Talk:Ur-Quan

Would it be prudent to break out the parts of this article about the Dnyarri Slave Revolt and the Doctrinal Conflict, and put the information in their own articles?

Is there any more thought on this argument. Granted I got into this wiki kind of late and lately it's been real quiet around here, but I've been looking for ways to help. Looking at the most wanted pages, the top two are for the Dnyarri Slave Empire and the Ur-Quan Salve Revolt, two sections within this article. Would it be better to change all those links to direct to the sections of this article or to create the two new articles, trim the information here, and include a See also? So admins, what's the rule on situations like this? Fyzixfighter 23:12, 8 Sep 2005 (CEST)

There are no real rules. Some guidelines I'd like to propose:

• Put stuff where it is relevant. If it is relevant to multiple pages, and the text is more than a few lines long, it warrants a separate page.
• If a topic is very long, it warrants its own page.
• Make redirect pages for topics that are handled inside another page, and link to the redirect page. That way, it will remain easy to link, and there would be no need to change the links if it is decided to give a subject a separate page lateron.

— SvdB 18:22, 10 Sep 2005 (CEST)

sidebar

Excellent work on the sidebar, mmrn.. mrmmnhrmm... m- oh forget it. Good job, though. Do you think it should be copied into its constituent articles, or just left on the main ur-quan article? Either way, there should be a link back to the main ur-quan article from every 'child' page. -Fadookie 04:53, 26 Oct 2004 (CEST)

Ok, there is now the template UrQuanNav which can easily be stuck into any Ur-Quan related page. It was a bit of a hack to get it to nest with existing graphics (like on the Dreadnought, Marauder, and Sa-Matra pages), but it works and I don't know of a more correct way of doing it. Mmrnmhrm 15:59, 26 Oct 2004 (CEST)

Other uses of "Ur-Quan"

I've added a message at the top refering to other uses for "Ur-Quan". I know there's an entire paragraph about this a bit further below, but (in Wikipedia style) such a message should be brief and at the top of the page, to redirect people getting to this page looking for another use of the term (Ur-Quan refering to only the Kzer-Za probably). I didn't go as far as deleting that paragraph, but it does need some attention now. - SvdB 04:32, 18 Apr 2005 (CEST)

Neither the original article nor my expanded version is solely about the "Brown" (pre-genetic engineering) Ur-Quan; both cover aspects of the Ur-Quan species as a whole before and after that, while leaving aside specific details about the Kzer-Za and Kohr-Ah (and I don't think it'd be good to make the article have an arbitrary cut-off in the timeline after the creation of the two castes, as the later information legitimately applies to all Ur-Quan). I amended the redirect section to reflect this.

"Though Ur-Quan reproduce sexually and are divided into male and female sexes, they lack traits of sexual dimorphism almost completely, with males and females being socially and physically almost identical."

What is this statement based on? One picture from the game?

213.234.246.146 23:21, 30 May 2005 (CEST)

Sounds like fan fiction. Nothing which belongs in the Ultronomicon. - SvdB 00:31, 31 May 2005 (CEST)

No, actually, the Melnorme repeatedly refer to the Ur-Quan as "it" -- they use that pronoun for Kzer-Za and for the first Ur-Quan to discover a Dnyarri -- while the UQKZ captain refers to the UQKA Primat as "she" and to Kzer-Za as "he", even though *all* Ur-Quan captains have a masculine voice when heard through the Talking Pets.

It's something that should at least be noted. Reverting.

---

First, the Ur-Quan Kzer-Za never refer to Kzer-Za as a he. Only by name, no pronouns. Second, yes, the Melnorme use "it" more than once. The resource guide does the same thing, again using "it" to refer to Kzer-Za. And that is all we know for a fact.

Perhaps there's just one huge Kzer-Za queen (or a few), and the rest are all neuter drones, in a bee-like hive structure. Perhaps some Ur-Quan are/were being castrated and called "it" for that reason. Perhaps there are three (or more) sexes, one of them being refered to as "it". Perhaps Kzer-Za is just being refered to as "it" because its sex isn't known by the people who speak about it. Perhaps the reason for a male voice is that we only meet the males. Perhaps all Talking Pets sound what we consider masculine. Perhaps it should just be considered a simplificatioon gameplay-wise (like the player seeming to meet the same captains over and over again). And why would the Ur-Quan care enough about sounding authoritive to specifically adapt to humans? And male gender connoting dominance... we're talking 150 years in the future.

The Ur-Quan reproducing sexually? Speculation.
The Ur-Quan being divided into male and female sexes? Speculation.
Lack of sexual dimorphism? Speculation.
Some scholars prefering "it" because of this? Fan fiction.
Greenish being a scholar? Fan fiction.
No gender identity or gender roles attached to biological sex? Speculation
The Ur-Quan using male voices and a "masculine identity" to show dominance? Fan fiction.

Utter, utter crap. Re-reverting. I will grant you that something should be mentioned about "it" being used. I'll spend a few lines on that.

--- SvdB 05:06, 2 Jun 2005 (CEST)

Ur-Quan territoriality

I've heard that the Ur-Quan are so territorial that the only Ur-Quan on any Dreadnought or Marauder is the captain. Could anyone confirm or deny this?

From the SC2 manual (PC version):

"Ur-Quan are extremely territorial and aggressive, having evolved as non-social, hunter-killers. Their territorial instincts are so strong that only one Ur-Quan is present on each Dreadnought. When Ur-Quan meet, they keep several meters between themselves, lest their instincts drive them to engage in an unarmed battle to the death."

Whether the same is true on the Marauders is unknown, but I do remember seeing some debate about it over on the forums. --Fyzixfighter 02:57, 21 March 2007 (CET)

Thanks, Fyz. I'll put this up on the page.

Dubious parts?

What are the unwarranted claims for which the dubious tag was added? --Fyzixfighter 19:16, 28 April 2007 (CEST)

Well, rather than pointing them, I'll simply remove them. I'm starting. Valaggar 19:49, 28 April 2007 (CEST)

I must admit that I haven't read many pages like this, with very long pieces of text. But going through a few paragraphs shows me that there is a lot here of which I don't know from where it came. An example:

They were characterized by an exoskeletal body plan [says who?] that, like a caterpillar's, had a tough skin [says who?], covered with brown, furry extensions [says who?], rather than a true shell [like Earth caterpillars?], as a covering.

Adapted to live by clinging to the upper canopy of dense rainforests [rainforests? says who?], they have long, multisegmented bodies with a pair of legs attached to each segment [says who?]; the legs on the posterior section of their bodies are adapted [says who?] for maintaining a constant grip [says who?] on tree branches [treebranches? says who?] and crawling about from branch to branch [says who?], while the anterior legs are longer [says who?] and can function as grippers and manipulators [says who?]. The Ur-Quan typically hunted by hanging their long anterior section down from the canopy while their posterior section maintained its hold on the canopy, allowing them to swoop down and catch prey [big "says who?"].

Maybe I missed some of the references, but I suspect that if all of the made up stuff in this page is gone, it would also be a lot more accessible, just because of the length. — SvdB 02:13, 29 April 2007 (CEST)

Looks like another wonderful fact-checking romp through the canon. By looking at the article history, it appears that most of this stuff was added by an editor known for embellishing and extrapolating. Oh, and please don't take my original question as doubting that any information was dubious - it's just that I hate trying to guess what another editor was looking at when they put the dubious tag on. Though do be careful in the trimming - I'd reccommend doing it a section at a time, that way it's easier for others to double-check that non-dubious material isn't removed. --Fyzixfighter 03:42, 29 April 2007 (CEST)