Talk:StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty/Archive 3

message: Because honestly, if you think Starcraft II is gonna be played other by Keyboard and Mouse on a PC. Everyone knows its gonna be Mouse/Keyboard so why do you keep throwing stuff down? There not gonna confirm mouse and keyboard because they know people are not that stupid!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ripster40 (talk • contribs) 16:33, June 1, 2007
:Please don't call other editors "stupid."  And also familiarize yourself with one of our core policies that requires that contributions to Wikipedia be supported by verifiable and reputable sources.  --ElKevbo 21:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe part of their super-amazing new game is a revolutionary RTS controller that breaks paradigms and causes metric-shattering synergies in emergent gameplay environments! (Seriously, though, yes it should be removed until it's sourced). --Haemo 22:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you fucking serious? Are we actually looking for a verifiable source that a PC game is going to be played with a keyboard and mouse? What the fuck has this website turned into? bob rulz 07:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An encyclopedia?  I'm just saying that we have no idea what they could have up their sleeves - I don't want yet another example of Wikipedia being misled on something like this because we decided that original research was okay, all of a sudden. --Haemo 07:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Every article that is controversial or "hot topic" needs citations for most of the content. Oidia 09:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Battle for Middle Earth, and Command and Conquer 3 do. Oldag07 16:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do what? --Scottie_theNerd 16:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: OK guys please stop this. Iam not sure what you getting it on. SC2 is an RTS game where we control by Keyboard and mouse not by joystick or touchscreen(maybe in future). --SkyWalker 16:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't put words in my mouth, I didn't call anyone stupid. I was questioning there mentality as human beings. It isn't that big of a deal, its just input. We all knows its Keyboard/Mouse and it will be, just saying "Oh wee need source and a verification" is just plain ignorant.Ripster40 18:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?  Aren't attribution and verifiability core Wikipedia guidelines?  I mean, I'm not saying that it's unlikely or something, but I would go ahead and add them tentatively.  Sometimes, Ignoring all rules is the way to go. --Haemo 21:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're making way too much of a deal of this, Haemo. I'd just leave it there and if it changes when the game is released, we'll change it accordingly. --Scottie_theNerd 03:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no - I agree; we should retain it; though it's not currently verified, I feel that it's trivial to assert that it will be in the game, and so we should just do it --Haemo 03:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Isn't "questioning their mentality as human beings" worse than calling them stupid? But really, how can you play a PC RTS game with a joystick or a Wii controler?DARK 15:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Sources are needed because people assert things with certainty all the time, yet most of them are just guessing/assuming.  Common sense/common knowledge is often proven to be false (though certainly not all the time).  It's not about being strict, it's about being accurate.  If you'd really like to contribute to this article, take the time to research your point.  I think you, the wannabe contributors, need to do something to set yourself apart from the rabid legions of Starcraft followers seeking to gossip about the upcoming sequel.  BTW, I'm aware that, despite my argument, I didn't link a single source ;) Khono 07:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, it's not really worthwhile info, is it? JMalky 15:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It happens :). I think people do need reliable sources if starcraft 2 is going to be played by keyboard and mouse or other devices. Maybe we all should wait for blizzard comments. :D. --SkyWalker 15:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's really this many people who think it does need a reliable source for some insane reason, then I agree with the anon above....it should just be removed. bob rulz 03:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: agrees, i actually played it on a N64 system, and later on the emulators. My god the graphics sucked, and there is no way you can micro with a joystick! So everyone take a chill pill, and use you common sense. RTS for PC = Keyboard + Mouse NeoDeGenero 13:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are people seriously that strict and or just dumb? 

message: Okay, whoever just archived this page did a really hasty job of it.  It is not appropriate to archive on-going discussion - even the fastest moving pages on the encyclopedia, like WP:AN/I don't archive unless there's been no discussion in a given section for more than 24 hours.  Since this page isn't even remotely as fast as those, I'd suggest only archiving content that hasn't been replied to every 7 days, at the earliest.  --Haemo 21:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The archive just sliced off everything other than the last topic, even though a few topics before it had more recent posts. --Scottie_theNerd 03:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I archived. Just start a new discussions.  --SkyWalker 07:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But now all the the context, and ongoing discussions are gone.  In the future, just refrain from doing such a mass move like that, without some of them expiring.  --Haemo 07:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not gone. Start a new discussion and don't make a big deal of it and also the page was getting way to long. --SkyWalker 07:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is, ongoing discussion were terminated - now, new users to this page will not see them, and will not be able to add their input.  All I'm really saying is to respect archival standards next time, and allow at least a day to progress between the last post, and archiving them.  --Haemo 07:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I was about to point out WP:ARCHIVE, but Haemo was always a step ahead =(. Seriously though, that was a careless cut/paste archive. "Start new discussions" is bollocks when there was nothing wrong with the existing discussions. If you're going to archive, at least fulfill the purpose of archives and snip off the topics that are actually dead. --Scottie_theNerd 07:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Iam sorry for the last comment. Anyways thank you for explaining. I wanted to archive because it was getting way to long. I stand corrected :).--SkyWalker 07:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough. I thought it the Talk page was due in for an archiving, but I was surprised to see the Infoceptor debate happening yesterday among others was snipped as well. --Scottie_theNerd 08:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think 3-5 days of inactivity is a good standard for a page that moves at this speed.  We should also re-factor the archives to be by month, if we opt to do it that way.  --Haemo 21:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, see below, I couldn't find the infoceptor debate! And that one isn't over by any stretch of the imagination. JMalky 15:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: Here's the current version:
Starcraft 2 will introduce a few fundamental modifications to gameplay mechanics. The first is the idea of hybrid units, units which count as both ground and air units for the purposes of determining which enemies can hit it. For example, the Protoss Colossus, a tall land unit, can be hit by Missile Turrets and other weapons reserved normally only for airborne opponents.. The second is the fact that some units feature separate anti-air and anti-ground weapons that do not share cooldown. For example, the Terran Battlecruiser can attack a single ground and air unit simultaneously.  
Notice the repeated statements of these inferences as "facts" - something which is total guesswork.  I'd propose a version that goes along the lines of something like:
Some fansites, such as Infoceptor, have asserted that Starcraft II  will introduce "hybrid" units which count as both ground and air units for the purposes of determining which enemies can hit it. For example, the Protoss Colossus, a tall land unit, was observed to be hit by Missile Turrets and other weapons reserved normally only for airborne opponents..  They also state that some units feature separate anti-air and anti-ground weapons that do not share cooldown. For example, the Terran Battlecruiser was observed to attack a single ground and air unit simultaneously.
This is if we have to include this - I'd be much more happy just removing the whole damn thing, since Wikipedia is not a fansite nor are we a crystal ball.   I'd also like some more citations for this, so it's not just a transparent plug for Infoceptor.  --Haemo 08:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good re-write but yes, I'd also be in favour of removing the section altogether. Apart from including worthy/cite-able information, I think the article needs to be written in a manner that makes sense to everyone and anyone (I'm sure there's a Wikipedia guideline to that effect but I don't know what it is). This info just seems a little technical, and not appropriate for this particular page. JMalky 09:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the language is appropriate. It's not technical enough to alienate the general reader, and it's relevant enough to be understood in general terms. --Scottie_theNerd 09:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, ok, it's not that bad, but I was making a general point more than anything. Yesterday I saw that someone had written the sentence The Zerg Zergling can now mutate into the Zerg Baneling on the page. Which doesn't actually make much sense unless you have prior knowledge of the game. And what about terms like 'cooldown'? That's pretty technical.JMalky 09:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that's great, I'm going to be bold and paste it into the article because the edit war is really starting to get on my nerves. JMalky 12:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-writing the section

message: Isn't the sentence It has not been announced that these will be the only races in the game, but greatly implied a little misleading? I know that the Blizzard website hasn't said for certain that there won't be a fourth race, but articles such as this one at MSNBC do explicitly state that there won't. JMalky 09:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that's been cleared up. Cheers. JMalky 15:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fourth Race

message: Hey guys, I was fiddling around on the personal art pages of some of the Blizz Concept artists and found some info on a possible 4th race. I am thinking that perhaps Blizz will make them non-playable, such as the Demons from Warcraft III. I've seen this before with War III, as it seems that Blizz artists don't always keep track of which art is sensitive to release dates, etc.
Here is a link to the SC part of the artist Raneman. The creature seems to be some sort of Protoss/Terran Hybrid called FirstBorn. You have to go forward a few images before it comes up. Im sort of a newbie at editing the page so i'll let ya'll handle that.
http://www.sonsofthestorm.com/viewer_raneman.php?cat=starcraft&art=50&sub=49  A (to the) J 72.130.183.64 08:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're half right.  http://www.amazon.com/StarCraft-Dark-Templar-Firstborn-Saga/dp/0743471253 What you were seeing was the cover art for a novel called FirstBorn where a human archeologist who became "bonded to the spirit of the dead Protoss, [he becomes] the sole inheritor of the protoss's total history -- every event, every thought -- every feeling." - Not directly related to StarCraft II. MrZaiustalk 00:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Oops good call. Thanks for the kind smack down 72.130.183.64 02:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New info on a Possible 4th (Non-Playable Race) 

message: In the same order as the article.
*Avoid gaming jargon. Especially in the lead, remove all jargon like "pre-alpha", and do not just mention terms like "all three races" without explaining.
*The gameplay section is unreadable for one who has not played SC 1. Personally I am very familiar with the RTS genre, and not just with one franchise. The amount of unknown names and terms with unknown context in this article is bad. Avoid naming units as much as possible. Do not use unneeded examples that add no value. When stating "iconic units" adding the example of the Zealot will only have value to those who played the original. And those people will already know that the Zealot is an iconic unit.
*Some sentences in Gameplay are written in an in universe style. Remove that. Example: "Following the Zerg infestation of Aiur..."
*The focus is entirely on units. Units are just a part of the game. Will Blizzard introduce any new concepts, is the interface and UI made better and what totally new systems will the player be able to use? Reduce the information about units to two paragraphs at most. This is information that is more suited to fan sites or -wikis.
*Story and Technical features are stubs. Do not make stub sections - add information that is too short for it's own section to the lead, or merge with another section.
*Explain the jargon in technical features. Not everyone knows what DirectX is (an application framework), and not everyone knows why debris rolling down a ramp is so special in this context.
*Organize the navigation templates at the bottom so that only one is open at the time, and they all start closed. There is a special switch for this in the nav frame code. See for example Germany. Done --Haemo 00:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I fixed most of these - I think we'll wait a little while, before writing more and looking at it again.  --Haemo 01:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers for that Haemo. It's a real improvement! JMalky 09:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree with removing the term pre-alpha. This is a very important piece of information relating to the current state of the game. It is not even a gaming term...its listed in the Software release life cycle article. For people that don't know what it means, they can just go to the (hyperlinked) article. There are plenty of words in articles that I have to look up because they are not obvious to me, but they provide information that would otherwise not be there. If you insist on taking it out, at least write 'work in progress' or 'subject to change' or 'nothing is final' or something along those lines. j 06:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:VG]] Assessment 

message: It's not really vital to list the Marine's shield as an upgrade is it? One can also assume that the Zealot's charge and the Baneling morph are upgrades too. So for simplicities sake, perhaps it could be left out? At any rate, that section needs a good solid re-write, as per the above. JMalky 20:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Marine's Shield as Upgrade

message: When you search for Starcraft 2 on Google, the wikipedia link that comes up says Starcraft 2 Information links, search STARCRAFT 2 IS GOING TO SUCK BALLS. Can Some one fix this, dunno how.
24.124.49.158 00:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No - we'll just have to wait until Google trawls this again.  --Haemo 01:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Search 

message: The correct version of the trimming not only removes proper references, but is just plain inccorect. The ability to hit and land air is not reserved for 'powerful' units. For example, Protoss Stalkers cost 2 supply, are far from power, and can hit land and air simultaneously. Niether is the ability to teleport to the radius of certain buildings a unit ability, since it is an ability facilated by the Protoss gateway that is available to a wide variety of units. Please do not heedlessly trim a paragraph to the point where it is simply inccrrect. --Ceptyrn 04:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not stated that this ability is reserved solely for "powerful" units - rather, that powerful units boast this ability.  --Haemo 05:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Any sentence that starts with "Some fansites" = NO. --Krator, VG Assessor above 07:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree - but it seems that most people will fight tooth and nail to keep this material in the article.  I've continually argued that Infoceptor is not a reliable source, and none of this should be included, but I'm just one person - and it doesn't appear people are willing to compromise on this.  --Haemo 07:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Trimming 

message: I guess we need to settle this once and for all, since it's adversely affecting the quality of the article under the WP:VG standards.  So, here's a role-call I guess:
*No - remove them all.  Infoceptor is not a reliable source, and the standard of Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.  The assertions they make could be 100% true, but they are still not acceptable for inclusion in an encyclopedia.  I would like to see them removed until there is confirmation for a reliable source.  --Haemo 07:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The last time I suggested this, I was flatly told that it was "just me" who thought the inclusion was inappropriate, and that I should yield to consensus.  --Haemo 20:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry too much about it, its been all removed. —Floria L 20:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So I saw - nice work on the re-write, etc.  --Haemo 20:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That's...pretty much the point? --Scottie_theNerd 10:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Its already speculation, and doesn't seem like the infoceptor things such as "fansites assert ..etc..." will stay. I've taken care of them and removed them for now. Floria L 18:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Should the Infoceptor links, and material be included?

message: Is anyone going to mention that the game has changed platforms and even MOs several times? Mark321123 16:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you maybe thinking of Starcraft: Ghost? JMalky 16:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development 

message: :Image:Starcraft II screenshot.jpg had its commentary, fair use claim, and associated templates removed 29 May without anyone here noticing until today. Could a couple of people add the image page to the watchlist and keep tabs on it to prevent a repeated of this incident? TomStar81 (Talk) 00:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've watchlisted it.  --Haemo 00:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Screenshot Vandalism

message: I extracted all the unit info i could from the video and from blizzards features pages on starcraft.com.  I didn't post it correctly the first time, and i'm wondering, what should i do with it.
Sample
 
====Protoss====
Zealot 
Protoss Infantry that uses Melee weapons to fight enemies.  Has a "charge" ability that allows them to quickly move for a brief period of time, allowing rapid advancement on troops.  Shown to be effective against terran marines on open ground, by using their "charge ability" to close the gap between the units.  Vulnerable to cliffs, as demonstrated by their failure to destroy seige tanks on one.
Sample end
Is this information of high enough quality to be used?  If so, should this be put on a new page (starcraft II: Units), or put on the units section of the current article.  Opinions are welcome.
I don't know where i can put more info then i did already.  This talk page would get quite long.
MikedaSnipe 06:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Informative, but not encyclopedic. See WP:NOT#FAQ. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk   06:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The article already contains a brief overview of units revealed thus far, also using Blizzard's site as references. There should not be an article dedicated to StarCraft II units as the information is not encyclopedic. --Scottie_theNerd 06:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd just like to apologize for accidentally marking one of your edits as vandalism - I hit the wrong button.  Sorry!  --Haemo 09:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unit info

message: Zealot 
Protoss Infantry that uses Melee weapons to fight enemies.  Has a "charge" ability that allows them to quickly move for a brief period of time, allowing rapid advancement on troops.  Shown to be effective against terran marines on open ground, by using their "charge ability" to close the gap between the units.  Vulnerable to cliffs, as demonstrated by their failure to destroy seige tanks on one.
Sample end
Is this information of high enough quality to be used?  If so, should this be put on a new page (starcraft II: Units), or put on the units section of the current article.  Opinions are welcome.
I don't know where i can put more info then i did already.  This talk page would get quite long.
MikedaSnipe 06:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Informative, but not encyclopedic. See WP:NOT#FAQ. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk   06:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The article already contains a brief overview of units revealed thus far, also using Blizzard's site as references. There should not be an article dedicated to StarCraft II units as the information is not encyclopedic. --Scottie_theNerd 06:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd just like to apologize for accidentally marking one of your edits as vandalism - I hit the wrong button.  Sorry!  --Haemo 09:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protoss

message: I was searching some old revisions of this article, and the lack of the information describing each new revealed unit in the current revision doesn't seem right.  I say this information should  be reinstated.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shimdidly (talk • contribs) 03:57, June 13, 2007
:You should look at the archived discussion pages. jay 03:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because, boy howdy, have we pretty much unanimously rejected this -- as have guidelines per WikiProject Videogames.  --Haemo 04:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of revealed units should be readded