Talk:Terran (StarCraft)

message: I noticed that someone dropped in a comment about how Warhammer 40K Space Marines and StarCraft Space Marines are similar. While this may be true, a longer, more detailed explination is definately required, and it may be more appropriate to have a  larger comparison of all Blizzard games to Games Workshop products on the Blizzard page.
I'm going to pull the Conspiracy section and it's associated sentence for now. If anyone wants to flesh it out, it could be worth bringing back.198.179.147.18 (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Conspiracy?

message: May want to move the units and buildings sections to a new page, which I'd call Terran units and buildings, before they remove it like they did to the Zerg page.  Then just add more content by adding links and discriptions to terran factions and characters so the page won't be so short.
--63.65.45.102 20:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move Units

message: Terrans are not fictional!  Changing the page to reflect this.
- unsigned
I think what they mean is the Terrans in this article are fictional.
--63.65.45.102 19:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Terrans are NOT fictional!

message: Whilst most of them were most likely criminals, there remains the fact that Project pPrification targeted pretty much every single human being that had any deviation, no matter how minor, from the 'genetic purity' of 'real' humans. I can roughly remember the section from the manual on this, going something like "Any non-vital prosthetics, computer hackers, criminals of every kind, genetic deviations, mutants..." and so on.
Shouldn't the article be altered to give the appropriate history, as well as correcting that error? --203.23.157.64 13:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We as players of the game have next to practically no idea of what the specific laws are in the StarCraft universe are. So by saying that a government is using criminals to build their army does not saying something about those people who are criminals, but rather it says something about the government that uses people who it has deemed criminal. --Trakon 20:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminals? 

message: Under terran marine is the name of the movie patoon or platoon or patton?  Someone fix this if you know please. (Comment made 8/28/06)
Its "platoon"        I'm fixing it.    Lokinjo 21:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie 

message: What does it mean by, units are ranged.  What are matrix sequences?  also, the article reads "All units except the Valkyrie and the Goliath have a "special" or "secondary" function." what does that mean?  what is an example of a special function?" Gatherton 02:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Special function is special ability. For example Terran wraiths have cloaking, marines have stim-pack, and tanks have siege mode...etc. Oyo321 12:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ranged?

message: I added a non-compliant tag because this article reads way too much like a Terran FAQ (minus the stats) - see WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, #8. It's far better suited for a WikiBook on StarCraft. Virogtheconq 04:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only irrelevant thing on here is the strategy section. Other than that I think that everything is relevant. bob rulz 05:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that better? Some of the game hints were written by noobs, so it's no big loss... --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 10:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsuitable material

message: dont lockdown also disable (for the duration) shields?--Lygophile 08:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  lockdown 

message: it says that vs zerg marines plus medics are mainly used. but in my experiance, terrans will always use wraiths and science vessals against zerg. (cloacked wraiths against poor detection of zerg, picking out and killing off the vulnerable slow overlords, and the weak air vs air of zerg... and of course irradiate)--Lygophile 08:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  terran vs zerg 

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.
i will post a similar comment on the protoss page as well--Manwithbrisk 20:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i'd be all for that, but it has been tried before, and shot down. they need to be all up or all down one way or another, otherwise it just looks strange.--Manwithbrisk 17:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  equality among race pages 

message: this page says lockdown is an area of effect spell. im pretty sure i remember it not to be aeo, but it has been a while since last time i played it. did they patch it to be? same thing for maelstrom by the way. Lygophile has spoken 21:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Lockdown was never an AoE spell. What the...? Zeratul En Taro Adun!So be it. 23:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, i thought the same thing. battle.net must v got some hangover or something. Lygophile has spoken 00:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: They're talking about the range at which you can cast Lockdown (Nuclear launch, for example, has a _very_ far range that extends beyond the Ghost's normal field of vision if he doesn't have Ocular implants; I'm guessing about 8 matrix squares), which happens to be 5 matrix squares. They're *not* implying that everything within a 5 matrix square area gets locked down. Maelstrom *is* AOE, by the way. --Cless Alvein 18:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah i found out about maelstrom i wasnt really sure about that one in t he first place, but it does actually say lockdown will effect all (enemy) units within 5 matrices, since it also mentions its range seperately which is 8 matrices. the site is simply mistaken· Lygophile has spoken 21:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lockdown aoe? 

message: This may not be the correct place to post this, but since the Zerg and Protoss have their unit described on their articles, I thought that the Terrans would as well. I do not see any such list, however. But I felt the need to write this down after learning more about the StarCraft universe. 
I argue that the Siege Tanks may deserve some clarification if and when talked about in the article to avoid in-universe speak. Even though they are called tanks in the game, they are very unlike what a tank is. For example, we can call a car a mustang (as in the name of a type of car), but it does not make it a mustang (as in the horse). Thus the Siege Tank is the name of the type of unit and not necessarily what it is. The main difference I would like to point out is that a tank is essentially a machine designed to break into infantry lines, while protecting the occupants. StarCraft's Siege Tanks are slow and relatively armored only slightly better if not equal to other infantry/ground units in the game. For example, the Siege Tank has 150 hit points and is armored 1; the Zealot has 100 HP, shields of 60, and armor 1; Marine has 40 HP, 0 A (see Zealots and Marines for units' stats). The point is that a single Zealot or four Marines are plenty to handle a tank. The other major quality that a tank must have is high mobility, but the tanks in StarCraft are slower than most other units in the game. So now that the Siege Tank has failed to be what a tank should be, what is it exactly that the Siege Tank does? It moves to a location, sets itself up for high powered, long ranged fire, and blasts away ground units. And there is already a name for this sort of weapon: the howitzer. Siege Tanks may have the name "tank" in their name, but they are not tanks, they are howitzers. --Trakon 20:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't any unit information because no one can expand the information on the page properly. A certain individual keeps editing out anything actually relevant to Terrans, such as ability information. They don't understand that keeping it different from a game guide means not discussing strategy or detailed information on gameplay. However, instead of editing the abilities to simply remove the references to strategy and in-game usage, and keeping the basic ability information, they just remove the entire section and replace it with an extremely vague, mis-titled paragraph. If we tried to add unit information on top of that, they'd probably start deleting the entire page. 74.78.5.72 13:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no point to keeping a list of every special power the Terrans have. It's unencyclopedic and pointless. Try expanding what I'm adding than just reverting it. The Clawed One 15:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the Strategy section, since it is also unencyclopedic. There isn't an encyclopedia on the planet that gives explanations on gameplay strategy, since that's what game guides are for. At the same time, good strategies are opinions, while the abilities units have are factual. You're right though, removing as much specific information on facts regarding the game is obviously a good thing, even if they aren't crossing the "game guide" line, because you personally think it's "unencyclopedic and pointless," regardless of what someone looking for that information might think. Anyways, information on gameplay strategies are definitely as unencyclopedic and pointless as information can get, so we don't need that anymore, either. Good philosophy. 74.78.5.72 15:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good move. Expanding the section on their gameplay attributes could be done to compensate for the loss of that data, but you're correct. Also, as it says on one of Wikipedia's policies, it isn't a indiscriminate information source. The Clawed One 15:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Chess is a board game from the 15th century. I'm pretty sure when Wikipedia came up with their policy on game guides, Chess wasn't what they were thinking about. Also, to use that example, it also describes how every piece moves and any abilities they have (en passant, castling). Still, there's a difference between Chess and StarCraft, so instead of using analogies to argue why unit descriptions should be added, simply write the section with as little bias and opinionated information as possible, and if anyone decides they don't like it, well, I'm sure you can tell what will happen. 74.78.5.72 13:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know chess is a board game... I think chess was the least important faucet of my previous post. There is going to be a difference between chess and any other game that is not chess, so if analogies are completely bunk, are there different rule sets for each individual anything that exists? I guess that must be the case, at least according to "chess [not being] what they were thinking about" when Wikipedia defined their policy on game guides. And so it may or may not be true that encyclopedias don't find it prudent to give explanations on strategy, but it is false to say that there is not an encyclopedia on Earth that has information on game strategy (unless the chess strategy or even poker strategy pages unmake Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia). I have little interest for game guides or for encyclopedias, for Wikipedians' decisions on the policy for dealing with game guides, or for writing a list of Terran units. All I was trying to say was that in the spirit of conveying information, if there were ever a list of Terran units, like there are for Zerg and Protoss, it might be useful to note that a Siege Tank, though having the word "tank" in its name, is more like a howitzer. Furthermore, I thought it easier to describe my concept by pointing out that the Vulture unit is called a "vulture" in a word, but when compared to a bird (in the context of war machines named after birds such as the F16 or the F22), it is nothing of the sort. The only difference between my two comparisons is that the Vulture is more metaphoric and the Siege Tank feels more like a misnomer. --Trakon 10:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great. There's no spirit of conveying information here, apparently. 74.78.5.72 12:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siege Tanks 

message: There's nothing wrong with a unit list and short description of each unit. It's informative, and relevant. Malamockq 23:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We cannot. Wikipedia is not an FAQ, please see WP:NOT for further details. We've had a similar discussion on the StarCraft II page several times. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk  23:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bring back the unit list 

message: Wow. I'm glad I read most of the Star Craft sections on here while I could, they were really good. I can't believe so much was removed. I especially liked how each planet and character had it's own section, it let me read about what I was specifically interested in and each one had a lot of great details.
I hopped on Wiki to look at some of the detailed information that was on the new SC character, Tychus Findlay, only to find that his entire section was deleted, with only a very brief mention of him stuck in some other article to replace it.. not only that but nearly every section is gone.. horrible.
Change it back to the old way, there was nothing wrong with it. Instead of deleting and combining things trying to make it more efficient/smaller focus on expanding and adding more information. Those deleted articles had some very interesting information.
:Welcome to Wikipedia, which is not a collection of random game facts. More information does not a better article make. There's no content that was deleted that will not be restored at a later date. Anything you want to know that isn't here is probably on the SC Wikia, and if it's not there, then feel free to either join that site or this one and add it. The Clawed One 12:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tychus Findlay (and all other characters) will probably be back before the month is spent. We've undertaken a large clean-up of the SC articles to remove the in-universe style and most of this work is being done in sandbox mode. Findlay will return (with all information on the character appropriate to Wikipedia) on a new "StarCraft characters" article that merges each character into a single article per WP:FICTION, with a small number of characters possessing main articles if appropriate. The other subjects, concerning locations and factions in the StarCraft series, will also return in time. -- Sabre 14:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ?? 

message: This page is the redirect destination for (what once was) Nova's page yet there is absolutely no information on her here save for her ghost designation. Surely too much information is better than none at all?
Pointlessly Wikipedantic.
:Read the "??" post above. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk  01:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is anything with remotely any information? 

message: Since the Zerg and Protoss have gotten an article pic update, I would like to request that someone get a StarCraft II screenshot off the StarCraft II website, and replace the current pic. Thanx. 71.222.79.228 00:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: I was seaching up Firebats on other sites when I saw a preview for StarCraft Ghost. At one point, a fire closes his fist and the flames turn up. But in the begining cinematic of Brood War a firebat tourchs a Hydralisc with his hand open. So how do Firebats activate their flame projectors?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Leader (talk • contribs) 18:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FireBats 

message: :Image:Terran1.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Terran1.jpg