Talk:Protoss

message: What source was used for the biology section?  I don't remember Blizzard ever saying how the Protoss reproduced.--Kross 07:16, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
Well it must be sexual as there are male and female protoss.
:I don't see why anyone cares. It's unimportant. I'm sure a lot of people would like to know how the protoss reproduce, but that's just a lot of people having dirty and/or inquisitive minds... it's largely irrelevant.backstabb 18:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: This section is far too simplistic. It should either be improved or eliminated. ShardPhoenix 08:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strategy Section 

message: How do you know that Protoss has blood? I have always thought Protoss is made up of something like "psionic pulse" encased in a physical body, and once this physical body is gone, the "psionic pulse" is released. --Ryz05 01:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protoss Physiology 

message: The Protoss do not have mouths or noses. Some think Artanis may have a mouth, but it is actually just the lighting/shading in his portrait and the way he moves his head. They consume energy by absorbing Khaydarin Crystals, this is why they require pylons and why some refer to pylons as a source of "food". I also believe they have holes somewhere on their body, (although I don't remember where) this is how they breath. Has anyone else noticed the Covenant Elite/Protoss similarities? i would like to point out that protoss get energy from moonlight/sunlight they do not need Crystals 2. there is very few similarities between Elites and protoss... for one Elites can ( and NEED to ) eat and drink protoss need water and get it threw pores 
The protoss may breath by way of diffusion across the skin, as amphibians do.
The protoss must have once had mouths, as they have a visible jaw bone. But they can still somehow communicate verbally, bobing and moving their heads as they do so.
They almost certainly had mouths originally. Besides the jaw bone, the game manual, when describing their history, describes them as having developed a 'society based upon group-hunting and warrior rule.' Hunting would be irrelevant if all they did was 'suck up' psi energy. 
They may actually still have them (although they may be a very small detail just below the jawline). The manual merely describes the Xel'Naga as guiding them subtly to a state of high cultural development; it doesn't actually describe them performing massive genetic engineering along the lines of turning the Protoss from a species based on a normal metabolism to some kind of psi-based entities.
Guardsman Bass 18:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhh, they don't look like they have mouths to me. It's debatable at best.
I'm for “no mouth,” too. And no nose either. Or maybe they can hold their breath real long on those space missions. As for Aldaris, I assume this is just really interesting pigmentation. --MushroomCloud 01:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biology 

message: Regarding the carrier/arbiter attack combination:
This method of attack was popularized by a player known on Battle.net as Sephiroth101
Does anyone have a cite for this?  I don't know if it's true or not, but it seems to me like it could very possibly be an edit done by Sephiroth101.
My vote is to remove it.  Bugg42 08:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter even if it were true, there are no vanity edits allowed on Wikipedia. It has to be removed, vote or no. Let me revise my statement: It matters only if it positively contributes to the integrity and relevence of the article. If it is going to be easily disputed or not easily backed-up or agreed upon, it should probably not be added. Eluchil 08:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What, did Sephiroth101 also invent the reaver drop? 

message: Give me a break! Is there some sort of new vendetta ongoing against what some people perceive to be fancruft again? Mentioning the things that were just deleted are essential to the understanding of the game and the species. Deleting it is pure nonsense. It's ridiculous. Perhaps some of the more specific game information should be cut out and the descriptions trimmed down, but deleting it outright is ridiculous. bob rulz 02:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be more specific: what "things" exactly are you referring to?--Chodorkovskiy (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, that's the main section I was talking about. However, I've already taken the issue up with the user in question after he deleted relevant information in another article (don't remember his name...but we reached a compromise on it). bob rulz 13:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Give me a break!

message: are you kidding?
i used to go for carriers and bought 2 or 3 scouts and theyd quickly die, but trust me, forget about carriers and pump out scouts (saves lots of upgrade cost as well), if you have a full squadron of scouts (12, or 11 and an arbiter) they will kick ass big time. nothing in the air is so strong and fast as a group of scouts, theyll win all air skirmishes and can be flown all around the map, giving great advantages, almost dictating from the air. its expensive but worth it. the point being, that you cant distinguish one scout from the other, and damage gets devided over the different scouts, and because there are lots of them, there are lots of shields simultaniously regenerating (rate of regen is fixed for all units, same as zerg regen and why the zerglings are fully regenerated in seconds). and if they would take too heavy a damage all their shields would be gone they can easely be flown off. no-one uses scouts as scouts, ironically, there too expensive and vulnerable alone, if you want a scout you use the much faster and cheaper corsair, or simply the observer.--Lygophile 08:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue is entirely irrelevant, but mass scouts is actually pretty effective. Only devourers and goliaths can really take them on. Or mass hydralisks, since they suck against ground. bob rulz 02:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Either way Carriers are by far the most senseless waist of resources. Even their weaponry (interceptors) is costly and vulnerable making them necessary only in occasions that long range aerial assault is required and even there they are not that effective (like breaking a fortification of spore colonies) since the interceptors will fall one after other leaving the slow Carriers completely prone. Additionally the initiate of blizzard to increase the interceptors' shield and hip points from 20/30 to 40/40 did not make any serious change while the increase of armor to Carriers themselves may had increases slightly their survivability but gave no advantage since once a protoss unit starts taking HP damage cannot be repaired. The Carrier is supposed to be the protoss equivalent for Battlecruiser (as regarding cost, technology tree and supply requirements) but any compare between the two units would sound as a joke.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.69.25.113 (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  scouts 

message: i posted a comment about this in the zerg talk page, but i have recieved no responce there, so i thought i might write something here. i have also left a comment on the starcraft talk page.
i know that all the unit articles have been removed, and this is something i agree with, what i don't argee with is the short changing of the zerg article, or the favitorism bestowed on the terran and protoss articles. why is it that the units section of the zerg page, not individual articals just their section on the page, has been removed and all attempts at bringing the zerg page to a state of equality with the protoss and terran pages are imidiatly quashed, while the other race pages are allowed to retain their units section. these sections have a very game guide feel to them and i for one cannot see why they remain on those pages when the zerg unit section does not. by allowing these two pages to have the mentioned sections but not allowing the zerg page to have such makes the zerg page seem unfinished and shabby. i move for the removale of those unit sections or for the readdition of the zerg unit section, with the greater emphasis on the removale of said sections.
--Manwithbrisk 20:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrm. I don't know why, but I'm on the job (starting now, I guess). Zeratul En Taro Adun!So be it. 01:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  equality among race pages 

message: I removed the Predator reference; there seems to be no reason to link to the Predator page. what's the link? They're both tchnologically advanced alien races?
If anyone adds it back, please elaborate on the reason the link is necessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StarManta (talk • contribs) 03:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Predator reference 

message: Anyone else here notice a connection between Protoss society and Plato's Republic?  I mean, you have the 'golds', or the Judicators which command the Templars and govern the society.  The Templars take the place of the 'silver' group, the warriors and soldier who's job it is to protect the society and enforce the law of their superiors (also the idea of the High Templars ascending from the ranks of Templars after maturing, similar to the fact that all members of Plato's 'gold' class were drawn from the 'silver').  Finally, there are the 'bronze/iron' class, the Khalai, the peasants and artisans.  Just a thought.
:It totally does:) It's probably just a coincidence, but it's still great. The only thing that doesn't fit to the Republic in the Protoss society is the way people get into the above mentioned three groups (philosophers, warriors, peasants)- while in the Republic, all children have a common education which sorts them to the groups according to their abilities and dispositions, the Protoss society, on the other hand, was divided into tribes, which themselves were sorted out to the three castes (Judicators, Templars, Khalai)on the eve of Khala's creation by Khas himself, again according to their abilites and dispositions (which raises an interesting question - with Xel'naga having tampered with Protoss evolution and having a hand in the shaping of their society before the Aeon of Strife, is it possible that each tribe having special disposition was their doing? Perhaps with the goal of shaping their society more or less in the way it eventually unfolded anyway?). Honestly, it is with this in mind that I'm kinda disapppointed in the way the Protoss society was portrayed after the Fall of Aiur (with Daelaam, Hierarchy and all that jazz). There's just not much thought put behind it, and that kinda sucks. Also, as a side NOTE, it really pissed me of what SPOILERS ALERT was done with the Khala at the end of the LOTV - it was such a huge part of Protoss race, and they just chucked it away. The LOTV was still OK though. 
SPOILER ALERT END  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrastislav (talk • contribs) 17:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're alluding to the fact that the Protoss social structure resembles that of an ancient Western civilization (such as the Romans). There is some basis to this, such as the Dragoon being a Protoss riding (in this case, encased) inside a four-legged mechanical unit, and the Templar in reference to ther term meaning "medieval Christian military order". I see what you're thinking. --Animeronin 08:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republic... 

message: Should we add a Trivia section that states that the Protoss Stalker's Blink is very much the same (if not similar) to the Blink the Warden uses in WarCraft III - The Frozen Throne?
:Aiur is the only Starcraft planet with confirmed provinces, those being Antioch and Scion.
:Korhal's captial city is Augusgrad... Oidia 01:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia Section 

message: What the heck Mate, there is no difference of male and female between Protoss. That's just gay. Haven't they got penis or vagina????????
:I deem this issue rather irrelevent. --Animeronin 08:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also deem it stupid. bob rulz 02:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the heck... 

message: Dungeons & Dragons was the front page featured article yesterday. Chess was the front page article once a few years ago. Both have featured status. Both have great sections on gameplay / strategy & tactics, and branch-off articles focusing more closely on the same, that are good models to use in adding the needed gameplay/strategy/tactics information to this article on the Protoss. Emulating the kind of material from those featured pages should alleviate concerns about the Protoss page degrading into an "unencyclopedic gaming guide" type document. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 22:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chess and Dungeons & Dragons articles good models for gameplay/strategy sections 

message: I'm thinking how we should add starcraft 2 strategy to this article.
1. Have one section on Starcraft, then a completely new section on Starcraft 2.
2. Have both strategies mixed into one "gameplay" section. Good friend100 23:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strategy should not be added because Wikipedia is not a game guide (see WP:NOT#GUIDE). Any mentioning should at best be superficial. (e.g. protoss units are high-tech, tough, and expensive.) --Voidvector 12:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the comments above - is there any reason why the goal should not be something very analogous to the strategy/gameplay guides in the Featured Articles on chess and Dungeons & Dragons, as exemplars of providing needed information without decending into "game guide" material? - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 14:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You might want to post that question on a policy talk page somewhere as I am no authority over this. It is simply a common practice amongst CVG articles. Regarding D&D, I haven't read/found any D&D or any table-top RPG game guide on Wikipedia, if you can point me to a paragraph that would be great. Regarding chess, it is a world-class game that's been around (and unchanged) for a few hundred years. If StarCraft can be popular that long, then we might discuss. There are general RTS articles like Rush (computer and video games) and Tank rush.  --Voidvector 00:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: As long as you don't add information like "Dark Templar rushes are especially effective against Terran players because of their poor detection abilities." That's a strategy. Describing gameplay is fine (like Protoss units are tough but expensive, or Protoss structures are warped in, allowing probes to seek other jobs while waiting), but strategy is a different story. bob rulz 02:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: regarding starcraft 2

message: This article has been tagged as having a plot summary that is too long.  I spoke to the guy that tagged it, and he said it's referring to the history section.  I would like to trim this down as much as I can, but as I'm not a fan of this series, I may remove bits that are indeed important (I'll apologies in advance for that.  Feel free to replace anything necessary.)  If someone wiser than I could review this when I'm done, all would be right with the world.  Larrythefunkyferret 00:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The History Lesson 

message: On the Blizzard site they have released a recap article for Starcraft's episodes I, II, and III.  It reveals that the player character (The Executor)in the Protoss campaign is actually Artanis. Someone ought to update the page citing his name for a small recap of what he did in Episode III. 72.234.46.115 (talk) 08:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this should definitely be added. If no one else does so, I'll add it when I have time. For anyone interested, the link is here:  bob rulz (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Artanis

message: :Image:StarcraftII 03.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 16:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:StarcraftII 03.JPG

message: Should not be some notice about the mentioned Protoss tribes found in the game and their Khali cast grouping? Since I recall even in the game manual there was a brief description of Protoss tribes due to their color and the cast they belong to.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.69.25.113 (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protoss Tribes