Talk:Zerg

message: A lot of pages need to be merged into Zerg, Terran (StarCraft), Protoss and StarCraft, this article is one of them, see details on Talk:StarCraft#Major_merge_needed.
:Firstly where's your signature? Secondly, merging an article about a 3 different fictional races is the same as mixing an article about humans, apples, and snakes. They are 3 independently different races and have different biological genomes but have one category labeled on them (Earth life). Ok im not gonna get scientific and all but major merging is not something I would recommend, even if it's not of any importance to reality (StarCraft life is where it's at ;p). --Storkian aka iSoroush Talk  23:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed I don't think they should be merged, three very distinct races deserve three different articlesStrumf (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major merge 

message: :Least efficient building method, extreme building restrictions. Zerg structures can only be built on a creep. A creep is formed by either an hatchery (Zerg's main structure) or by Creep Colony. (note: on some StarCraft maps the restriction is nearly eliminated.) 
Does anyone know what's meant by the phrase I've highlighted, and whether it's true? If not, it should be deleted; if so, perhaps it should be elaborated. --AlexChurchill 16:44, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
:: I think the person who wrote that is referring to maps like Sunken Defense, where creep is programmed in.  In Shared Bases maps and derivatives, if you have a Zerg teammate you can always build on HIS creep, but you'll both still be causing headaches for your Protoss neighbor.  Marblespire 04:28, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Build restriction "nearly eliminated"? 

message: Seriously. My opinion is that most of this belongs in wikibooks, not wikipedia. Particularly the stuff on strategies. This goes for alot of the other SC stuff, eg. Terran (StarCraft) and Protoss--Fangz 21:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Way too long? 

message: Hey, who deleted the hydralisk image, and why?
Dumoren 03:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  who deleted the "Hydralisk" image 

message: This article needs the strategy info taken out.  That stuff goes in wikibooks, not here.  Night Gyr 22:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most RTS articles have strategy included. Kimera757 19:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They shouldn't. To quote WP:NOT:
Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Wikibooks is a Wikipedia sister-project which is better suited for such things.
The information should be transwikied to Wikibooks.  Instructional information belongs at wikibooks:StarCraft:Strategy Guide.  We already have a book there in progress, so once that book holds this information, it should be deleted from the article.  I'm retagging it. Night Gyr 07:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  tagged for cleanup 

message: Those three articles should not be merged. They are very detailed and stand well alone. Merging these articles with Zerg would lose a lot of useful information. It is not fancruft. Look at all of the Half-Life subpages. Starcraft should reach that level of detail and professionalism. bob rulz 07:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Zerg is the slowest race to start building units, even if using hotkeys.
In advantages, there should be "Hatchery, Lair, or Hive"—Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.152.145.87 (talk • contribs) 
:No, there shouldn't. It's not an "advantage" per se, just a gameplay attribute. Also, please avoid giving out hints (but thank you for contributing!). --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Few Problems 

message: I just went through and did a major edit of the entire article up to "buildings." Hopefully my 2+ hours of editing are effective... T. S. Rice 10:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was a helpful edit. This article has been in need of some cleanup for a long time, I was just too lazy to ever get around to it. I was wondering why you kept all that deleted stuff in the bracket thingies that hide the text instead of outright deleting them? bob rulz 22:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a habit of mine to leave stuff that I want to delete in comment tags for a couple of days to see if anyone objects. I'll go ahead and delete them now. T. S. Rice 23:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major edit 

message: What about some images that do not come directly from the game itself (like concept art and such)
I mean images like this one: http://www.artbytav.by.ru:81/art/zerg.jpg, that I just googled.
:Well, if you can find some that are acceptable to use under copyright laws then feel free to use them. Good luck finding any though. bob rulz 02:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Better images?

message: * There are redlinks galore following this.  I will remove them later (if no one else does), but right now I must go. Bp28 21:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Nvm, someone seems to have already removed this material now.  Wickethewok 12:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redlinks Galore 

message: Give me a break! Is there some sort of new vendetta ongoing against what some people perceive to be fancruft again? Mentioning the things that were just deleted are essential to the understanding of the game and the species. Deleting it is pure nonsense. It's ridiculous. Perhaps some of the more specific game information should be cut out and the descriptions trimmed down, but deleting it outright is ridiculous. bob rulz 02:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Give me a break!

message: Perhaps some of these should be redirected to the articles for their appropriate races. Bp28 10:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirecting deleted articles to appropriate races

message: The text sounds suspiciously like the text from the manual for the Zerg race... we need a re-write! humblefool®Deletion Reform 07:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By "Zerg manual" do you mean the history section of the Zerg in the manual for the game? If so, then it's not even close to a copy of it. bob rulz 11:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The History Sections 

message: Why does Infested Terran redirect here when this page doesn't contain all the information that were in previous version of Infested Terran? --Voidvector 07:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infested Terran 

message: I've moved text marked as "unfinished" from this page to Talk:Zerg/units because it clearly does not belong in the article yet. Upon reading some of the text, though, it's very apparent that this new text is glaringly strategy-oriented, which we decided at  wouldn't be allowed. What should we do, exactly? Comrade4·2 03:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  64.131.234.204 and Zerg Units section 

message: I put some species at the back of my head. Try to contribute more and write about the units like the terrans and protoss!! Sorry about the mutalisk and queen being in ground units.. im too busy today i cant fix it.
-User:Storkian <-- my username in wikipedia
:Um, hate to break it to you, but we've had a large number of long discussions on the topic and so far the general trend is that it's not important to include each individual unit - that kind of information is more suited to a strategy guide, and Wikipedia is not a strategy guide. We will probably have to delete your contribution, even though you might have put some honest effort into it. (I might be wrong on this one; we'll see what others have to say.) --Comrade4·2 01:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ok i get why all the units were removed from this page, but why not from the other two races? on those pages there is a complete rundown of all the units. with the other two pages the way they are, the variation of this page makes it seem incomplete and shabby. but thats just me, maybe i'm crazy--Manwithbrisk 21:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think it is rather lame that the Protoss and Terran pages have detailed information on the units yet this page is not allowed to have it. All three pages correspond to the same set of articles and as such should be parallel in structure and contain the same type of information.  Personally, I think unit information is useful and gives a good picture of what the game is like.  Regardless, all three articles should contain the same strucutre, with units or no units. --Stux 21:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thank god i'm not the only one who sees this as a problem--Manwithbrisk 19:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm, that's an idea. What about "List of units and buildings in StarCraft"? Zeratul En Taro Adun!So be it. 22:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: These days, "long" is the crappiest excuse ever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prelate Zeratul (talk • contribs) 18:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If no one has any objections I will make that page. Starting now. Zeratul En Taro Adun!So be it. 21:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see it, especially since that info is gone from the articles, and I know tons of other lists found on the wiki. --Stux 21:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link to the tentative "project" page is here. --Stux 01:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: the problem with just having the canon info is that people add to ti and drag it out to extreme levels. the problem right now is that almost anything that apears even remotely gameguidish gets shot down instantly. the trick will be to keep it from getting blown out to excessive levels and to make sure it doesn't read like a game guide--Manwithbrisk 01:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOL we need to mention Zerg Units... 

message: Wasn't this article longer? And wasn't there individual articles for the different Zerg units, because i remember there being one before?
Dumoren 05:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't here when those articles were removed, but as far as I know, they were removed because they are considered unencyclopedic (i.e. WP:NOT), and more appropriate for StarCraft strategy guide websites. --Voidvector 05:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wait a minute? 

message: The most recently patched version of StarCraft still uses the spelling Zerg, not Zurg as the article suggests.  See Blizzard's site as well: http://www.battle.net/scc/zerg
:'Twas vandals or something. I think the problem has been fixed. Comrade4·2 09:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zurg / Zerg spelling 

message: doesnt 'to zerg' mean to overwhelm in an early stage, or just suddenly?
and there seems to be no mention of them being completely organic without any technology, even having exclusively organic buildings and weapons, nor that their entire force is created by metamorphing originally out of larva--Lygophile 09:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  to zerg 

message: There entire 'Expansion' section is a near word-for-word copy of text from the Starcraft manual. Copyright infringement, if I'm not mistaken. –Xoid 08:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copypasta 

message: I happen to read Starcraft books, and I know ALOT about the Zerg. Maybe we should start a Trivia  section for these facts. People could add on to them to.   is the official site for Starcraft, and it has a stronghold of info on Starcraft history. You just need to read the site carefully. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lokinjo (talk • contribs) 22:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a trivia section in the article. See here. Captain panda 01:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia Section???? 

message: This is in response to the request at the VG wikiproject's assessment page.  I'm leaving this article as Start-class, No-importance.  Here are a few suggestions for imporvement
-Remove the trivia section.  If something is trivial, then it shouldn't be in an article.
-Get more outside information- the mythological names thing is nice, but the article needs more discussion about how the zerg were created in the real world.
-Get more references- prove that you're not just amking it all up, please see the VG Wikiproject's Featured and Good articles for ideas on how to do that. --PresN 18:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  VG Assessment 

message: Is this comparison really necessary?  It seems shitty mostly because the Yuuzhan Vong weren't even created until a few years after StarCraft was released.  Remove?
PitchBrick 01:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yuuzhan Vong 

message: Creep is a feature of Zerg biology. On its own it is not worth an article, but should be merged into this article. -- Sabre 15:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though I improved the article, sure, why not. I'll make a section on it, no questions asked ;D Zeratul En Taro Adun!So be it. 23:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Creep into here 

message: There should be an additional page(or link or a disambiguation) about 'zerging' which means 'to swarmin in large numbers'. This derives from the Zerg in Starcraft but has its own meaning now. This term is often used in MMORPGs. 205.236.144.4 17:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rush (computer and video games) basically is Zerging. Captain panda 01:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To 'Zerg'(verb) 

message: I'm gonna add a new Trivia section. Some my Trivia section from eons ago was deleted. Got some interesting facts StarcraftBuff 22:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not the place to put random strange information about a certain topic. That is the reason the trivia section was removed previously. I have removed the trivia section again. Captain panda 23:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they're generally discouraged. · AndonicO Talk 10:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newer Trivia 

message: Hey! Last time i searched for "Infested Terran" I got an article on the unit. Now it redirects me to the Zerg page. Did somebody get rid of the Infested Terran page? if so i would like to know why. The Infested Terran is one of my favorite units in StarCraft. Sacrifice me! :) GlassDesk (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All mention of StarCraft units anywhere on Wikipedia has been removed by the Wiki-fascists. bob rulz (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I guess that we are not supposed to have any unit descriptions, but I think that there should be some mention of the zerg infesting Terrans in some part of the article. GlassDesk (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably a good idea. I just wish Blizzard had given us a better idea of how exactly the process would work in real life. bob rulz (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infested Terran 

message: :Image:StarcraftII 02.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 16:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:StarcraftII 02.JPG