; if something doesn't have an explicit message disclaiming or modifiying copyright, you have to assume it's 'all rights reserved'. For example, look at the bottom of any Wikipedia page for a copyright notice stating the copyright as GFDL. --ais523 09:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Reply - The sampling bias of WP's editors is fascinating in its own right, but each topic should be evaluated by objective evidence on a case-by-case basis. And anyway, judging solely by the vastness of the chess content on WP, its systemic bias would appear to be toward canonized pillars of culture over the new and shiny. As evidence in this case: over 9.5 million copies of Starcraft have been sold so far; [2] at over eight years old now, it typically has around 70,000 Starcraft games currently being played on Battlenet at any moment, which is about three times higher than during its first year; 46% of over 10,000 voters in a World Cyber Games poll this year named Starcraft, out of eight WCG competition games, as the one they'd most like to participate in, [3] a gain over the prevous year; at eight years old, more professional competitions keep forming, and professional earnings and endorsements are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and have continued rising, while it is one of only two computer games with leagues of full-time professional players; [4] the government of Singapore let a pro Starcraft player postpone his obligatory military service to play Starcraft at the World Cyber Games, out of its support for those "who are selected to represent Singapore at prestigious international sports and cultural events"; [5] in South Korea, two cable channels have programs devoted to Starcraft competition, and schools post students' Starcraft rankings along with their academic rankings. [6] While identifiable ancestors of chess have been around for 1000 years, modern chess would be at least "Chess 7" if they had kept track of different versions, and chess in its modern form has been around less than 200 years, only 25 times as long as Starcraft, while evidence indicates Starcraft has only continued to grow more popular over the past eight years, so it shows no sign of dropping into a void anytime soon. A fairer comparison with the greater body of ancestral games under the "chess" aegis should be to the whole Starcraft/Warcraft family, which has sold over 35 million copies over the past twelve years, and with the newest version, World of Warcraft, accumulating about one million new paying monthly subscribers every three months, since its release around a year and a half ago (the most paying subscribers of any computer game ever, by a vast margin). In sum, there is substantial evidence that Starcraft and/or its descendants will still be of comparable popularity and encyclopedic notability to chess in ten years. If not, I'll AfD this article again in 2016. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 23:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The debate is not whether this level of detail is needed it is whether this type of information constitutes "Strategy" guide. If I were to say "When playing as the Zerg you need to build alot of Zerglings really fast and try to overwhelm your closest opponent." that would be a strategy guide, where as saying "Zerglings cost 50 minerals for a set of two and produce in the same time as a Zealot which costs 100 minerals making each Zergling more economical" that is no longer a strategy guide. If I had more time to actually edit this article instead of just skimming and fixing small things then I would try and rewrite it. When I first came looking for Starcraft on Wikipedia it was for this particular page, I wanted a page with a link to each units page as well as a place for basic information about each unit compared to other similar units.Sir hugo 12:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Zerglings cost 50 minerals for a set of two and produce in the same time as a Zealot which costs 100 minerals making each Zergling more economical" is strategy guide information. Just because it avoids using 'you', doesn't make it any less game guidey. Proto::type 14:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is that strategy guide information? It is straight out comparison, a strategy guide explains step by step how to accomplish something. Saying this unit attacks faster, or costs less is just stating verifiable fact. Stating that one unit is more economical then another may be straying too close to original research though. I see this as no different then an article listing military aircraft comparing the F-22 to the F-16 and stating that the F-16 costs less and is faster to produce but less capable then the F-22.Sir hugo 14:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Compare with this passage from Queen (chess):

The queen can be moved in a straight line vertically, horizontally, or diagonally, any number of unoccupied squares as shown on the diagram at the left, thus combining the moves of the rook and bishop. The distance it can move is known as the Chebyshev distance. As with other captures except en passant, the queen captures by occupying the square on which an enemy piece sits. Ordinarily the queen is slightly more powerful than a rook and a bishop together, while slightly less powerful than two rooks. Because the queen is more valuable than any other piece, it is almost always disadvantageous to exchange the queen for a piece other than the enemy's queen, unless doing so leads to a position where the king can be checkmated.

I don't think either article is any less encyclopedic. Dividing between providing objective content on specific game mechanics, and actually suggesting or recommending strategy, is the appropriate dividing line between encyclopedic and WP:NOT. Otherwise, where is there a principled dividing line between eliminating specific game mechanics, and eliminating any rules of a game, and eliminating any content at all related to a game or sport? If forms of recreation are encyclopedic at all, providing specific descriptions of their rules or mechanics should be limited only by the same criteria as for anything else, i.e. notability, references, etc. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 19:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Saying that "Users wanting this level of detail should buy the manual" seems a personal opinion having nothing to do with wikipedia policies. One could say that if you want to learn the chess rules you should buy a chess manual. The argumet about the number of people playing chess or playing starcraft or about the age of the games has no relevance with the WP policies. The real difference (not explicitily expressed so far) between chess and starctaft here is that starcraft is a trademark. This could make you think that if we go in the details of the aspect of starcraft we are behaving unfairly with respect to the owners of the trademark. This would not happen with chess. If this is the problem please say it explicitly.--Pokipsy76 14:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to chilling effect of conceptions of trademark - It pains me to see conceptions about intellectual property having this chilling influence on speech. Trademarks and copyrights do not exclude sharing information or opinion. Please do not censor your own communications out of fear of intellectual property. Looking at "behaving fairly" from the other side, would you think it was fair if a company sued someone for telling her friend how many minerals are required to make a Zealot? - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 19:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC) (Disclaimer: although the writer is an intellectual property attorney, this is written as personal opinion and not provided as legal advice. If you require legal advice, retain an attorney admitted to practice in your jurisdiction.)[reply]
Comment - Do we "need" chess or go "gamecruft" intstead?--Pokipsy76 17:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment *sigh* there is no way you can compare Chess to Starcraft besides you can always AfD those articles as well if you want. Whispering 20:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I know they are "different", I just cannot figure out what *policy* are you supposing to apply to accept chess "gamecruft" while not accepting the same for starctaft?--Pokipsy76 20:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a clearer consensus, see talk. - brenneman {L} 23:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess I got owned. I still think these articles are excessive, though. Isn't there a gamewiki for this kind of stuff? It just all seems oddly out of place on Wikipedia. Aplomado talk 01:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dragoons are created from Zealots who have been crippled or mortally injured in combat and are thus unable to continue fighting in their preferred manner - with a pair of psionic blades. They continue to volunteer their services, however; their crippled or mortally injured bodies are placed within large exoskeletons which contain any life-support equipment required by the individual Protoss. Living within a cold and dark environment, Dragoons are very somber compared to their Zealot counterparts. Seeing themselves as fallen warriors they show many signs of lost pride. Based on their quotes within the game; "I have returned", "For vengence", "I am needed", and "Make use of me" it becomes clear that Dragoons feel a sense of worthlessness among the protoss. For this reason Dragoons make a large effort to contribute to Protoss society. Although considered second class citizens compared to Zealots, Dragoons are undeniably valuable. Having both a ground/air attack and a ranged attack they are the all purpose Protoss unit(similar to the Zerg Hydralisk or the Terran Marine). When combined with Zealots they create a simple yet deadly force of long and close range attacks.
God help us all if this is what Wikipedia is becoming. Aplomado talk 01:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You're defining game guide so broadly as to be meaningless. Any sort of information could be called a guide. This isn't a guide to playing a game, more an overview of its design characteristics. What sort of nformation about games do you think isn't a guide? Ace of Sevens 02:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was there an actual response or any actual information buried anywhere in that bit of handwaving? "Any sort of information could be called a guide"? True, but utterly a non sequitor, since I'm talking about THIS piece of information.
  • What sort of nformation about games do you think isn't a guide? Type of game (board, FPS, turn-based strategy?), point of game (gathering treasure, surviving to the end, outscoring your opponent?), type of opponents (computer, partner, online?), distinctive qualities (customizable, nearly infinite combinations, biggest seller for a platform), etc. You know, facts (or, to use a meaningless phrase someone keeps introducing to these discussions, "true facts"). --Calton | Talk 04:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I were to write a single article on Draw Poker (actual example is kind of moot, since it's been sub-divided into so many articles on all the variants), pertinent information would include that you use a deck of 52 cards with numerical values of 2-10 and 4 face cards. Then I would have to describe the hierarchy of hands, as well as the betting system. I wouldn't describe the proper ways to bluff or other subjective tactics, as that would be a strategy guide. With Starcraft, the units and structures are equally worth mentioning and pertinent to the game's design, as they are base elements of this very complex game with its rules. The fact that it is a computer game and the subject requires a lot of material to adequately cover doesn't mean it should be dismissed as unimportant, and I believe that it can and should be covered without veering into how-to/guide territory. --SevereTireDamage 05:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the subject requires a lot of material to adequately cover No, it doesn't. The principles are easy enough to set forth. Going into the mechanics in detail makes it -- wait for it -- a game guide. --Calton | Talk 07:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's what peopel think is a game guide, it's no wonder we've been getting these votes. Explanation of design and gameplay issue is not the same things as guide, which is directions, not an explanation. Ace of Sevens 04:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained this. Guide is a broad term. Any sort of information could be called a guide. However, the game guide rule is a corollary of wikipedia is not a how-to-guide, which this isn't. Saying you can't cover game design in video game articles, only the publisher, release date, etc is like sayign you can't discuss literary technique in an article a book or cinematic technique in an article about a movie. In most cases, it's whatmakes a game notable. Stating the publisger and story of a game doesn't really you anything about it. Ace of Sevens 08:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just fyi, all the article quotes that SevereTireDamage has listed are all original research or at least information thats not from a reliable source. Determining that "each unit does not quite match up easily with another race’s", for example, is original research as it is an unsourced interpretation of the gameplay of Starcraft. Wickethewok 04:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Everything is original research at some point. All information must originate somewhere. WP:NOR only applies to Wikipedia itself, not cited sources. Ace of Sevens 04:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is it original research? The statistics of each units are facts - the units of different races do not have the same stats and abilities. (This is also a deliberate change in the from earlier Warcraft games, where for the most part, the units on both sides were equal in strength, movement, etc. That is probably why it is noted in the first place.) Those are factual observations, not interpretations - speed, attack, other things are hard numerical values in the game that can compared directly. It is not some kind of subjective value judgment, as you seem to imply. Everything in that opening paragraph is of the same nature. --SevereTireDamage 04:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is short on references, but that doesn't mean it's original research. Basically any review of Starcraft would work for this point, such as this one. [7] Ace of Sevens 05:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reminder 1: There is no official fancruft policy so don't pretend there is. If you voted Delete because you believe there is such an official, binding policy, change your vote because that's not the case. It's a guideline at best, and heavily disputed. Not all Wikipedians have to agree with it.
  • Reminder 2: Starcraft is not just a game, it is a cultural phenomenon. See the compilation of information provided by reaverdrop.
  • Reminder 3: Not knowing something doesn't make it original research. Aka, your ignorance on Starcraft is not an opinion. Sorry, no offense to those who actually know StarCraft material, but anyone who mentioned original research either doesn't know StarCraft or doesn't know original research. A quick google search verifies most of the information. Note that Blizzard, the company that produced StarCraft, has endorsed much of the strategy on this page. Is that official enough for you? See http://www.battle.net/scc/terran/ufire.shtml for example.
Last but not least, this is no reminder but a minor editorial from yours truly. In my humble opinion, the "how-to/advice" and "fancruft" mottos that have become common as "reasons" for deletion are (1) too vague and (2) too dogmatically applied when personal bias would concur with the result. It is impossible to provide encyclopedia information on a serious, potentially competitive or practical topic (chess, Starcraft, football, programming, etc) without delving into "how-to" at some level. Therefore, moderate use of "how-to" information in relevant articles is not be a problem. -- Solberg 06:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg[reply]
Blizzard... has endorsed much of the strategy on this page. I wish you guys would make up your mind on whether or not this is a strategy guide or not. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say whether the page is or is not a strategy guide. Who are "you guys?" Do not associate the opinions of others with mine in order to undermine my own argument. Such an action is referred to as a strawman fallacy. -- Solberg 23:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg[reply]
Reply - If this is the point stop using the "gamecruft" argument (that applies to chess (that is a game)) and just say that there is "not enought notability". Actually nobody did.--Pokipsy76 08:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - That's because "not enough notability" would be a lie as reaverdrop has amply demonstrated. Only valid reason for deletion is transwiki. Everything else is just a lie. -- Solberg 09:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg[reply]
Second reply. The amount of space/number of articles a given game deserves should be proportionate to its historical and cultural importance, and its intellectual depth. This is why Chess is like Shakespeare, and Starcraft is like Spongebob. One is a cultural touchstone for hundreds of years, the other will be basically forgotten within 50 years. -- GWO
Reply You're right that the articles a game deserves should be proportionate, which is precisely why StarCraft deserves more pages. As already demonstrated by reaverdrop, Starcraft is historically and culturally notable. It's undeniably the most popular RTS and like several other major games, it has transcended its medium and become notable outside of gaming circles. Prove that StarCraft isn't notable culturally or historically or that it lacks intellectual depth. I'm a tournament chess player so don't try to fool me with poorly stamped comparisons. If you have any concrete comparisons to make with chess, make them now. If you have any evidence that contradicts reaverdrop's, show it now. Otherwise don't bother with the notability argument, it's worthless without any evidence backing it up. -- Solberg 21:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg[reply]
Reply - Why should starctaft be compared to Spongebob and not, for example, to Harry Potter or Lost which do have much more space dedicated to them than the Shakespeare's operas even without sharing the same historical value?--Pokipsy76 23:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you really that convinced that this is the argument at all? No one suggested covering every fictional unit in the "myriads of computer games in existence" anymore than it has been suggested we cover every book in existence simply because Shakespeare is good. See strawman fallacy and false analogy. -- Solberg 00:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg[reply]
OK. So I must be hallucinating when everyone brings up chess when an article like this is nominated for deletion. Aplomado talk 00:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Um, no one has suggested covering every book in existence. See AfD Thalir. Sometimes they make the cut, sometimes they don't. But, based on the AfD discussions and, as an example, the contents of Category:Real-time strategy computer games, one can say that many computer game articles with extreme amounts of detail have been added. I'm not going to wikilawyer and pull quotes from Jimbo or previous discussions. As to the chess argument listed above, any game invented more than a century ago, which can be played by two people who don't even speak the same language, using very simple objects (think rocks and sand), which has world championship going back to c.1520, definitely falls into the notable category. Is there a grey area between chess and SC? Definitely. Can I understand that editors are excited about things that are top of mind in pop culture and use WP as an outlet, knowing there are others that share an interest? You bet. Another sanity check; would your grandma know about chess, or SC, or both, or neither? This level of treatment of fictional objects in a video game, albeit a currently popular one, is not appropriate for an encyclopedic resource, printed or otherwise. -- MrDolomite | Talk 01:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my question. What on earth is a game guide if this isn't? If I posted the StarCraft manual on Wikipedia, what would it have that isn't covered in these articles other than installation instructions? Aplomado talk 01:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More