Talk:Zerg

Removed links to subarticles

I have removed links to the various sub-articles since there wasn't really anything here yet. I suggest a different approach for this article than for the previous ones: Instead of creating a list-stub for each unit, building etc., these could be listed in the main article in tabular form. Coming up with a good table would be a nice creative task. --Eloquence 05:32 25 May 2003 (UTC)

Major merge

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

Larva fact

I doubt I'm the only one who's seen this. Larva can die even when their hatchery is still standing. If a hatchery is built near a tree, many times the larva will wander into the small patch of land that the creep doesn't cover due to the obstruction.

Build restriction "nearly eliminated"?

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)

The creep kinda has advantage though. Protoss And Terran can't build on it. 216.56.38.130 14:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Way too long?

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)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

In my oppinion, they should remain in thier current form and not be edited, docked. Most people who have the time and patience to wiki "Starcraft" Probably want to read about the history of the Sons Of Korhal and the History of The Protoss. - Pace

Zerg vs. X

These match-ups need a bit of work. I'll try to work on them a bit. Specifically, I'll include the role of each unit it the match-up and common build orders/strategies. Anything else I should or should not do? --Morzas Merix 16:11, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

who deleted the "Hydralisk" image

Hey, who deleted the hydralisk image, and why?

Pece Kocovski 03:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Probably because the image was in a bad location and didn't correspond with the text. I happened to like the hydralisk image too. BeanSoldier 22:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Lurker Facts Incorrect

The Lurker is not invisible to opponents unless it's burrowed. As it stands, it reads like it's invisible all the time.

24.15.167.167 02:40, 9 Dec, 2005

tagged for cleanup

This article needs the strategy info taken out. That stuff goes in wikibooks, not here. Night Gyr 22:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Most RTS articles have strategy included. Kimera757 19:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

Merge

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)

Eh, I agree that they shouldn't be merged. The articles each contain enough unique information about their specific subjects that the general article (Zerg) does not need to go into. TwistedSword 21:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Keep as set up. Kimera757 17:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

How long do we keep those tags there before we delete them? Kimera757 17:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Few Problems

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)

"Zerging" vs. "Zergling"

I've noticed that in the intro, there's a paragraph that says, 'the word "Zerg" (verb) or "Zergling" is the act of using mass numbers to achieve an objective'.I'm fairly certain that the term "Zerging", as a verb, is a form of "to Zerg", and shouldn't be replaced with "Zergling", which is a creature. I'm changing it back. --T. S. Rice 06:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think "insect strategy" would better descrive this.

Major edit

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)

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)

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)

Better images?

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)

Redlinks Galore

• 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)
• I removed a bunch of the redlinks in this article. I still have concerns (of course) on the encyclopedic nature of having very specific information for each unit. For example, such details as the amount of HP a unit has or which structure can increase a unit's speed. I don't think this adds anything to the article and much of it is original research (like the stuff that says what a particular unit is good for), or at best is content taken from a SC guide. Opinions? Wickethewok 04:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Nvm, someone seems to have already removed this material now. Wickethewok 12:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break!

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)

Redirecting deleted articles to appropriate races

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

The History Sections

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)

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)

Infested Terran

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)

all generic units redirect to their appropriate races' page. see here: [1] 129.21.109.54 17:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

64.131.234.204 and Zerg Units section

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 [2] wouldn't be allowed. What should we do, exactly? Comrade^4·2 03:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Citations

Um, why is there "citation needed" footnotes on where it says what the Zerg look like? I mean, you need a citation for a visual comparison that anyone can make? It's easy to see that they do resemble the aliens in films listed, even though it is vague. --Eridani 1026, 1 October 2006 (EST)

LOL we need to mention Zerg Units...

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.) --Comrade^4·2 01:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

thank god i'm not the only one who sees this as a problem--Manwithbrisk 19:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not make a new page called Zerg units and buildings to list them and link to it from this page? --63.65.45.102 17:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

Well I guess that would work also, would be long though. --63.65.45.102 16:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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).

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)

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)

The link to the tentative "project" page is here. --Stux 01:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not just include the canon things about the units, like what is listed in the manual or on the website, it would give people a better glimse of the plot, and it wouldn't take up to much space. For instance they have a whole page dedicated to this kind of thing for other games, it truly wouldnt be so bad for this.

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)

There needs to be...

...some mention here of the obvious descendancy of the Zerg from the novel Starship Troopers. Even if there is disagreement, there needs to be some discussion of the likelihood, which I believe is strong.

wait a minute?

Wasn't this article longer? And wasn't there individual articles for the different Zerg units, because i remember there being one before?

Pece Kocovski 05:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Zurg / Zerg spelling

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. Comrade^4·2 09:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

to zerg

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)

References and similiarities

Reference the first of the article about the similarity to tyranids from WH:40k, I'd argue they're more similiar to Aracnids from the Starship troopers novels, which were published in 1950s, rather than 1980s for War Hammer. Plus I'm sure more people will understand that reference, as it was also a major motion picture, as well as a book on the Marine Corps reading list.--142.162.44.98 18:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Ben.

Honestly speaking, I don't know much about either of them. Any opinions? Zeratul ^{En Taro Adun!}_{So be it.} 21:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

yeah the zerg are far more similar to the bugs from starship troopers, which was only one novel as far as i recall. plus there are a other common points, like the terrans using powered armor, though in the book the powered armor is much more versitile. but i wouldn't back adding this to the list because of the movie, seeing as that the afore mentioned major motion picture is widely considered a poor movie, that was so far from the book as to be nearly incompairable, and it was considered borderline facist. but based on the strength of the book, the fact that it is the only sci-fi book on the marine corpse reading list, and the large number of other similarities found between the game and the book i'd add the bugs to the list —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manwithbrisk (talk • contribs) 23:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

I wouldn't say it's "widely" considered a poor movie. It has a fresh rating on rotten tomatoes. I can see that it might be widely considered to be a poor adaptation of the novel.

I'll agree. The Starship Troopers novel was a popular book, and it seems it influenced the sci-fi genre greatly, and indeed preceeds Warhammer 40k. Moreover, since not only the Zerg is similar to the bugs in Starship Troopers, but the human race as well ("Terran Federation" in both, for example) I'd say they take their influence from the novel (and film as well, maybe). Mark Nez 16:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It's possible that Zerg and Tyranids are similar simply because they share the same inspirations (especially the Xenomorph from Alien). MorkaisChosen 14:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"The Zerg are the equivalent of the Xenomorphs from the film Alien." --- What is the point of that??--65.30.35.19 07:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the equivalent to Xenomorphs comment. I agree that it is silly to have. Captain panda 19:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yuuzhan Vong

What exactly do the Yuuzhan Vong heve to do with the zerg? FerralMoonrender 23:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Dunno for sure, looks like they too use organically grown technology.

Copypasta

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)

Trivia Section????

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. [3] 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).

There is already a trivia section in the article. See here. Captain panda 01:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

VG Assessment

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)

Yuuzhan Vong

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)

they hardly compare to zerg delete them Agentheartlesspain 21:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

vong use biotech as living weapons however the zerg themselves are the living weapons also zerg have a hive mind where vong are somewhat in a facists gov vong seem somewhat more like protoss they propably best best compared to a hybrid or what a hybrid might be like Agentheartlesspain 22:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

why is "april 1" one of the keywords of this article?

Merge Creep into here

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)

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)

To 'Zerg'(verb)

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)

Rush (computer and video games) basically is Zerging. Captain panda 01:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Imbalanced article, and proposal to fix

A while back, there was a bunch of material on Starcraft units and strategies. Then there was a great purge under the campaign banner of Wikipedia not being a strategy guide - which was badly needed. However, looking around now, it seems the campaign went overboard. The articles on Starcraft and its three races are overloaded with intricate detail on the plots and characters, which are all relevant only to single-player mode, while there is almost no material on even what the basic units are, which is one of the most important aspect of the game, in either single-player or multi-player mode. The absence is especially significant because probably most game play and notability of Starcraft is in its multi-player mode, not its single-player mode. It's as if you had a long article on chess without ever mentioning that the pieces include a king, a queen, knights, rooks, etc. or how those pieces are different.

I propose we fix this just by at least adding a brief list of the units to each of the three race pages, each with a single short sentence briefly describing the nature of the unit. That would only provide the most basic and undisputedly encyclopedic sort of information about the topic of the articles, and would absolutely not threaten to pollute Wikipedia with verboten "strategy guide" material.

As a secondary matter, it would also help if we trimmed away some of the extensive detail on single-player mode plots and characters.

These concerns are probably true of a lot of other games, though Starcraft is the only one that I have paid attention to.

I'm cross-posting this on the talk pages for Starcraft and its three races plus the video game Wikiproject to draw appropriate attention from potentially concerned users. Please continue the discussion, though at the Video Games Wikiproject talk page, for the sake of a single forum. If consensus ends up running parallel to my proposal here over the next couple weeks, I'll add the units.

- Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 20:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)