StarCraft Wiki
Register
Advertisement
StarCraft Wiki

A few days ago I loaded up Brood War and scoured the maps for locations. After 1-2 hours of writing, a sore hand and 4.5 pages of handwritten notes, I've realised that the locations simply in "places" aren't set to remain an oddity. As such, more categories may have to be created (eg. bases, cities).

The problem is that if such categories are created, then there's the issue with the merged locations with planets. In some cases, such as Aiur and Tarsonis, seperation would probably be good; makes it easier to reference locations of the Gutter for instantce. On the other, there are planets which are mainly known for a certain landform, which could make seperation 'stubish'. For the sake of clarity however, I think it has to be all or nothing.

Anyway, regarding such categories, I think categories can be created for cities, (military) bases, installations (a general term for things ranging from the Jacobs Installation to Vespene Refineries), landforms (forests, rivers, etc.) and regions (continets, provinces, etc.). Regardless, I thought it best to voice the idea before ploughing ahead with article re-organization like I did with the planets, which in hindsight, probably wasn't the smartest thing to do in regards to the lack of notice.

Man, I sound like an arse...--Hawki 08:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons I'd taken so long to get policies written down (or, rather, waited for Meco to start) was to avoid all-or-nothing policies.

For instance, the policy on tensing for unit articles was "all or nothing", causing problems.

IMO, if a location has enough information to make it a non-stub, it can be made into an article. There's probably enough information on things like the Gutter to make an article on. However, if the location article is too small to stand on its own, it should remain in the planet page. Note that references to the location can be changed into redirects (to the appropriate section of the planet article), which would mean all the links would work if more information became available, leading the location to become a full page.

And yes, I agree that "city" and "installation" categories are good ideas.PsiSeveredHead 12:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sector or sector?[]

Had this discussion awhile ago, but I'd like to revive it. Basically, it applies to sectors, star systems, etc., whether the correct naming convention would be "Koprulu Sector" or "Koprulu sector," the same M.O. being applied to similar article titles. I argued in favor of the former originally but I've started to drift towards the latter. It fits most naming conventions in sci-fi, and more importantly, fits Blizzard's current naming conventions. Sector, system, the type of location is never capitalized I've noticed. Would make sense to follow suit.--Hawki (talk) 12:56, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

Advertisement