Talk:Star Control

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


can you ever interact with the precursors?

You can talk with one in Star Control III. - Sepper 05:54, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You can *sort of* talk with one in SC II IIRC, but I'm not 100% sure and I won't spoil it.  :) -- Solberg 13:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)SolbergReply[reply]
The precursors did not make an appearance until Star Control III. You cannot speak to or interact with them in Star Control II in any way, shape or form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)


dynamic events depending little on the actions on the player

I guess in the above sentence is at least 1 error. Especially since the following sentece suggests the opposite, but maybe I don't understand. --Schandi 20:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Earthling page[edit]

Why is there no page for Humans? All references to the humans in SC point to the Human article. There should be a page giving information about humans and thier history regarding the game. Bertus 10:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Only if there is enough difference between the two to justify an entire article. It should probably be named something like Human (Star Control). Frecklefoot | Talk 13:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is enough difference between the two: the Star Control universe diverges from reality after the 90s, and game's background includes more than a century of alternative history. I'm going to create the article soon, in the last days I changed some link to Human in a few pages. I'm going to use Human (Star Control). GhePeU 14:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I remember reading from an explanation of human history in the Star Control-saga (this was text that was either copied from a manual or a strategy guide) that the Ur-Quan and Chenjesu were apparently paying attention to Humans from the 1940s or since the invention of the radio (this is, of course, scientifically impossible but its only a game). The Arilou though admit that they have had constant interaction with humans throughout their evolution (though they were constantly unaware of it).

Yes, both the Ur-Quan and the Chenjesu spied the humans. Due to the Ur-Quan threat the Chenjesu revelead themselves in 2115 and invited Earth to join the Alliance of Free Stars. Then the Arilou appeared and joined the alliance, but the day after the surrender of the Earth and the truce with Ur-Quan they disappeared again. I bought Star Control 3 and the package included a CD with Star Control, Star Control II and PDF edition of their manual and hint books. I've got the files in my homedir. I was thinking that we could create also a new article Star Control II, with details on the gameplay, the background (the mission to Vela II, the discovery of the Precursor factory, the construction of Captain's ship) and something on the game plot. GhePeU 20:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ender's Game Influence[edit]

It's important to note Star Control Originale was largely based on the battle simulation system described in Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game. 06:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

uh, no it wasn't. Enders Game was written in 1994. Star control came out in 1990. If you even did a tiny bit of research you would have found that. (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would argue that it was more based on Archon (also designed by Paul Reiche) and Spacewar!. I've read interviews with Paul Reiche and Fred Ford where they refer to their original idea for Star Control as "Archon in space". -Fadookie 09:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

is it just me, or does this sentence (taken from the SC4 section) just not make any sense?[edit]

"It was to be played largely from the third-person point of view, much like first-person shooters" ... so, is it third-person or first-person? Make up your mind!


The gloss "(Talking Pet)" for "Dnyarri", in the list of races, might be considered a spoiler, as the name "Dnyarri" is not mentioned until well into the StarCon2 game plot --- and at this time a number of plot points are clarified considerably.


I find it hard to believe that this page doesn't have any screenshots on it all.

I know that Wikipedia tries to use pictures liberally, but c'mon, it's a videogame people need screenshots to realize what the game is. Sure, imagination is good for novels, but when you're describing something factual, it creates nothing more than a vague description.

Hey, "A picture is worth a thousand words", right? --Mofomojo 02:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed, this article could definitely use some screenshots. Here are some resources (fair use):
Rumor has it that Toys For Bob will be releasing the SC2 game content under some sort of Creative Commons license. If and when that occurs, I'd be more than happy to take additional screenshots of SC1 or UQM and release them under the same license, or make them public domain.
-Fadookie Talk | contrib 14:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Toys for Bob "announcement"[edit]

I removed the text that "Toys for Bob has just announced that they will be doing a Star Control sequel." pending a source. Their webpage only has a request for you to sign a petition that would get Activition to allow them to start a sequel. If there's another announcement - I'd love to see it. Kuru talk 03:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the curious, the petition and related discussion can be found here: The YouBastrd! 2006.04.23

Someone added it again. --Tenric 13:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is just asking for pictures![edit]

Does anyone have any? --P-Chan 03:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One uploaded. It may not be exactly what you were expecting :-) Cheers --Pak21 08:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jak and Daxter[edit]

It's not immediately obvious to me why Jak and Daxter is a similar game to Star Control. Can anyone enlighten me? Cheers --Pak21 15:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had read the section on Precursors (Star Control) and it sounded almost the same as the Precursors in the Jak and Daxter series. I've never played Star Control, so I'm not sure if the Precursors are as central in Star Control as they are in Jak and Daxter. You can remove it if you'd like; I just added it because of what I had just said.Albert109 16:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source for non-canon claim?[edit]

"A select number of fans of the two earlier games have even decided to consider SC3 non-canonical."

If it's a "select" number of fans, we ought to be able to find a source for this claim. Can anyone provide a link to prove that some fans consider SC3 non-canonical? If not, I suggest this sentence be deleted.

---Ask anyone on the Ur-Quan Masters forum. They'll be quick to tell you that many of them consider SC3 to be outside of canon. To my understanding, even the original creators don't consider it canon. ~CeeVee 00:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From someone that's played the heck out of all three games. SC3 is just a remake of SC2. It has an almost identical overall plot. Plus the game play and structure is almost exactly the same. Although that DOES mean that I enjoyed playing 3 almost as much as I enjoyed 2. I really don't understand why people would hate the 3rd but like the 2nd when they two are SO incredibly close as far as content. Disliking it just because it wasn't coded by the same people doesn't seem fair to me. This is one Starcon fan that certanly considers SC3 to be part of the series.....although it fits in with the overall Starcon plot about as well as Highlander 2 fits in with the overall Highlander plot. --RaggTopp 19:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Music made with Amiga or not?[edit]

There has been some debate going on whether the music for Star Control II has been made with an Amiga, or not.


  • The game music files are in MOD format
  • MOD format originates from an Amiga software (Soundtracker)
  • Around the time the game was made (1992), tools existed on PC too for composing MODs (such as Scream Tracker 2).


  • 2006-07-07, Anonymous user contributed a claim saying "protracker mods in 1992 are made with amiga, though the program with same name has _later_ made for PC too"
    • 2006-07-07, User Bisqwit countered the claim by pointing out that tools for creating MODs existed also on PC in 1992, thus there is no proof of Amiga origin.
  • 2006-07-18, Anonymous user pointed out that there exists a website [1] which lists the SC2 music files, and labels them as Amiga MODs.
    • 2006-07-18, User Bisqwit countered the claim by pointing out that the site labels all MODs as "SOUND/NOISE/PRO TRACKERS [AMIGA-MOD]", and it is therefore not to be taken as proof of what platform the files were made with.
      • 2006-07-18, Anonymous user ignored the counterclaim, saying "if one source claims that they're amiga mods then you have to give at least source giving counter evidence, if you want to challenge the claim".

That argument is valid, but does not apply here. The source cited above does not claim anything on the origin of the particular MODs. It merely labels MODs as "AMIGA-MOD"s, and even goes as far as telling that it doesn't really know which tracker the file was actually made with. Soundtracker for example, exists for Unix/X. I do not therefore accept the validity of Anonymous user's edit, but I won't make a third revert either. Therefore, I'm declaring a discussion on this page for the subject. The claim would best be answered by getting real answers from the composers of the music. Some of them are active on the Internet even today, having contributed to The Urquan Masters, for example. --Bisqwit 16:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm with Nandesuka: it's pretty much irrelevant which computer the music was made on. The current version of the article is more than acceptable. Cheers --Pak21 16:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed a recent addition stating that "At least some MOD-files used in the game are made with Amiga though the game itself never become available for that computer." from the page as I don't see how this is relevant for this page. However, this has been reverted by the same anon IP with no explanation or reasoning. I will remove it again; if anyone wishes to present views on why it should be here, please do so. Cheers --Pak21 10:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revert added words "used in the game" so it was not mere a revert. At least Nuottarjärvi's mods are amiga noise-tracker mods (according to nectarine net radio). The purpose of nectarine is of course to tell the original format of mod file, so they are claiming that the mods were made with amiga noise tracker. -- 11:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For reference, the Wikipedia defintion of a revert is an edit which undoes another users action, in whole, or in part, irrelevant of whether that edit also makes other changes. I don't quite see why you're wikilawyering this anyway... More relevantly, Nectarine claims all MOD files to be Amiga-produced, so I agree with Bisqwit that this isn't actually evidence in any way. Cheers --Pak21 11:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nectarine certainly does not claim all MOD-files are amiga produced (for example, Dan Nicholson's mods lack any definition) so your counter argument is a false one. If I have added some relevant information to wikipedia, it should not be removed unless there is some good reason to do that. Sure if we talk about some game's music using several lines, it is relevant to mention with which machine the music is made with (if not the same machine for which the game itself is made for) -- 11:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, yes, it doesn't list Nicholson's MODs as Amiga produced. But then it lists them as "Format: Not filled" so that's not really evidence either. It's obvious to me that Nectarine's description of MOD files includes the Amiga comment. As for your information, it is Wikipedia policy that it is the responsibility of the person adding the information to show the information is verifiable, not the person removing the information. --Pak21 11:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, we have more reasons to suppose that Nuottajärvi's mods are made with amiga's noise tracker, than to suppose that they are not. I don't see what do you mean by that "it's obvious to me" comment. Only thing that is obvious is that Nectarine claims that some Star Control 2 MODs are made with (amiga's) noise tracker. Discussion may go on, if some further evidence is presented. -- 11:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've e-mailed one of the Nectarine admins to ask what "AMIGA-MOD" signifies. That should settle this nicely :-) Cheers --Pak21 13:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From the long time that has elapsed, I assume you haven't received an answer? --Bisqwit 11:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are correct... Cheers --Pak21 11:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Regardless of the arguments here, wikipedia is not a vehicle for original research. Unless it's documented somewhere that it came from an amiga, it's not appropriate to speculate here, regardless of how sure you might feel. --Improv 20:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyvio-- all Star Control fans read this[edit]

This is an important announcement. Well, not as important as the Toys for Bob one, but bear with me. I've noticed that many Star Control pages, particularly the race ones, have copy violations. I'll be removing all these sections. See for details. Do not revert the deletions, or we may be forced to AfD the pages. Note that per WP:COPY it is NOT sufficient to simply modify the copied text. You must start from scratch. -- Solberg 23:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)SolbergReply[reply]


This article is packed with POV issues. As an encyclopedia, it is not our job to take a position on what games in the series are good, to spit on the companies involved in making them, etc. --Improv 20:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---Yes, I have also noticed quite a bit of venom behind the Star Control 3 section of the article. While it does give you a feel for how SC3 is viewed by many fans, (And it is my opinion that such fanbase negativity towards it should at least be mentioned) a more neutral tone would be welcome. What changes would you suggest? ~CeeVee 01:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I would probably read through the whole thing and remove/pacify any sentence that seemed POV, reformatting surrounding sentences as appropriate. I'll start work on that soon if noone gets to it first. --Improv 14:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Utterly POV, and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. This is not the place to fuel a fan's anger. Malamockq 20:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok I just did a quick rewrite of the whole thing. It still needs work, and some fleshing out, but I got rid of the POV statements. Malamockq 21:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NPOV does not mean No Point of View. The current article is nearly useless: it does not explain that a lot of fans really did not like the third game, nor does it explain why. Explaining this is not against the NPOV policy, and is in fact very important to the article. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 02:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to state that, for the record, neither of the above positions are "correct" in the sense that they make a good encyclopedia. What makes a good encyclopedia is citing sources. Find some reviews representative of the whole, quote 'em, cite 'em, hug them and squeeze them and call them George. That is how an encyclopedia determines whether a game sucks or not. Frankly, I find it hard to argue with Gamespot giving it a 9 and an 83% average on Gamerankings. Doesn't mean you can't say bad things about the game (again, so long as you cite them), but the key phrases would be something like "generally positive" or "well-received" (Hint: The fandom doesn't matter; they cannot be cited with good sources). Nifboy 03:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Star Control 3 got very good reviews. I for one, actually enjoyed SC3 in fact. It's just the die hard fans of SC2 that hate it. But you can't cite die hard fans opinions because that counts as Original Research. Malamockq 19:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Star Control Mod Project[edit]

I am head of a small project for developing mods based on Star Control, is a completed star control mod worthy of this page? or is that to specific? you can get some info on our first project here: [2] and we should have a website should this mod ever be finished.Miked54321 12:58, 31 January 2007

Most mods are not notable. If this ever gets completed and widely use, then maybe. Otherwise I'd leave it out for now. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible spam. Allegence[edit]

Hi. The user Your Persona has been spamming the following link around, adding it to the top of the sililar games section or even creating that section just to get the link in. I have removed it from this artical but I am unfamiliar with either game so I will leave it to you guys to decide if it should be added back. If it is added, proberbly best to remove the second link to the website. Free Allegiance Online *Free Allegiance Cheers Xenon_Slayer 14:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I chased his trail after I saw your changes. In one of them, someone removed the entire "Similar games" section, since the Category:Space trading and combat simulation games is chock full of them. Anyone feel strongly about keeping the section? --GargoyleMT 17:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Allegiance is a 3d multiplayer space sim game, star control is a 2d singleplayer (except for the recent UQM release) space adventure game. I'd say that the only similarities are the fact that they are both "liberated" commercial games and set in space. Feel free to delete the link, doesn't seem very relevant to me. -Fadookie Talk 19:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Ur-Quan Masters and Star Control 3[edit]

Wouldn't it be correct to split The Ur-Quan Masters section into Star Control II? Since it is an remake of Star Control II? (albeit unlicensed)

I also think Star Control 3 deserve its own article, since there is already quite a bit of information in that section.

If both of those splits are carried out, i think it's proper to merge all the sequels into 1 section, as this article should focus on Star Control 1. --Voidvector 00:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These sound like good suggestions to me. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
4 days have passed since my suggestion, no opposition was received. I carried out what I suggested, hopefully the result was acceptable to editors. --Voidvector 23:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New split[edit]

Now half the article is devoted to Star Control 1, and the other half is a list of the other games in the trilogy with a small description and a long narration of the efforts for the creation of a new sequel. I propose to keep in the article only the contents relevant to Star Control 1 and move the rest to a new Star Control Trilogy, which will be linked by the other related articles as well and could be cited in some disambiguation templates. What do you think? GhePeU 10:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is probably should have a name common to other video game franchise articles. It won't be "trilogy" if another game gets released. There might be a guideline somewhere for the naming, but I don't know where to look. Based on my observation, the common methods are splitting SC1 to Star Control (video game) or splitting series to Star Control (series)/Star Control series.
A note on the "Possibility of a new Star Control game" section, it is mostly about petition and speculation of a future game. I don't think that's encyclopedic. --Voidvector 09:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Is there a particular reason they have a link in this article to their own? (talk) 10:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mycon vs. Yehat[edit]

For a fun time in Star Control (the first game), try pitting a computer-controlled Yehat against a computer-controlled Mycon, both maximum intelligence. What happens is, both ships go very far from each other, with the Mycon continuously spitting heat-seeking energy balls at the Yehat. Every time, the Yehat has had enough time to recharge its shields, which render the energy balls harmless. The Mycon is out of range of the Yehat's machine guns. What this all leads to is a never-ending standstill battle. JIP | Talk 20:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please if anyone knows russian language please try to translate it for the Star Control article in russian part of wiki. We have started translation but we need hepl.Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Stardock is doing a Star Control remake. Currently, the article says that there is no estimation for release. However, an email was sent for those that have completed a survey by Stardock and met their criteria for a potential candidate. It estimates the following: Star Control prototype builds and tools [Winter 2016] Star Control Alpha builds [Spring 2016] Star Control Early Access [Fall 2016] Star Control release [2017] I cannot point you to the email itself, so someone will need to come up with a link to it or something if it is to be used in the article (I'm not sure if an email counts as reliable, anyways). (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Star Control 4 preview[edit]

Is this a series page or just for the first game?[edit]

If this is just for the first game, we may want to create a Star Control (series) page for the other games rathe than having so much of this page's content being for the discussion of the sequels and spin offs.--EggsHam (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is technically about the first game. We shouldn't rework it because that would effectively erase it. I don't have a strong feeling about a series article except that sources tell us that the Stardock games are a separate series, both legally and in-universe. My main thing is just making sure there is still a home for an article about the first game with Star Control as the WP:COMMONNAME. Jorahm (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Stardock games aren't an unrelated series. Paul Reiche and Fred Ford own the copyrights to the first two games. Stardock owns the copyright to the third and fourth games. It has been agreed that Star Control 1,2,3 are considered the original series in the same way that there is a Star Trek TOS. One can visit the website and see that all four games are available. If we can't agree, we will need to take the page back to its last stable version. I propose that until a separate Star Control series page is made that we either agree to list all the Star Control games or we remove the other Star Control games and have it focus on just the first game.--EggsHam (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
EggsHam (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
A lot of the proposed changes are unsourced, or are misreadings of primary sources, and take things in the wrong direction. Changes to Wikipedia need to be grounded in reliable third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The IP rights have changed over the years which has made it all the more important avoid reporting them out of sequence or out of context, and to use high quality independent sources that have gone to the trouble of being especially accurate. One thing that's also making this hard to discuss is that there's now several suggestions being pushed in one thread. EggsHam is correct that if there's no consensus we should stick with the stable version, and I've gone ahead and reverted here and at Star Control 2. This could be short term or long term, as there's always room for improvement. But Wikipedia is best when changes are incremental, with consensus, grounded in reliable third party sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am also good with the last stable version. I am pretty sure these articles have all of the reliable sources about the games and I don’t see anything to add that isn’t already in its relevant article. I’d rather wait and see what new reliable sources say as new games are made. Jorahm (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am fine with the last stable version as well. I am also fine with up dating it based on more recent changes to its IP status. However, Shooterwalker keeps reverting any edits that mention the Stardock entries into the series despite the changes being well sourced. The stable version includes mention of Star Control: Origins. I reverted SW's most recent reversion. I welcome critical review of the citations provided. There is also an exhaustively researched article on the IP litigation found at In the meantime, I ask that we either revert to the October stable version or allow the page to evolve without further WP:3RR violations.--EggsHam (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies. I mixed up Shooterwalker and Jorahm as being a single editor. Fundamentally, we should either decide whether to go back to the Fall 2020 stable version before significant changes started to be made or we need to agree on how other Star Control games (2, 3, Origins) are handled. What do you guys think we should do?--EggsHam (talk) 01:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've reverted to the last stable version. The article does describe Stardock in context of the IP dispute, with sources. The reported outcome of the lawsuit was for the two parties to develop separate franchises and series,[3][4] and the latest news sources have continued to describe them that way.[5][6] I don't see any compelling reason to fundamentally restructure the article. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The last stable version is not simply the last version you edited. The page was stable for years before you began a fairly massive overhaul of the version ( that had been stable for years. You made those Changes without any explanation as to why you made them nor with any consensus that these were needed changes. Also, the reported outcome of the lawsuit was not as you describe nor does your source imply that. As this exceptionally well-sourced page make clear ( the outcome of the case is that Stardock would continue to own Star Control 3 and its copyright, Star Control: Origins and the trademarks for the entire franchise. There is an unbroken chain of custody of the Star Control brand going back to Accolade and ending with its current holder, Stardock. It isn't simply a game that happens to share the same title. Also, it is a little strange that you removed an external link to the Star Control home page which contains all 4 games and the lore for each game while keeping the other links that seem less germane to Star Control itself. The only legal way to get the subject game is from Stardock. Please help us understand your rationale. Do we need to put this up for a dispute resolution or can we come to some consensus here? --EggsHam (talk) 02:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The last stable version isn't my preferred version, and it includes numerous edits from many editors (including some edits that I would personally disagree with but consent to as part of an overall acceptable whole). The current version is just the definition of WP:STABLEVERSION, which is a policy that you should review as a new editor. The IP was split in the early 2000s and so it's not true that there is an unbroken chain of custody. The copyright IS the game -- the code, the writing, the story, the art, the characters -- and the subject of the article is the game. No one can continue the series without the Copyright, and the IP split makes it very difficult to continue the series, with reliable sources now describing them as separate series.[7][8][9][10] Shooterwalker (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The IP split of 1998 was between the copyright of Star Control 1 and 2 (which reverted to Reiche in 1998) and the trademark with Accolade also owning the copyright of Star Control 3 [[11]] [12]. The Accolade Star Control IP was then transferred to Atari and later to Stardock. The copyright to Star Control 3 is owned by Stardock and we include that game here. The sources you cite refer to them as series in the same way one would describe Star Trek TOS and Star Trek TNG. They are all still part of Star Control as a franchise. This is the problem when the page for a single game like Star Control 1 gets misused as a quasi-franchise or series page. The long-term solution is to create a Star Control original series page that focuses on Star Control 1, 2 and 3. But as long as this page continues act as a quasi-franchise launch page we can't pretend that Star Control: Origins, which is related both in terms of original series copyrighted material in the game as well as the gameplay doesn't exist. Do you have any proposals on how we should proceed?--EggsHam (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Star Trek spinoffs are very different, because they (once again) have the license to the whole IP, the copyright AND trademark, and can legally continue the series under the same name. When the IP is split, you get the name, or the content, but not both. I agree with having separate articles for each Star Control series, but it doesn't make much sense to create a Stardock series page when there's currently one game. The best way to proceed is to wait until they expand that series, or at least wait until reliable sources cover more about each series so we can follow what reliable sources say. In the meantime we summarize the status of the split IP with references to reliable sources, instead of taking one side or the other on who is the "rightful" series. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Star Trek spinoffs aren't so different. There is a cottage industry of Star Trek IP discussions on fan sites over the rights Paramount had and CBS had in recent years right down to how close one version of the Enterprise could be to a movie version of the Enterprise. Nevertheless, I don't see why we can't have a Star Control (Original Series) page that makes no mention of Origins at other than perhaps include a franchise template or a related articles link. Then we can clean up this page to just focus on the first game. The Star Control II page you worked on is much higher quality and that is the game people want to read about anyway. In the meantime, I suggest we remove the Origins mention at the top, put the external link back and add Star Control: Origins with the Star Flight mention as a stop-gap. At least then we don't have the Origins advert at the top of this page.--EggsHam (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Star Trek licenses are different because even at their widest split, there were still old licensing agreements that bridged the IP, and allowed the series to legally continue. For what it's worth I intend to keep mining the internet for sources to keep improving this article, and the biggest gap would be a bunch of 1990s magazines. Mining for print sources will take a lot of work but I will eventually get around to it assuming no one else does. I can eventually see a potential Star Control original series article, but it should be done with proper sourcing. I'd concede that I'm not crazy about the WP:HATNOTE, which does feel advert-ish. But hat notes are based in WP:DISAMBIG policy, and it's less misleading than your proposed restructuring. Reliable sources indeed report the series ending with an IP split, with the lawsuit bringing the parties more-or-less full circle. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In what way is the IP split different than what I just described above? I think you are using franchise and series interchangeably here. If you are saying that Star Control 1/2/3 constitute a series in the same sense that Star Trek TOS is a series then I agree with you. If you are suggesting that Star Control 1/2/3 aren't part of the same game franchise, that is factually incorrect for the reasons and citations previously mentioned. Using your own criteria, Star Control: Origins has licenses for music and has aliens from the original series in it and the new series has the rights to all the new aliens from Star Control 3 including the copyright on Star Control 3 directly. [[13]]. Imagine if a user is looking up Atari only to find an endless set of disambiguations simply because the overlap of copyrights owned by the mark holder is inconsistent. For example, Stardock would be within their rights to name their next game Star Control IV because they are literally the trademark holder of all the games in the original series. I am not sure what would be misleading in restoring the page structure back to where it has been for the past few years before your recent (December 2020) changes. The WP:NOTBLUE argument would be that a user going to will see all 4 games there. We clearly seem to disagree on what is a better structure for the page so we'll see what others say. There is no rush.--EggsHam (talk) 06:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Star Trek example isn't helping, as there were licenses that bridged the IP that don't apply here. The Atari IP is an interesting example because it is, in fact, a mess. Some of that is the state of the articles, but a major part is that the Atari name and Trademark indeed passed between several different corporate entities. Accordingly, there are separate articles for the separate entities that used the Atari trademark at different times. That's because Wikipedia articles are about subjects, not names -- sometimes leading to multiple articles with the same name (a WP:DISAMBIG situation) or sometimes a single article about a subject that changes name (a WP:NAMECHANGES situation). In this case, the subject is Star Control. It seems awfully personal to fixate on my contributions as a reason to remove numerous peoples' contributions. But going back to this version would remove tons of verified information, replace it with a ton of unverified information, and be contrary to pretty much every Wikipedia policy we have. Shooterwalker (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey guys. The current version of this page is a compromise between a bunch of people. It’s not biased towards either series and it summarizes and links to the IP dispute. We agree that these are separate series and the sources confirm that. We also agree to stick with the last stable version which is the current version. If it helps make a compromise we can re-add something from a past version if it can be reliably sourced but I have learned from past disputes that we should see clear agreement first. Otherwise I don’t want to keep talking in circles and I will just say that I will not agree to changing the article’s scope or structure. This is to avoid wasting every body’s time and energy. Jorahm (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyrights to the games[edit]

Shooterwalker keeps reverting the IP split section to a version that erroneously states that Paul Reiche owns the copyrights to the entire original series. His source for this is a comment by Paul Reiche in an interview where he never claims to have the copyright to Star Control 3. Others have already exhaustively researched the lawsuit see ( and explicitly state that Reiche and Ford own the copyrights to 1 and 2 and Stardock has 3. He also claimed that the US copyright office is not an authoritative source. See Star Control 3 / Reg. PA799000[14]. --EggsHam (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sincerely, if someone reverts you and asks to discuss, it's not advisable to continue an edit war. I asked you to review Wikipedia's policy on primary sources because Wikipedia always prefers using secondary sources when they are available. Indeed there are secondary sources that are already in the article that do in fact go into more detail about the split in IP around Star Control 3, and it would be fair to say that this summary section over simplifies it. To be specific, the secondary source establishes that Stardock does indeed own parts of Star Control 3.[15][16] The split in rights over Star Control 3 is also established in one of the primary sources for the fan wiki you cite[17], but again, Wikipedia tries to avoid citing things to primary sources as much as we can. The article does gloss over this in its summary, and we can discuss an accurate phrasing and add it to the article. Again, the operative word is to "discuss" and work collaboratively. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What edit war? You were the one who reverted an error correction. An Error Correction. You do not own this page. Before reverting my error correction you could have discussed it.
This isn't the first time you have made inappropriate reversions and then claimed others are starting an edit war. This is the only page I have edited where there's a gatekeeper. This is a 30 year old game and I corrected a minor error and you revert it? What is the matter with you? Stardock owns the copyright to Star Control 3.[18] Reiche and Ford claim to own the copyrights to 1 and 2. The US copyright office is far more authoritative than anything you've linked to, none of which claim the Star Control 3 copyright.
Either stop reverting the change or let's go to dispute resolution. I'm getting pretty tired of the gatekeeping over a 30 year old game.--EggsHam (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have edited the text to better conform with the supplied sources as well as added two new sources that provide more nuance. It should be noted that the sources that Shooterwalker refers to are almost exclusively interviews with Paul Reiche and interpreting his comments as being facts. This would be similar to relying on Stardock's interviews as the definitive sourcing for an article on itself. I am hopeful that the additional citations and rewording of the section will work as a satisfactory compromise.--EggsHam (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have learned it is better to revert to a stable version instead of stepping all over each other with edits mid-discussion. It doesn't help to get angry about asking for to go to the talk page and it's just a matter of good process to properly talk it all out first. That said the compromise from Eggsham looks to be close to something I agree to. I actually worked on the UQM community article but Wikipedia has different standards about primary sources. I have made an additional edit and I hope it will settle it. But if not then we need to revert back to a stable version until we come to an understanding and try to be WP:CIVIL during that conversation. If there are insults and accusations I reserve the right to walk away. Jorahm (talk) 04:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Asking for discussion isn't gatekeeping and I'm going to ask EggsHam again to be mindful of WP:NPA. A healthy process on Wikipedia is WP:BRD. If you don't go to the talk page, then you're liable to make edits that people don't agree with, based on incorrect assumptions the concerns they are raising. The goal is always to hear each other out, look for common ground, and then finally make the edits once there's a consensus. I do appreciate removing the primary source and using high quality sources like Ars Technica and that was more than half the concern. It's true that we need to be careful sourcing to statements in interviews too, but the statement (Stardock acquired the Trademark and the original materials in SC3, Reiche kept the materials from SC1 and SC2) was confirmed by both sides, and isn't controversial. Or at least it shouldn't be. I'm honestly not crazy about the current version because the last sentence basically just repeats the same IP split, and was a total wash. I changed it to be more concise without losing clarity. But if this is still contentious I agree we should revert to the last stable version until we understand what each of us is trying to achieve. The goal is always to find a consensus that satisfies everyone. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The current text is basically good. The last stable version still works too. Jorahm (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Same. The updates make it better. Shooterwalker, I'm glad you agree that discussion is a good thing. The reason why you keep getting accused of gatekeeping (I'm not the first person to accuse you of that) is because you don't discuss. You have a history of making radical changes to established pages and then reverting any editing attempts. If you don't want people to get annoyed at your behavior might I suggest trying to improve articles rather than simply reverting other people's work. You have reverted multiple changes that added additional citations and information that did not remove any existing citations. The previous version wrongly gave the impression to the reader that all Stardock had was the trademark and Reiche had all the copyrights which is factually incorrect. If we really wanted to get into the weeds there is the question of copyright ownership of the music and art of the games. We know, for instance, that neither Stardock nor Reiche own the music to any of the games. At least this new version gives the lay person who wants to know how the IP was split a reasonably accurate, if concise understanding. I'm glad they settled but it is a shame that we still don't know with full precision what exactly is split since the new SC game does have aliens from SC 1, 2 and 3 in it and a lot of the music.--EggsHam (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I very rarely revert on this article, or anywhere else. Most edits are pretty agreeable because they're not trying to remove reliable information or add original research. Respectfully, I don't have this problem with experienced editors, who are very used to going to the talk page if there is a disagreement on the contents. I have personally been reverted several times by my peers, which is an invitation to stop editing and start discussing. I don't take being reverted personally. I say "this is what I'm trying to achieve" and it usually leads to a healthy discussion, and eventually a new version with a consensus. Pushing through further edits when others are trying to discuss is considered non-collaborative, if not disruptive. At a minimum it makes it harder to reach a consensus. Finding a consensus became so much easier when we actually discussed, and I understood what information you were trying to add, and you understood what I was trying to say about WP:RS. It's always better to take it to the talk page. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Official website[edit]

I recently added the game's official website to the bottom to follow the typical WP game template. I've had this entry reverted without explanation twice and once with the odd WP:Promo tag despite official websites being the norm on games. The official website for this game and the series is While the home page does include links to buy Star Control 1, 2, 3, origins, etc. so too does nearly any other home page for a game.

Looking back at the edits made to this page, the stable version of the page once included a link to the official forums for Star Control which was removed and replaced by a link to the blog of a company called "Pistol Shrimp" (creators of Star Control II). I have no opinion on this other than finding it odd that a link to the official game site was removed and replaced with a link to a page that does not add anything to the article. WP:BRD ERegion (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you review the Talk page you will see this has been an ongoing problem with a couple of editors trying to scrub the page of any Stardock released connection even though Stardock is obviously the current owner of the IP and the current publisher of the subject game. The official website should be on this page. EggsHam (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no opinion on any of that. But the official website should be listed on this article and is obviously the official website. ERegion (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be accurate the Copyright is owned by the original developers. Stardock purchased the Trademark for its new series and this IP split was settled out of court.[19] The lawsuit has caused infrequent confusion (more frequent before the settlement). But Stardock has nothing to do with the original series and it's off topic here. Jorahm (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stardock owns the copyright to Star Control 3. We don't know what rights Stardock has in Star Control 1 and 2 (the settlement isn't public with only a few hints made in an Ars Technica) but even if they had no copyright in Star Control 1 and 2, it doesn't change that they are the publisher of the title. It's not off topic to include the topic's official web page. EggsHam (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Avoid Parkinson's bicycle-shed effect. I appreciate people working to de-escalate the edit war, but the links section isn't worth this much trouble. If you push me to form an opinion, Wikipedia is an archive of knowledge, and corporate websites belong at the article about the corp. Maybe if someone links Stardock's site at their actual Star Control: Origins series would at least make sense. But as a matter of best practice, many of our best articles have shifted away from a list of "further reading" links, partially for this reason. It's better to just describe the legal mess according to reliable sources, and let readers use google if they want to dive into WP:self-published sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This should be a non-issue. Most game pages have a link to their official site. Spyro, Fallout, Call of Duty, etc. Even new games such as Age of Empires IV, Elden Ring have an external link to their official website. This isn't a discussion about Star Control: Origins. The official website for Star Control covers the entire series including Star Control 1 and discussion of it. Therefore WP:Promo does not apply. The home page for the game was listed here for years without incident. Unless there is a legitimate reason to not include the game's official home page I'm going to restore the edit. Alternatively we can go through dispute resolution which seems silly given how straight forward this issue is. ERegion (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:PROMO seems actually very relevant and I checked the Stardock talk page where this issue has come up since a long time ago. Even for other games where Stardock bought the Trademark and Copyright, Wikipedia isn't a place for them to advertise on every game they have purchased. Here Stardock didn't even purchase the original game, they only own the trademark to create their new series.[20][21] There are countless sites that mention the original Star Control series but they are only authoritative if they are reliable third party sources. That is the basis of Wikipedia. I agree that dispute resolution would be excessive but I would accept a mediator if we can't come to a consensus. Jorahm (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know why you keep bringing up the legal dispute given its irrelevance. The trademark applies to Star Control which includes the existing games. A quick visit to the site in question makes that obvious. This isn't about advertising a game. It is about improving the article to conform to Wikipedia's standards. I will go find a moderator. ERegion (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The link you provided does not say what you claim it says. One quick look at the Steam page shows Stardock is the publisher of the game that is the topic of this article. I don't see how you get more authoritative than the game's home page. EggsHam (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doesn't it say what I said? Someone has been trying to associate Stardock with multiple games that they neither originally developed or published. Consensus can change, but it's always been a bad idea to include a directory of links to every IP that was acquired by later buyouts and mergers, let alone one where they didn't actually buy the copyright.[22][23] Otherwise you'd get to absurdities like the various Atari IP transfers. Of course the game doesn't have an "official homepage" because it was released in 1990 on floppy disc. Jorahm (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your link refers to a 2008 a third party editor who tried to list titles that were distributed on Stardock's Impulse (software) platform as part of the company's template. The Star Control page is not a template and we are discussing adding the game's official homepage as an external link in the article.
There are lots of older games with home pages. Star Control is still actively being sold today. Who owns the copyright to the game doesn't enter the discussion. Lots of official pages go to publishers who don't have any IP rights other than publishing rights. I fail to see on what basis you claim that, which states it is the official home page, sells the game in question and has active discussions on the subject is not the official home page.
Moreover, even if your copyright argument was valid, there are external links on this article to other pages, including fan pages which obviously do not own any IP rights in Star Control. EggsHam (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only basis that matters on Wikipedia is reliable third party sources.[24] The official publisher for the game was Accolade.[25][26][27] Even if you want to nitpick the split of the IP with Infogrames in 2002,[28] we wouldn't then reclassify all of the Accolade games as Infogrames games. And so on. That's even in situations where companies own the whole IP, and not just the Trademark. At this point I'm going to wait to see what a mediator says at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard as they might be able to focus our approach towards consensus building. Jorahm (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have reluctantly taken the step of asking for mediation on this. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard - Wikipedia. Like @Shooterwalker I do not think an external link section is worth this much bother. But I also sense there is some WP:RGW going on here. The holders of the IP decide what the home page is. Not us. The IP holders, both copyright and trademark have obviously decided that the home page of Star Control, the topic of this article, is An official website isn't required to own any IP rights to the subject, they only need the approval of the IP holders. ERegion (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not worth the bother and yet you've returned from a 6 years hiatus to focus on articles that mention Stardock and add their WP:SELFPUB website. Accusing other editors of WP:RGW is one hell of a projection of your own behavior. WP:RGW also states that "we only report what is verifiable using secondary reliable sources" and you should ask yourself why you are misapplying it to promote a company website. I will ask that we continue this discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard with the moderator present. Jorahm (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFC: External Links[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should external links be included to the web sites listed below? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please enter Yes or No, or the equivalent, followed by a brief statement, in the Survey for each site. Do not engage in discussion and do not reply to the statements by other editors. The Discussion section is available for discussion.


Should an external link be provided to as the owner of the Star Control trademark?

Survey (Stardock)[edit]

  • No. The original developer Toys for Bob has been the official site since the early 2000s[29] as verified in Gamespy[30] and should be restored to the article.[31] The article summarizes the history of the subject and Stardock is not involved or connected in any meaningful way. (Certainly not more involved than the people who made the game.) Jorahm (talk) 12:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes. This is the page that redirects to and was listed in this article as the official page for years until two recent editors of the article removed it without discussion or explanation. It should be restored both as an external link and as the official website for the subject. This external link satisfies WP:ELOFFICIAL and WP:EXT which are the criteria we use for determining official pages and external links. (ERegion (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]
  • No The IP split was a big story. But it doesn't change the history of who developed the game which is on topic here. Archrogue (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)\Reply[reply]
  • Yes This is the publisher website for the game where readers can go and legally obtain it. EggsHam (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No: I don't see how this provides info about the game and it goes against the policy of WP:NOTSALES and WP:VENDOR. Most of these sources don't add much info, but this one most of all. Jontesta (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes, with change I think this link would be better The original proposed link is simply advertisement of all three versions, whereas this page of that site actually talks about the game. Dobblestein 🎲 🎲 talk 22:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No, it is not the official link for this subject; the bulk of the article doesn't concern things they created, nor do they actually own the rights to most of the things the article covers. The current owner of the trademark is trivia and not worth linking to. Linking to a page whose connection to the bulk of the article's content is tangential and mostly a matter of legal wrangling could only reasonably cause confusion; it is not the "official" link for most of the games listed here. --Aquillion (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No, this is not even on topic. The Trademark confusion has caused editors to be mistaken about Star Control: Origins, a different game and unconnected series, from a new developer and publisher. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion (Stardock)[edit]

  • The copyright to this game is owned by Paul Reiche and Fred Ford,[32][33][34] founders of Toys for Bob. Toys for Bob has been the official Star Control site since the early days of the web. An external link to the Toys for Bob site was previously a mainstay in this article[35] until it was removed near a long intellectual property dispute. This website's continuity as the official site goes back to the early 2000s[36] and its status as the official site is verified in historic sources such as Gamespy.[37] The intellectual property lawsuit was eventually settled. Reliable sources establish that Stardock purchased the naming rights and domain name, but not the first Star Control or its sequel (which are owned by Toys for Bob founders, Reiche and Ford since the 1990s). The most appropriate place for the Stardock home page is at the Stardock article, or at their new series, Star Control: Origins. Jorahm (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The criteria for external links and official sites are spelled out in WP:EXT and WP:ELOFFICIAL. This external link explicitly meets both criteria.
From the policy on what can normally be linked:
An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a legally distributed copy of the work.
The external link in question is redirected from,, the article's subject and is the legal host of the distributed copy of the game and is the website that reputable third-party vendors including Steam and GOG link to as the publisher of the game.
Official links do not require the website to have any copyright or trademark rights in the subject only that The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article. WP:ELOFFICIAL. In this case, the external link happens to have both copyright and trademark rights in the series.
The external link is also the source of exclusive relevant content including the Star Control wiki (, exclusive news about anniversary plans for the game and exclusive media for the game.
Lastly, this could better be described as restoring the link. For years, this was listed in this article as the official website for the subject and was the consensus until it was removed without discussion or explanation relatively recently by one of the editor's in this dispute on his first day of editing this article.[38]. The link should be restored because it specifically meets the external links criteria, was the consensus official site for years and because it would improve the article's quality. (ERegion (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)).Reply[reply]
  • The official link policy clearly says "official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself." That is plainly Reiche/Ford/Toys for Bob as the makers of this game.
  • It makes no sense for an uninvolved company to speak on a subject that they had nothing to do with; buying the naming rights decades after does not give them superior information to the people who made the game.
  • You should apply your own logic to the Stardock homepage. Quoting you from below: "this is a website that has no third-party sources about it"; "if there is notable information, it would be picked up by a reliable third-party source WP:RELIABLE and could then be added to the article and then cited"; "does not add any material relevant to an encyclopedia understanding of the subject that couldn't be integrated into the Wikipedia article"; "an external link to them might make sense on their own articles where they are the subject." Those are all reasons that belongs at Stardock.
  • Responding to your last point about longevity: it is plainly visible that the official Star Control webpage was hosted at Toys for Bob since at least 2004[39] if not earlier. The link on this article dates back almost as long, before it was removed. Jorahm (talk) 04:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    See Trademark to better understand the governing ruleset on what "letting the subject speak for itself". A trademark is far more than "naming rights". From the article:
    A trademark identifies products or services from a particular source and distinguishes them from others.
    The quote "letting the subject speak for itself" speaks of whoever controls the subject, be that an individual, corporation, product or service. That would be the trademark holder of the subject or its designated licensee. That is just one of many justifications for used on WP:EXT for adding an external link.
    The governing language is that this is the website that is legally distributing the game. None of the other websites in this discussion do this. This means that is the controlling interest in the subject. I am not sure how you can describe a website that sells, markets, distributes and supports the subject game as being "uninvolved". A quick visit to[40] makes it pretty obvious that it is dedicated to Star Control. None of the other proposed links can make that claim. ERegion (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Subject" on Wikipedia refers to the subject of the article. In this case the subject of the article is Star Control. Wikipedia covers a video game subject by describing its history, design, development, and reception. Reiche and Ford and their game studios are all links that provide insight into this subject; the game in question. Stardock is literally the only link that has nothing of substance to say as they would only have insight into their new series Star Control: Origins. Jorahm (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The reason official pages on Wikipedia link to the website that is legally distributing a copy of the book, movie, song or game is because it communicates that the rights holders have agreed that this specific website is the official page. Unless you want to argue that this is a pirate site there is really nothing else to discuss. Your subjective opinions on what constitutes "substance" doesn't enter into the discussion. See WP:ELYES. There are only two external links that qualify for an external link, the Moby Games link and the Star Control homepage. ERegion (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • WP:ELYES says "... so long as none of the § Restrictions on linking and § Links normally to be avoided criteria apply."' And the same guideline says we should avoid links "that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article". The people who made the game are as directly related as you can get.
  • Remember that Wikipedia is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and WP:EL is a guideline and not a policy such as WP:OR or WP:NOT. Even the WP:EL guideline itself says "when in doubt about the appropriateness of adding new links, make a suggestion on the article's talkpage and discuss with other editors." I have tried to offer a compromise where we use a combination of links. But you are somehow trying to argue that the developer website is not directly related to the game they developed. Jorahm (talk) 07:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    They're the publisher of the game. Of course the link should be restored. A reader of the article who might want to get a legal copy of the game would be directed here just like every other article on this encyclopedia. EggsHam (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • We link to external sites usually because they have content we can't host on Wikipedia. legally distributes the game in question which is why we should have it as the official external website. This is really a binary question: Are they legally distributing the game nor not? They are distributing the game. Unless you are saying they are pirating it then how can you argue against such a crystal clear policy? You don't get any more related to the article than being the actual website distributing the game.
    • If your view were to prevail, readers wouldn't even know that they can still legally obtain the game. This isn't some abandonware game.
    ERegion (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Your assertion about the publisher is not supported in any secondary source.[41][42][43][44][45][46] That includes sources from before, during, and after Stardock's trademark purchase. The same sources consistently show Toys for Bob/Reiche/Ford as the developers on this game. It should be obvious that history is immutable and does not change when someone buys the naming rights. You keep trying to set this discussion up as a binary for your preferred link but I suggested we include all the links and you rejected that. So we will have a hard time building a consensus that the developer is somehow not relevant to the game they made. Jorahm (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Are you suggesting that is a warez site? Any reader can look at publisher and understand what it is. ERegion (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No one on Wikipedia should "suggest" their own WP:OR. Wikipedia is built on statements verified in reliable secondary sources. There isn't a reliable source that considers Stardock the publisher. At WP:DRN the moderator found that your assertion was unsupported which is why Stardock is only recognized as the Trademark holder. You also tried to get feedback at the WP:RSN on this question and were rebuffed. Wikipedia requires a spirit of collaboration and it is impossible to build a consensus if you resort to WP:IDHT Jorahm (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's a lot of unintended irony coming from the editor who keeps referring to trademark as "naming rights". The first line in the referenced publisher article states "Publishing is the activity of making information, literature, music, software and other content available to the public for sale or for free." That is what the website being discussed is doing. Talk about WP:IDHT. EggsHam (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We don't have reliable sources that say that it's a website either but we know it's a website. It isn't original research to say that this is the website that is currently distributing and selling the game, aka publishing. You are also mischaracterizing, again, on WP:DRN. The moderator made no comment on publishing. He did, however, ask you to be civil. Twice. As for WP:RSN, I tried to get feedback regarding whether Steam and GOG count as reliable sources. Steam and GOG both link to the Stardock site as the publisher not that you really need a source for common sense. ERegion (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    When an editor reminds you that we were warned against using WP:OR, it would be WP:IDHT to respond with a self-published website, a C-class Wikipedia article, and a personal theory. The RSN thread cautioned ERegion against treating online stores as reliable sources. It is perfectly WP:CIVIL to point out an unwillingness to respect Wikipedia WP:CONSENSUS from past discussions. Jorahm (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Since semantical obtuseness, a gross misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy and misleading characterizations of other discussions are all you appear willing to contribute, I will make it very straight forward: This is a discussion of whether the external link to legally download the subject game should be restored or not. WP:EXT makes it clear that we should link to it. ERegion (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Your WP:PERSONALATTACKS are not constructive. I have tried to look for consensus where we link to the people who actually made the game and then consider linking to the company who acquired the trademark 25 years later. You have consistently left out words in the guideline that do not help your point. The one sentence you are relying on finishes with " long as none of the § Restrictions on linking and § Links normally to be avoided criteria apply" and there are several avoidance criteria that work against your proposed link. You have also ignored the part that says "[w]hen in doubt about the appropriateness of adding new links, make a suggestion on the article's talkpage and discuss with other editors." Discussion does not involve WP:PERSONALATTACKS and your approach will never find a consensus to promote the singular off-topic company you are interested in. Jorahm (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Facts aren't personal attacks. Not agreeing with your erroneous interpretations are not personal attacks. If you were interested in reaching a consensus you would have taken the moderator's request to be civil to other editors more seriously and not continued to insult people or criticize their choice of articles to edit (which is ironic considering your edit history where your account popped into existence during the trademark vs. copyright lawsuit and has focused primarily on editing articles to promote a POV regarding it at the expense of article quality). I have nothing more to say to you. Find someone else to harass, please. ERegion (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Toys for Bob[edit]

Should an external link be provided to as the web site of the developer of the game?

Survey (Toys for Bob)[edit]

  • Yes The original developer Toys for Bob has been the official site since the early 2000s[47] as verified in Gamespy[48] and should be restored to the article. Jorahm (talk) 13:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No. Toys for Bob already has its template in the article. External links are guided by WP:EXT and this external link fails that criteria. (ERegion (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]
  • No there is an internal link to the article on this company, that should be enough. Adding this link feels too promotional to me. Dobblestein 🎲 🎲 talk 23:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes, as the creator of the series and the bulk of the games on the page, they qualify as the official link for WP:EL purposes and should be the primary link. We determine the official link for the entire topic, not simply based on ownership of a trademark. --Aquillion (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Conditionally yes. From the beginning, I've felt that self-published links add little value.[49][50][51] But if there is no consensus to remove the external link section, this link should be re-added as the official site of Star Control developer, which was previously here since 2005.[52] Shooterwalker (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion (Toys for Bob)[edit]

  • Toys for Bob is the original studio of the game's developers. The external link to their site was a mainstay in this article[53] until it was removed sometime near the lawsuit over the ownership. This website's continuity as the official site goes back to the early 2000s[54] and its status as the official site is verified in historic sources such as Gamespy.[55] Jorahm (talk) 13:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Toys for Bob used to have an external link until improvements to the article added the Toys for Bob template where it belongs. WP:ELOFFICIAL guides what an official link is here. There are no sources, including the archived GameSpy article, that implies that Toys for Bob was an "official" site.
Accolade, not Toys for Bob, had control over Star Control and if Accolade were still around or had an archived website for Star Control then we might link to that. As a side note, this article should also have Accolade's template on it for better navigation.
WP:EXT specifies that we should minimize the number of links. Under WP:ELYES we see what is normally linked. The Toys for Bob site does not add any material relevant to an encyclopedia understanding of the subject that couldn't be integrated into the Wikipedia article. It does not have any control of the game or any exclusive media of the game. It is not a source of new information about the game. It does not distribute the game. Therefore, its relationship with the subject is as the historical developer which is why we already reference Toys for Bob in the info box and why its template can be justified. (ERegion (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)).Reply[reply]
  • Gamespy literally called the Toys for Bob the "official website" in its left sidebar[56] which refers to the official Star Control site dating back to at least 2004.[57] Other Wikipedia articles about games of yesteryear do this: the featured article for the old game Perfect Dark links to its archived official site (at [58]). Your statement about Accolade controlling the game is incorrect but it is also irrelevant. The Star Control site at Toys for Bob has always been there. Jorahm (talk) 04:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The link you provided simply links to the official site for Toys for Bob, not Star Control. Star Control is being actively sold and distributed with new news concerning it even being made as this discussion occurs regarding the 30th anniversary. Accolade was the original publisher and owner of the series. Later in this discussion you provide a link to an image of the box of Star Control. While Accolade is mentioned, Toys for Bob is not. It is interesting you would link to an image on Ebay rather than one from a reliable source such as Moby Games[59] which makes it pretty obvious that Star Control was owned by Accolade. ERegion (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Follow this link.[60] There's the official Star Control site on the web in 2004 and we should restore that link. I am not sure what point you are trying to make about the intellectual property but read the back of the box or better yet look at a reliable secondary source.[61] "Toys for Bob’s Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford own the rights to just about everything Star Control related, what they don’t own is the actual name". Jorahm (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The sources you cite don't help your position. If they were selling the game at the time you might have a case to be made. You need to explain how an archived version of the developer's website for the game satisfies either WP:ELYES or even WP:ELMAYBE. ERegion (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have done that and you ignore it. "Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself"; A link should "contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources"; or "the link should be directly related to the subject of the article". If you can't see how the developer of the game is directly related to the subject of the article then I can't make you see it. Jorahm (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What does have to say about the subject? I'm on their site right now. I see nothing except a citation for Star Control 1 + 2. No webpage. No information. It has nothing to "say" at all. WP:EXT states that we should be limiting the number of external links. So I am asking you what does an external link the Toys for Bob website do to help the quality of the article? ERegion (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's a link to the official developer of the game and allows people to see the history and ethos of the developer as it pertains to the game. Jorahm (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pistol Shrimp[edit]

Should an external link be provided to at Pistol Shrimp Games for the developers' history of the game?

Survey (Pistol Shrimp)[edit]

  • Yes It is appropriate to externally link to Reiche and Ford's new studio where they describe their plans for the Star Control copyright. Jorahm (talk) 13:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No. This is a website that has no third-party sources about it. Using WP:EXT this is the type of article that would fall under WP:LINKSTOAVOID. (ERegion (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]
  • No. this new studio has no relationship to the subject. Having employees who once worked on the game doesn't cut it. EggsHam (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No This does not add to the article, it feels more like an article that would be cited not a stand alone link that would add value see WP:EXT. Dobblestein 🎲 🎲 talk 23:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Conditionally yes. In my opinion, self-published links don't add much value.[62][63][64] But if there is no consensus to remove the external link section, I support linking to this site for first-hand stories about the creation of Star Control.[65] Shooterwalker (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion (Pistol Shrimp)[edit]

  • I have no objection to linking to this site. Reiche and Ford started a new studio around the original Star Control copyright and this is its homepage. Jorahm (talk) 13:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There are no reliable sources to this website. I am really surprised that any editor would seriously argue in favor of adding this link. It doesn't match any criteria we use for WP:EXT. Wikipedia isn't LinkedIn. (ERegion (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Developer Blog[edit]

Should the external link to the blog be removed?

Survey (dogarandkazon )[edit]

  • Don't remove It is appropriate to externally link to Reiche and Ford's developer log where they discuss their game's past, present, and future. Jorahm (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove. WP:LINKSTOAVOID explicitly states that blogs should be avoided as external links. WP:NOBLOGS. Anything written, if notable, could be added to the article as a reference. See WP:EXT for guidance on what should and shouldn't be an external link. (ERegion (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]
  • Remove per WP:EXT this could be useful as a citation but not as a external link at the bottom of the article. Dobblestein 🎲 🎲 talk 23:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep, it falls under WP:ELOFFICIAL as a website controlled by the creators of the game and used for official communications regarding it. --Aquillion (talk) 12:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Conditionally Keep I have consistently said that self-published links add little value.[66][67][68] But if there is no consensus to remove the external link section, I support this link to communications from the game's developers / studio's founders. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion (dogarandkazon )[edit]

  • I see no compelling reason to remove the link to this developer log written by Reiche and Ford, the owners of the original Star Control copyright. Jorahm (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The policy on external links WP:EXT explicitly states that blogs should not be linked. WP:NOBLOGS. This is because if there is notable information, it would be picked up by a reliable third-party source WP:RELIABLE and could then be added to the article and then cited. Reiche and Ford are already mentioned multiple times in the article. An external link to them might make sense on their own articles where they are the subject.
Also, there continues to be some misuse of terms. Trademarks control names (like Star Control). Copyrights control content. Reiche and Ford hold copyrights in the game Star Control but they aren't the only ones. My understanding is that there are many copyright holders of content in Star Control including artists and musicians. Articles would become unwieldly if holding a copyright in a book, movie, or other media was successfully used to justify external links. This is why we have WP:EXT to guide editors on what should and shouldn't be an external link. (ERegion (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]
  • The original Star Control box says "game (c) Paul Reiche and Fred Ford"[69] Here is also a reliable secondary source.[70] I am not sure what point you think you are making but I would rather not obfuscate who owns the original Star Control game from 1990. We can let other editors determine whether the owners and creators are relevant to this article. Jorahm (talk) 04:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The game is copyright Paul Reiche and Fred Ford. That is why that specific wording was used. It should be noted that your source also says "all other materials (C) 1991 Accolade. Star Control itself was owned by Accolade[71]. A product is often made up of many copyrights. Should the music composers who own copyrights in Star Control get a link? Should the artists who own copyrights also get a link? What about writers who may own copyrights to Star Control? Copyright holders own what they make and have the right to license their works to third parties. Those third parties licensed their works ultimately to Accolade for the product which was then sold and distributed.
    Again we have to rely on WP:EXT on what is added as an external link or else every external links discussion would become a WP:Battleground. Per WP:EXT an external link should be primarily about the subject, which this link is not; and should not be a blog WP:NOBLOGS which it is. ERegion (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This really isn't proper application of NOBLOGS, which is more about blocking this use of something like - a blog written by a high school dropout from his parents basement. A related developers blog is a vastly different scenario. Sergecross73 msg me 01:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Even if that were the case, the blog would need to be primarily focused on Star Control, no? EggsHam (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I assumed it was, as it didn't appear to be one of the main points of contention so far. Sergecross73 msg me 04:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yea it's got a total of 6 entries since early 2021, none of which are about Star Control. EggsHam (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The site has lots of materials if you navigate deeper but it begins with acknowledging their role as the game's developers who possess material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the game. For example this is an archive link at to a sketchbook that includes original design drawings of the game dating back to 1990.[72] Jorahm (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Your link isn't to their site but rather to the Wayback machine. None of that is on their website. ERegion (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I understand that you have few edits to Wikipedia outside of Stardock-related articles, but many of our featured articles rely on material from websites stored in the Internet Archive. Your interpretation of archived websites is testing the limits of WP:GOODFAITH or WP:COMPETENCE and I am not sure this discussion is productive anymore. Jorahm (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It isn't a question about citing a source. You are asking for a website to be externally linked that contains no posts about the subject. is frequently cited in articles and we sometimes link to an archived website. That's not remotely the same as evaluating the content that is on a specific external link. He/She is asking what is on the external link that would justify a dedicated external link. While we're at it, I would genuinely like to know how you even knew about entries that were made several years prior and deleted? And how would a reasonable person find those deleted entries on that website? Maybe you should take a breather instead of insulting other editors or implying they're shills. EggsHam (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This isn't the first time you've accused or implied editors, including ones that have been involved on the article for almost 15 years, of being in cahoots with Stardock. I have no objection to a blog by the creators of the game being linked as long as the blog is about the game. But it's not and calling me incompetent because I didn't know about deleted posts from half a decade ago doesn't strike me as being very helpful in trying to reach a consensus nor does it retroactively make a blog that doesn't cover Star Control suddenly be about Star Control. We can only judge the website based on what is actually on it. If that changes then we can revisit that. ERegion (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am only pointing out your narrow area of focus. Wikipedia editors are expected to build an comprehensive encyclopedia instead of spending near 100% of their edits related to one company. The issue of WP:GOODFAITH / WP:COMPETENCE is when you argued that "your link isn't to their site but rather to the Wayback machine" when you clearly know that Wikipedia uses archived websites frequently. It is normal to do this for older properties such as Perfect Dark and not a reason to exclude the link. Jorahm (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That is not how Wikipedia works at all. If I wanted to spend 100% of my time editing the article about a specific breed of badger am free to do that. WP:5P. Since ad hominem is all you seem willing to do, I am satisfied that others can read the text above, as other editors already have and get the point. ERegion (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other Discussion[edit]

General Comment: ERegion keeps almost making the point I've been trying to make. Yeah, I guess the next step is to comment about which link is the most on topic/relevant/informative/official. (And it's weird to see anyone insist that the "primary" link is not from the people who actually made the game.[73][74]) But the real point is that these external links are all self-published sources, and there isn't any important knowledge that isn't already in the article. Nothing worth edit-warring over. Each person/entity is already blue-linked to their Wikipedia articles, in the context of their historical role, verified in reliable third-party sources. That's why I said in the pre-RFC, and pre-DRN thread to cut the external links altogether, and focus on real editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is exactly why this discussion should have begun and ended long ago by just reviewing WP:EXT. is obviously the official website for this game by established criteria. That criteria is the result of over a decade of discussion and compromise by editors in determining what the policy on external links should be.
As for "the people who made the game", Toys for Bob, already have coverage in many "primary" links on the page including the infobox and template. No one is arguing, for example, that Stardock's template should be here or that they should be linked as the original publisher of the game which is why we include an external link for researchers and other readers who want to get new (such as 30th anniversary news) on the subject. ERegion (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There is no such thing as "news" about a game from 1990, and even if there was, it would be reported in reliable third-party sources. I think you're misinterpreting things to justify something that isn't there. The sources keep showing that Stardock didn't make this game, didn't publish this game, don't own this game. The IP split ended with Stardock buying the name and starting their Star Control: Origins series, and those topics are already Wikilinked on this article too. It's very easy to just add any external links there and move on. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is a discussion regarding Star Control 1 which is still in publication and actively being marketed, sold, distributed and supported. External links rely on WP:EXT to determine what links should and shouldn't be added. There is no special exclusion because the work is "old". If you have a problem with Wikipedia policy on external links there is a process available to you to try to change it but that is beyond the scope of this discussion. ERegion (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think the problem is you're ignoring other Wikipedia policies, even avoiding important aspects of the WP:EXT guideline. For example, the guideline that a company website belongs at the company article. Or that an official link "primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable", where the Stardock site is overwhelmingly about their new series, and other games that Stardock actually made and own. Or that the "linked content is controlled by the subject", which isn't true here. Or the part that says that "the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article". That last guideline arguably applies to all of the suggested links. I raised the exception that readers might be interested in historic development materials from the game's creators, but you want to exclude those. That's why I suggest excluding all the links as a solution. If you're not here for solutions then I'd ask you to just disengage. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Unsurprisingly is going to talk the most about the newest game in the series. The website sells, distributes, markets and supports all the games in the series.
    There was a consensus for years that was the official website for Star Control in this article until you removed it without discussion or explanation and replaced it with a link to a blog which indicates that you were not familiar with WP:EXT at that time. meets the standards of WP:EXT and WP:ELYES which explicitly states An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a legally distributed copy of the work. This is the only website in this discussion that meets those standards. Unless you have a source suggesting they are pirating the game then there is no more to discuss and the link should be restored. That is the solution. ERegion (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Re-read WP:EXT because you keep ignoring certain parts to choose your preferred website over links that provide real information. "Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself". The subject of this article is the 1990 game including a major section about the game's development and history. The main creators would be the authority about this history and we would certainly link to any information that they can provide.
  • Shooterwalker notes where the guideline also has reasons to disqualify every link and that's why this is a guideline and not a policy. Wikipedia guidelines work well for the general case; for example when someone created a thing with an official website for that thing. The guideline breaks down for a game that was created before the internet and now the owner-creators are continuing the series under a new name at The Ur-Quan Masters.
  • That's why the words "if any" are in the guideline: if there is any official link it ought to be the developer's Star Control site that was on this article from the beginning[75] until it was removed. But I also suggested a compromise that none are really official and we link to all of them in a neutral way. Jorahm (talk) 03:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    One of the links is official. The one that is actively selling, distributing, marketing and supporting the subject, Star Control 1. This isn't even a close call. There are 9 enumerated guidelines provided in WP:EXT. There are only two external links in this article that match this criteria. at the official website and the Moby Games website that satisfies #3 on WP:ELYES.
    There is nothing special about this article when it comes to external links. There is nothing that unusual about the intellectual property of the game. Many book series have a similar set up as this[76] game series. A disinterested third party would find it laughable to read an editor claim that the author who has copyrights in say Man-Kzin Wars III could "continue" the Man-Kzin Wars series under a new name simply because they are a big fan of author Poul Anderson. He might/probably could use what he created in a continuing story from his book but that would not make it a Man-Kzin war book unless the owner the trademark, presumably Larry Niven agreed to it. ERegion (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • WP:EL makes it clear that the developer is directly related to the subject and their official site should be linked. There was a highly notable lawsuit that makes this intellectual property far from usual.[77][78][79] It finalized a split that ended the old series. Perfect Dark is an example of a featured article that links to the archived official developer site after the intellectual property became complicated. Jorahm (talk) 07:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I just read WP:EL that you linked to and I can't find anything that implies that the developer's website should get an external link. Your Perfect Dark example links to Rare because Rare was the Publisher. For instance, The Hobbit is published by Harper Collins and they are the official website for that article because The Hobbit is still being actively published just like Star Control is. EggsHam (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia articles about games do focus on its development, but do we really need three dev links? Maybe the answer is to start with the most informative one. Archrogue (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article does focus on development. But external links? What value does having a link to Toys for Bob's web page add to the article beyond the links in the template and top right box? EggsHam (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hasn't anyone noticed there's an actual fan website listed currently? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have. When I first looked at working on this article I was going to add the Accolade template and then look at removing the fan site and the graymarket link when I saw that there was drama regarding restoring the website to external links which how all this got started. It's fascinating seeing editors resisting an external link that leads to getting a legal copy of the actual game who see no problem with fan pages or the gray market classic reloaded website. ERegion (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's misleading. At least for me, I've suggested that we remove all the links. The external links are all self-published sources and don't provide as much value as a well-written encyclopedia article. Each of the suggested entities in this RFC are already internally linked in the article, and that provides more WP:NPOV information for readers. I understand that I'm the only editor who feels that way but I figured I'd make it clear. You're the one pushing for a link to only one specific business that isn't really relevant here, and you've made few edits outside of the topic of that business. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm with you on most of the links being noise. But having a link to get the game is pretty obvious. I remain surprised that you are resisting that. I also think having a link to Moby games is valuable and if the Kazon link talked about Star Control I think that would improve the article as well. ERegion (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having a link to the developer should be obvious. There is no valid reason to exclude every suggested link to the people who made the game especially when this article covers how this game was made. There is no rationale for excluding those links while simultaneously elevating a company that played no role in the game's history. Jorahm (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No one is being "elevated". Having an external link to the website where readers can download the game is obvious. It wouldn't matter if external link to download the game was on, like we do on Zork, if it was the legal way for readers to get the game we would link to that. The developer's template and mention in the infobox are already in the article where it belongs. ERegion (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia is not a buyer's WP:NOTCATALOG. No developer is owed a direct link to purchase the product. I think the best solution is to simply remove all the links if we can't agree on one or another. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Meh. I agree with Axem Titanium. Wikipedia is a non-commercial project built on non-commercial sources. We don't link to stores like Steam per WP:VENDOR. But I'm not saying the other external links are much better. Jontesta (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In case my opinion wasn't clear, Axem Titanium has the right idea. Just a small correction that Reiche and Ford developed the game as Toys for Bob. But it isn't crucial to link to the official developer, let alone a commercial link for an otherwise uninvolved entity. We don't lose anything by dropping all of the external links. Each entity already has an internal link, with a neutral summary of their involvement based on reliable third-party sources. It's odd to see the external links become a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and cutting them seems like a straightforward way to get everyone back to editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I could get behind a consensus that involved removing not just all the links discussed here but also all the existing external links except for the MobyGames link. I disagree that falls under WP:VENDOR but cleaning up the link spam would be a small step to improving the article quality. ERegion (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My opinion is that it's odd that adding back the official website link that was on this article for 4 years is so contentious. It shouldn't have been removed in the first place. If the consensus is that it shouldn't come back then what is the proposal for readers to actually go and get the subject game? This game is still being published and I can't think of a single quality article on Wikipedia where a game, book or movie that is currently being sold and distributed doesn't have an external link for readers to get. isn't Steam or GOG. How is this any different than The Hobbit having its eternal link to Harper Collins to get the book? EggsHam (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The official link to the developer site (Toys for Bob) has the longest history here, dating back to the mid-to-late 2000s. Re-adding that would at least make some sense. But Wikipedia isn't based on precedent, and there are many articles that don't link to any sales sites. This is especially true for older media where there was never an official website, or that site is discontinued. I don't care to keep re-treading the disagreement, unless the editors who instigated this dispute want to think of a new suggestion that could actually achieve a consensus. We've had additional editors suggest that we remove the external links section entirely, and that's close to what I suggested earlier. But changes require consensus, and if we don't have that, then it's time to move on. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There was an external link to Toys for Bob back before their template was added to the page which is a pretty big upgrade. Having both would be redundant.
    Also, you are the one who caused this in the first place by boldly removing the official website link in the first place and replacing it with a link to the Reiche blog. Now you act surprised that editors are trying to restore the official website link? Where was your care about consensus when you removed it? You didn't ask, you just did it and then claim it's a WP:BATTLEGROUND when someone tries to restore it?
    If we can't reach a consensus then yes, I think we'll have to just a remove the external links entirely. It'll be a first step to ensure the Star Control articles don't turn into an advertisement for Reiche's new game which seems to be what two of the editors here seem to be trying to do. As @Voidvector wrote, this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site organized around the story canon of the favorite entry in the series.
    Restoring the official website should have been non-controversial, it was part of the article for years and would improve the quality of the article. It'd let people see what the "subject says about itself" by being able to try out the game. It is the only way you can play the subject game legally. EggsHam (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again I am seeing someone accuse me of doing what they themselves are doing; trying to turn this article into an advertisement for Stardock's new series from decades later. My goal is for this article to be a WP:NPOV description of the 1990 game and for any information about new games to be at their respective articles. The bad faith WP:PERSONALATTACKS have not made consensus more likely and now I am troubled to see attempts at WP:CANVASSing instead of proposing solutions that can reach a consensus. Jorahm (talk) 00:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have a rather ugly habit of accusing others of what you are doing. I have witnessed you attacking @ERegion several times both here and in the DRN without cause.
Suggesting a link to is somehow particularly helpful to a different 5 year old game is a stretch compared to the more obvious reason: It's a link to get the game being discussed. You are the one who proposed creating a link to Pistol Shrimp which is a pretty flagrant advertisement that has no support and raises eyebrows on how you even know about that website let alone long deleted archived pages on the creators personal blog page from 5 years ago. That's a level of familiarity that is striking.
As others have mentioned, you don't know what a personal attack is. No one has attacked you. @Shooterwalker @ERegion @Axem Titanium have proposed possible solutions. If the choice is between the current set of external links and nothing then I would choose nothing. I am not sure why Eregion thinks Mobygames deserves a link but the other current links on the article do not belong here if the official website link doesn't make the cut. EggsHam (talk) 01:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am trying to link to the people who actually developed the game. You are trying to link to a store. To cap it all off you believe that the store is more important than the developers and need to actually remove relevant information while pushing your WP:POV. As odd as this content dispute has been you have also added personal attacks, WP:FORUMSHOPing, and WP:CANVASSing. None of this helps find a WP:CONSENSUS. In spite of that I have always been willing to look for a compromise and I believe that removing the external link section would at least provide an equal treatment with no possibility of promotional material. I sincerely hope that this would put an end to this dispute. Jorahm (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, my issue with this dispute has been mostly process. It's fine to disagree about content. It becomes WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior to try to edit war a link to Stardock's corporate presence instead of discussing it, or to attack and gaslight other editors, or to try to WP:CANVASS sympathetic editors from outside the current discussion. I am trying to WP:AGF that this behavior is due to two inexperienced editors who have very few Wikipedia edits outside of Stardock.
Dropping the external links is the common sense solution. That's why I proposed it before the DRN, let alone before the RFC. As I said before, an RFC makes consensus building harder, and this format doesn't generate common ground. Even as editors see the logic of removing the external link section, I have my doubts that anyone will refactor their !votes now that the RFC has gone this far. Either way, even a failed RFC is a type of closure. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hearing what neutral editors have to say is never a waste of time. It appears there is a consensus to remove the external links section. EggsHam (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's me. I'm a neutral editor.[80] Neutral editors have been here for a long time, building neutral articles.[81] As an editor with thousands of edits and several featured video game articles, it's so obvious that removing the external links would be a normal solution.[82] But after all your efforts to push a commercial link for Stardock, I am asking if your change of heart is sincere enough for you to refactor your !vote above. Otherwise this RFC will probably close exactly where it started. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would quibble your claim of neutral seeing as you keep framing this discussion about "pushing a commercial link to Stardock" when a more accurate description would be restoring the link that was on this article for almost half a decade for readers to download the game. The issue has nothing to do with Stardock. I'm not sure what benefit they even get with such a link. I see no one has taken me up on the suggestion we keep the MobyGames link. Therefore, in the interest of consensus and to move the article quality a tad forward, I vote that we remove the external links. ERegion (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think you're neutral. If someone told me you were a former disgruntled StarDock employee I would believe it.
There was never an edit war. I tried to restore the official link that you removed from the stable version of this article. @Jorahm reverted it with a dubious justification. @ERegion restored it and @Jorahm reverted it again and Eregion, not me, brought is to the noticeboard. Hardly an edit war.
Both you and Jorahm arrived here at the same time. As was already noticed your very first edit was to remove the official Star Control website link and replace it with a link to the DogarKazon blog. You then moved on to removing StarDock from the game's template. You never discussed any of that with the other editors maintaining the page.
You even accused the Star Control template maintainer at the time of being a StarDock agent, a recurring theme both you and Jorham seem to follow. Both of you begin accusations by saying you are assuming good faith which you obviously aren't. You "both" also make the same odd, specific, blatantly erroneous interpretations of Wikipedia policies.
So maybe you should focus on the content of what people write instead of resorting to making ugly implications given the glass house you "two" are throwing stones from.
It is also false to imply that my edits are StarDock oriented. Other than the Star Control article my edits don't involve them and I know relatively little about them other than their Star Control Origin game. The fact you implied otherwise is another example of your lack of objectivity.
Is @Robert McClenon still moderating? Who removes the external links section? EggsHam (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:EggsHam, User:ERegion, User:Jorahm - This is an RFC, which is an unmoderated discussion. I completed moderation when I started the RFC. If there is a rough consensus now to remove the External Links section, then my advice would be to start another RFC to ask whether to remove it. However, someone could boldly remove it. I don't recommend doing that until the RFC is closed, because the RFC is about the external links. The RFC will be ready for closure in a few days. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ERegion, you keep leaving out that I removed multiple self-published sites from this article. But you keep fixating on one external link to Stardock above more relevant links, even rallying against a link to the official developer that was here since the early 2000s. I've taken a neutral position that most self-published links have minimal value, which is why I said from the beginning we should remove the external link section. You say it's a neutral idea now, but it was always neutral when I first suggested it.
  • Eggsham's personal attacks are a terrible pattern, and have no substance to engage with. I will just note that my peers have recognized my thousands of contributions across Wikipedia through more than a decade,[83] most recently with Roberta Williams becoming featured on the front page a few weeks ago. I've never cared about displaying my awards, but I now see how they make it obvious which editors are here to contribute. Neither of you have contributed meaningfully to Wikipedia outside of this dispute. You both have to decide if you're here to collaborate, because other editors can plainly recognize a single purpose account.[84][85]
  • I'm going to ask one last time if you actually support the compromise proposal, and to show some good faith by refactoring your !votes above. Otherwise I'm going to do what you did, !vote, and move on. Other editors have no obligation to spend their time on endless discussion. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This circus needs to end. There is a consensus to remove all external links. When the RFC closes one of us can remove them. ERegion (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I strongly agree with that statement. I'm trusting that other editors are being honest, and this will actually put an end to their issues. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Star Control/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Panini! (talk · contribs) 04:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dibs. I'll look at it later. Panini! 🥪 04:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just stumbled upon the article and did some copy-editing. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 19:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alrighty, let's do this. I'm going to use red text for quotes from the article, and I'm doing this not to emphasize it's wrong, but rather because I like the color red.

  • MOS:LEADLENGTH recommends two to three paragraphs for an article this size (21k in prose), and I feel that's necessary here. This can be expanded with details of gameplay, development, details of critical consensus, and a touch on the aftermath. I'll wait to review this section until the lead is well-fed.
  • "The game offers different ships to pilot, which are deliberately imbalanced in ability." How so? And why is that?
  • "Match-ups between these ships have a major influence over combat." How so?
  • "Other sounds are sampled from science fiction film and television." Despite only being a sentence, I feel this would be better tacked onto a paragraph in development.
  • "as well as game's..." -> "as well as the game's..."
  • Ur-Quan should be linked as it first appears in "...the invading Ur-Quan Hierarchy"
Concept and origins
  • "Star Control is the first collaboration between Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford." Without explaining the significance of this it lacks purpose (maybe explain what they are known for).
  • "At this point, Reiche needed a programmer-engineer and Ford was seeking a designer-artist, so their mutual friends set up a gaming night to re-introduce them." I'm curious about "re-introduce". Have these two met before this?
  • The use of "asymmetric", in "where asymmetric combatants fight using different abilities in space", is vague.
  • "According to Ford, "StarCon is really just Archon with an S-T in front of it", pointing to the one-on-one combat and strategic modes of both games." I'm curious, then, was this going to be a spiritual successor to Archon or was this name-choice pure coincidence? Is this a detail that's worth mentioning?
Design and production
  • Is mentioning "VUX and Yehat" a necessary detail? If so, they need an introduction.
  • Is the SpaceWars! in "The first ship sketches were based on popular science fiction, such as SpaceWars!...", in reference to Spacewar!? If so, why the change? If not, can a hyperlink or some further context be given?
  • "Reiche describes their character creation process: 'I know it probably sounds weird, but when I design a game like this, I make drawings of the characters and stare at them. I hold little conversations with them. 'What do you guys do?' And they tell me.'" A comedic DYK can potentially come from this.
  • "They decided to organize the characters into nominally "good" and "bad" factions"
  • Are all of these factions common enemies to the Ur-Quan? There's a lot of details about plot here that are dismissed in gameplay, and I feel you can spare a paragraph or so to detail these characters a bit more.
Porting and compatibility
  • Spectrum links to the wrong place, unless they ported the game to rainbows, to which I send my praises to the porting team because that's super rad.
  • If this court case is so important, you can spare expanding this section with more details beyond a few sentences. I acknowledge where our one difference in writing style lies is focus on comprehensiveness, but to limit the court case of the game that started it all to a blurb is, in my interpretation, a WP:DUEWEIGHT issue.
  • A general statement like "Critics praised Star Control for its arcade combat, as well as its character designs, animations, and sound" could use some references. For broad overview statements like these, I only use them when there's enough review opinions to cite the statement and have some leftover that can be used for specific critic opinions.
  • Usually an award describes itself, like "Best Family Game", but I feel "Hyper Game Award" needs some help so the reader understands. I'd explain the reasoning a bit for why it won this award to help out the context (ex., I don't know, "The game won the "NOW That's What I Call Music!" award for its acclaimed soundtrack")
  • I feel less weight should be given to the reviewers scores in prose and more so their opinions. After all, all or the scores are all neatly organized to the right. That could just be me being heavily against citing reviewer scores in prose, though.
  • Wait, now the game has "unique humor" I was unaware of?! I gotta know more about this plot, man!
Reception (2)
  • To avoid super long chains of inline citations I split up the general statements to clarify who liked what. An extreme example: "The game was praised for its graphics,[1][1][1], setting,[1][1] and worldbuilding.[1][1][1]"
  • You seem to already have this format set up with "Several publications celebrated Star Control for its character designs, animations, and other artistic details", so you can cite the references behind each point instead of all six at the end, for example.
Legacy and impact
  • Is Sega-16 in relation to Sega? Is this a primary source praising their own licensed game?
  • Should Polygon be italicized?
  • There are two mentions of Sega-16 at the beginning and end of this section, and I recommend you combine them.
  • What do you mean by a "new Star Control 3"? Is it a suggested remaster or a sequel to the third game?

More coming. Panini! 🥪 19:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for all this. You've opened my eyes about a bunch of things. I usually think that a reader will use Wikipedia as a starting point, and dive deeper into the sources if they want more detail. But it becomes confusing if I leave out certain game details that the reviewers are reacting to, let alone that these are print reviews that might be hard to access. So I've tried to make the article more comprehensive, even just with a solid plot and character section. I've also soured on review scores, and I tried to get the review section to really explain what people liked about this game.
I think my other changes will clarify some of the good questions you had. I tried to explain more about the Sega v. Accolade case, which was important to society, but mostly a piece of trivia when it comes to this game. Most of the other fixes were simple enough. I dropped Sega-16 because WP:VGSOURCES hasn't received it well.
If any of the additions have added too much, I don't mind scaling back. I figure I can write a better lead once we are solid on everything else. Let me know how we're doing. All this feedback is super helpful. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Few quick replies:
  • Now that's a plot! It doesn't need to inline citations (the game is the source itself), so you can remove those if you choose to.
  • I was unaware that several games were the cause of the lawsuit, not just Star Control, but regardless, this expansion gives some nice due weight.
I'll re-review your new additions and the rest of the article in a bit, I just need to let my device charge. Thank you for your patience! Panini! 🥪 13:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That should be all from me!
  • Thanks again for the thorough review. I made a few more tweaks based on your feedback. I decided to keep the citations for the plot, just in case someone wants to distinguish between the manual vs. the game itself. I also left the review references bundled the same, but tried to clarify that there was one bundle about combat, and another bundle about art / character design. Let me know if that works for you. I should also do something about the lead, but wanted to make sure I handled the other details first. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, also, the game might benefit from a better screenshot of the character art.[86] It's kind of a shame that the only screenshot is from the critically panned Spectrum port, made by a separate team. The creators are pretty permissive with their copyright as long as it's not for profit. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you feel replacing the image is necessary I'm okay with it as well. I support the other changes a eagerly await the new and improved lead. Panini! 🥪 15:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for all the patience and feedback. I wanted to make sure the article was basically stable before re-writing the lead, and I think the article has closed the last few gaps to reach WP:GA. Let me know what you think. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good to me! I made a few hyperlink changes, but this article Passes the GA criteria. Good Job! Panini! 🥪 23:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

  • ... that Paul Reiche and Fred Ford created the 1990 space game Star Control by adapting the action-strategy gameplay from Reiche's 1983 game Archon into a science fiction setting? Source: "I wanna mention that, and it was obvious to us, because we intended it that way, but "Starchon" is really "Archon" with an S-T in front of it. "Archon" being a strategy game on top of a one-on-one combat game and that's what "Star Control I" was."[87]

"The first Star Control is actually somewhat similar in concept to one of Reiche III and Ford’s earlier games, Archon, in that it’s a strategy game where conflict is resolved via action-based one-on-one combat. (It could even be termed a spiritual successor, given that it’s even in the title – “StAR CONtrol”.)"[88]

Improved to Good Article status by Shooterwalker (talk). Self-nominated at 23:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol question.svg Excellent work improving the article to GA status. QPQ done. The only thing that needs to be adjusted is the ALT, which is not immediately enticing to somebody unfamiliar with the subject or its creators. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I'm open minded. I've done a few of these and I was starting to feel a little repetitive with "did you know that this was considered one of the best games because...?" I figured I would try to link it to another historic game, but I can see how that might be inaccessible to someone who isn't into games. Let me know what you think, and I'll come up with something either way. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very sorry for leaving you hanging, my friend. Let me jump back into this DYK tomorrow. Been slammed with work, but things are lightening up again. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Shooterwalker: The article itself is tip-top. I just think the hook is a little staid and wouldn't be rewarding for readers unfamiliar with the subject. I would offer my own ALTs, but don't want to disqualify myself as reviewer by doing so. That said, there is a lot of material in this article that could be mined for appealing ALTs. For example, this passage alone seems like it could generate two very effective ALTs: "When they saw that the Syreen ship resembled a cross between a rocket ship and a ribbed condom, Fred Ford suggested calling it the Syreen Penetrator, which coincidentally happened moments before the 1989 San Francisco Earthquake." —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for being MIA again. Was out of town, then got caught up in other articles I've been working on. Your revised ALT is better, but it still needs a bit of work. I would trim down the overlinking of well-known things and maybe remove the reference to the Loma Prieta quake. Ideally the ALT would focus either on the unusual appearance of the starship or the timing of its naming, but not both as it might be a bit much. Feel free to ping me. I'll be able to respond in a timelier fashion now that I have more time. :) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ALT2 ... that the creators of the 1990 space game Star Control designed a starship for an all-female alien race, naming it the Penetrator for its resemblance to a ribbed condom?
ALT3 ... that the creators of the 1990 space game Star Control named a starship the Penetrator for its resemblance to a ribbed condom, moments before the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake?
@CurryTime7-24: Having trouble deciding so I gave each one a try. Let me know what you think. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol confirmed.svg @Shooterwalker: Both ALTs are wonderful! Thank you for your patience with me and for your excellent work. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol possible vote.svg This needs more work, as I've checked the sources cited in the article, and they do not exactly verify the specific claims made in ALT2 and ALT3 (and in the sentences where they are cited in the article). Pinging CurryTime7-24. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]