Talk:StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Races

"Although most fans expected a new race to be introduced to the game, it has been announced that there will be only the original three races."

This isn't sourced so I can't check it, and I haven't been through all of the announcement stuff yet, but is that really true? The FAQ on the website seems to have been carefully worded to avoid the question "how many races will there be", stating the originals will return but not whether these are the ONLY races. Radix 14:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I added the citation Oidia 14:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to call that into question. The FAQ does say that the three original races will return, but it does not actually say there will not be a new race. It just says the original ones will return, ti does not deny or confirm new races. The Clawed One 14:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, alternative source (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6171172.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=multimodule&tag=multimodule;picks;title;1) confirms this. The Clawed One 14:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know if that really confirms it because the way it's said. You'd think they would make a bigger deal out of it if it were true. I think I'll stick with the Blizzard FAQs once we get more information later on. :P

Another thing. If you go to www.starcraft2.com and hover over the faces in the flash. It'll say "Protoss Section: Online" Which could simply mean the to-be-announced races are simply not ready to be shown yet.--65.30.35.19 16:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

They probably want to avoid what happened with Warcraft 3- they announced 6 races, then cut it down to 5, then to 4. So they're saying "there are three" without saying "There are exactly three". When they actually are going to show race #4 if it exists, then they'll start saying "there are four" Webrunner 16:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

GosuGamers is saying the same thing, http://sc.gosugamers.net/news/6309 --68.209.227.3 18:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The panel (of Blizzard employees) also confirmed that the sequel will have only the three factions of the Protoss, Terrans, and Zerg; there will be no fourth faction. -- from and A session details Starcraft II on Gamespot 67.8.147.102 Sysrpl 21:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• The Gamespot summary of the panel discussion is hearsay. The official Blizzard FAQ says that Terran, Protoss, and Zerg will be in the game. It doesn't say they will be the only three races in the game. If Blizzard wanted to say "only 3 races," they would. Unless you have a quote that states that there will only be three races - not someone's interpretation of what is obviously a very heated topic of discussion - we should stick to what we know from Blizzard. - Chardish 00:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I should make myself more clear. The risk we run by saying that "Blizzard confirmed there will only be three races in the game" is that Gamespot was simply misparaphrasing the Blizzard panel. This is a strong possibility, since the Blizzard website doesn't confirm that there will only be three races. - Chardish 00:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I disagree with this. Every source I can find at least implies that there are only three races. GameSpot, however, clearly states that there will be no fourth faction. GameSpot is a reliable secondary source and there are no reliable sources which provide information contrary to what they have stated in their "Q&A session" article. --- RockMFR 01:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Again, from Saturday's official StarCraft II Q and A Sessions, yet another source: One burning question that Rob Pardo was eager to squelch concerned the long-rumored fourth race (the Xel'Naga or the Zerg/Protoss hybrids hinted at in the first game). He stated in no uncertain terms that there will be no fourth race in StarCraft II. The game will contain the Human, Zerg and Protoss factions and the team is completely focused on getting them as asymmetric yet balanced as possible. from gamespy [1] Sysrpl 01:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Since Rob Pardo directly addressed the "there is no fourth race" topic, I would imagine that's sufficient evidence to assume that the Gamespot comment isn't hearsay. Nonetheless, I removed the weasel wordy "fans expected another one" statement. - Chardish 02:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There are only three according to numerous articles. If those sources aren't good enough then please remove all of the other info based on sources that aren't blizzard's site. (by the way, I'm dissapointed too, but wikipedia must be the place where the cold truth is located) Jason13086 01:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There's evidence that there might be a fourth race that isn't in multiplayer in the cinematic trailer (sort of like Naga or the Burning Legion from Warcraft III). You can see an image of a creature in a Stasis Cell here at http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Image:Hybrid.jpg Kimera757 02:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The article says the "Xel-Naga and Terran Dominion factions will feature in this game..." The reference to the Xel-Naga was misquoted from Gamespot. Instead the quote says that the Xel-Naga will play into the story line, not that they will actually be a faction in the game. "Chambers also suggests that the ancient Xel'Naga ... will also figure into Starcraft II's story." Someone should change that.66.248.160.235 02:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It still strikes me as very deliberate that they would answer the question 'How many races are in StarCraft II?' with 'players will see the return of the Protoss, Terran, and Zerg races' without explicitly saying 'only.' Granted to balance each additional race has to take an exponential amount of time, but as secretive as Blizzard has been about SC2 already, I wouldn't put it past them. Superdupergc 14:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Background Info

I think we should have a section or at least provide some information in the article relating to the anticipation of fans for SC2. This is from the SC1 article:

Many Easter eggs can be unlocked during and after completion of Warcraft III which relate to StarCraft, leading many to sequel speculation.[24] There was also a leak about a 2007 release from HanbitSoft, the Korean publisher of StarCraft.[25] Job advertisements on Blizzard.com looking for a "Game Balance Designer" with experience in StarCraft and Warcraft III,[26] and the fact that there are several unannounced titles also being developed, suggest that Blizzard is working on another RTS, possibly StarCraft II. A fourth Warcraft game, a third Diablo game, or an entirely new franchise, however, remain possibilities.[27] Nearly 17,000 players have signed an online petition in support of a sequel's creation.[28] A group of fans operating under the name Snowflake Entertainment are creating a mod to create StarCraft using the WarCraft III game engine, titled Project Revolution. Although not a sequel, Project Revolution will transfer the game from two to three dimensions.[29] On January 16, 2007, Blizzard hinted at Starcraft II at the Burning Crusade expansion launch night for World of Warcraft.[30] On May 13, 2007, a timeline was added at www.blizzard.com, documenting the three flagship series. It is assumed that the timeline will end on May 19, when Blizzard is scheduled to announce their new game. On May 19, 2007 Blizzard Entertainment announced that StarCraft II is in development.[23]

I think we should add something similar to that into article. Of course we should condense it and try to avoid POV, so non-SC players can understand the significance of the release of this sequel. Oidia 14:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

So essentially what you want to add is a section similar to the one over on our C&C3 page? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Fansites

We have a request, we are a team that have made a Starcraft 2 News Fan Website, that covering news about Starcraft 2. So if there could be a place to list the fansite to Starcraft 2. Starcraft 2 News: http://www.starcraftnews.com

Since the purpose of Wikipedia is not being a collection of external links, I believe that the policy is to keep the links to fan sites at a minimum. Nice to see that Starcraft 2 fansites are popping up so quickly though. :) Jeltz talk 15:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Oksy is it possible to make a section called Starcraft 2 fansites then?

Well not now. It will be deleted if added. Let the game get released. Iam sure if 1 adds thousands will follow. --SkyWalker 15:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Fansites are fansites, doesn't matter when/if the game is actually released. Although, I'm not sure if its against wikipedia's policies to have large lists like that. Jason13086 02:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well www.starcraftnews.com is more like an information website for Starcraf 2. Isn't that relevant?

It's relevant, but that website does not merit inclusion in this article over any other of the probably hundreds of Starcraft 2 fansites that have appeared in the past few days. No fansites should be posted now - closer to the game's release it would make sense for a few of the more prominent fansites to be linked to in the External Links part of the article, but not until we know who the biggies are. -  Ennuified  talk   00:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Units List (Nydus Worm?)

Ok only put the Units that WE KNOW AND HAVE BEEN NAMED in there. Stuff like the nydus worm and such are not accurate as they have not been announced. Obviously old units return. But for now for the sake of preserving some shred of credibility, only put what is offical on the website or released from blizzard.

Have the official names for the "nydus worm" or "banelings" been released? If not, that's just speculation. Google-searching "nydus worm" gives one website, in Polish. And, once again, source for the succubus?Lieftastic 17:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The term "Baneling" was specifically used during the Korean stage demo to refer to zerglings in sucide-bomb mode. They are an official unit. 10:34, 20 May 2007 (CST)

Having watched the footage, it appears that the names Nydus Worm and Baneling are used. However, I still see no mention of the succubus anywhere.

Isn't the Nydus Worm exactly the same as the Nydus Canal? Why would they change the name of something identical like that? Anyway I have a better idea. Only add units/buildings that are either listed on www.starcraft2.com (currently only protoss units 5/20), or units that are gone into some detail in official gameplay demos (eg. the reaper and the new zergling ability).66.248.160.235 02:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

While it may be true that the Nydus Worm has a similar function to a Nydus Canal, it appears as though they are capable of spawning in any position. Obviously, it's function and use will become clearer as more information is released. 216.167.228.167 03:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The Nydus worm has been mentioned in the official gameplay video from www.starcraft2.com, thus I think it is 100% legitimate to mention it. BroodKiller 10:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

warprey or warpray

I couldn't tell from the video if it was "warp-ray" or "war-prey". I thought it was the first, the entry says the second. warp ray <<< thats the right one

It's definitely Warp Ray. This can be confirmed by viewing the unit videos of Sc2. 24.254.48.67 19:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, this official screenshot from Blizzard confirms that it's "Warp Ray". - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 20:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Added the Trivia section...

I just added the Trivia section along with its first entry.

You can see the screenshot of the frame here: http://img86.imageshack.us/my.php?image=starcraft25stormrage90by1.jpg

edit: ok, apparently someone removed the trivia I had just added under the premise that it's not relevant... Trivia is trivia, not always relevant...

Read WP:AVTRIV. And sign your posts. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 19:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of WP:AVTRIV is to avoid lists of miscellaneous information in favor of integrating it into other sections of the article. There is nothing necessariliy wrong with trivia.128.95.141.33 19:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

From WP:AVTRIV:

Some trivia is especially tangential or irrelevant, and may not warrant inclusion at all.

One frame of video which has nothing to do with SC2 itself is irrelevant. It's also Original research to go hunting through video frame-by-frame and then adding that info to Wikipedia. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ

Original research should not be abused as a free pass to do as you please. Original research must be used within range of what is relevant to the article. Relevancy is a precondition to originality not the other way around. --IntricateBalance 04:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

We need to make this accurate.

We should get rid of the names that have not been released yet for units. Like the protoss Pheonix? Not happening. Only things on the offical website(s) of blizzard should be used.

Several names were also mentioned at WWI, but not placed on the website. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 21:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Why did VolkovBot remove an entire section?

VolkovBot removed the entire section on multiplayer for no apparent reason. Should it be reverted? Vocaro 22:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a glitch in the bot. -- RattleMan 22:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes add the multiplayer section Jason13086 02:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I added it back in, with improvements. Vocaro 05:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing Unit list

Seriously, calm down and think about what you're adding. Game articles that follow the Wikipedia guidelines and the Video games WikiProject guidelines do not contain unit lists; they are considered collections of indiscriminate information and are not useful to readers who do not play the game. It's easy to get caught up in the news release and list every unit that was seen in the demo, but please remember that Wikipedia is not a video game Wiki - there are plenty of those around where the unit list will be more welcome.

I'm sure a bunch of people will stand up and complain that the list is necessary to the article. So, rather than being bold, I'm stating my intent to remove the list here. For those who oppose, please explain why the list should stay when it directly violates WP:NOT. As a Wikipedia article, we should construct relevant prose based on the development and release of StarCraft II instead of throwing every tidbit of information from the demo. --Scottie_theNerd 02:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, that isn't to say that we shouldn't mention units. Rather, we should organise what we know of the new features into a brief overview of new features - such as the inclusion of "super units" like the Protoss Mothership - instead of listing out every unit and change like an instruction manual. --Scottie_theNerd 02:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the official StarCraft II website contains full unit lists and descriptions, making it pointless to list them all in this article. --Scottie_theNerd 02:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Any unit descriptions on the page should be similar to those at StarCraft, which is a FA. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 03:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that any new units should be listed in the article under the headling "New features". New units mean the ones that did not exist in Starcraft 1. Whereas old units, don't list them. Oidia 03:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be some leeway on this for the first 24-48 hours after the announcement. I say leave it up till monday. After all, it has all of the qualifiers at the top of the page. (Scottie, you should draft some new guidelines for this.) Jason13086 03:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think unit lists do constitute useful information when there is so little. Rather than set a time limit, I think we should just let the article expand over time, and as more information becomes available, those unit lists will become less important and will gradually get scaled back. —EatMyShortz 03:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The lists aren't important to begin with. Such information can already be readily found on the official site. As a Wikipedia article, the details can be dropped and summarised into something that reflects the development and direction of the new game. There's little point in listing new units, especially as we don't even list the original units in the StarCraft article, and as mentioned above, that has FA rating. I will reorganise the units section to reflect the new features of the game and its units without listing everything out. --Scottie_theNerd 03:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The unit list and race's abilities aren't crucial to this article and should instead be listed under the race's specific article, but without that information here, this particular article would be rather lacking. I say we leave the lists up until we have a substantial amount of information to add to the article so that it can stand up on its own. Many people still aren't aware of this game's announcement and would like to see what's what in the game when they come here. Zeldanum1 16:12, 20 May 2007 (EST)

Of course the article will be lacking. The game's just been announced - once more information is officially released, we can add more content. We shouldn't be including placeholder information and filler content just to make the article appear longer. We're not ditching all the content; we're reorganising it in a more constructive and relevant manner instead of listing units and abilities that can already be found on the Blizzard site. --Scottie_theNerd 07:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the tagline "Hell,it's about time' would be a nice touch to the article

remember that we need to write the article in a neutral tone. Oidia 06:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

that is the official motto

I have replaced the unit list with an overall description of the new unit features in StarCraft II as seen through the demo and official site. I ask that editors add to it as more content is released. I think the prose is a bit shabby, but captures the objectives in the game's design instead of listing units unnecessarily. --Scottie_theNerd 09:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you'll pay for this one! Look what you just edit-conflicted me out of!

There should be a second game in the wiki for Starcraft 2 units, that grows and expands as more information is released. I agree that displaying it on the main page is a bad, but see no reason why we can't link to a second wiki page entitled 'Starcraft 2 units and structures' with a complete listing.

The only units that should be listed should be those that have undergone significant changes whether they be looks or function. For instance, the Siege tank has gone from 2 barrels to 3 in tank and 1 in siege. Also the new phase prism looks like it now functions as the shuttle but importantly now drops units all at once, not one by one. To old players, that's life and death. Also, what's with the marine's new shield?

None of your arguments are valid scotty. A list of units is acceptable. Don't say the information can be found elsewhere so it doesn't need inclusion here, that's not wikipedia policy. 64.236.245.243 16:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Gameplay

The main gameplay will remain similar to that of its predecessor, Starcraft. As Blizzard president Mike Morhaime stated in a press release, "[w]ith StarCraft II, we'll be able to do everything we wanted to do with the original StarCraft and more" - gameplay will focus on acquiring and allocating resources between a variety of units, structures and upgrades.

The three original races of the Starcraft will return in Starcraft II: Protoss, Terran, and Zerg. It has been announced that these are the only races in the game.. However, changes will be made to each race - new upgrades, abilities, and gameplay mechanics will be added. For example, the Zergling will be able to mutate into a new unit, called the Baneling, which uses a physics-based suicide attack, while the Protoss will be able to erect shields anywhere, warp units to pylons and the new Phase Prism unit, and give Zealots a new "charge" ability to quickly close distances.

In addition, a number of new units have been revealed to be playable in Starcraft II. The Terran boast a Marine-like unit known as the Reaper, which uses a jump-jet to traverse uneven, or elevated, terrain. The Zerg, along with the Baneling, also have a new transport unit known as the Nydus Worm, which is capable of moving smaller units underground..

However, the Protoss have seen the largest expansion announced so far - with seven new units announced. These include the Colossus, a quadrupedal vehicle capable of traversing elevated terrain and firing lasers, the Immortal, which replaces the "Dragoon" from Starcraft, and the Stalker, a variant on the Immortal, capable of teleporting short distances. A number of new air units include the colossal hovering Mothership, a unique unit capable of multiple attacks and with a variety of special attacks, the Pheonix, an aircraft capable of overcharging its weapons for a special attack, the Warp Ray which uses a time-based damage attack, and the Phrase Prism which acts a mobile pylon and teleporter.

A number of heroes from the original game are slated to return, including Sarah Kerrigan and Zeratul.

--Haemo 09:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks nice, but sounds like an overdose of unit names and bolding. I think your focuses too much in listing out the units from the demo and not enough on the real life aspect of SC2's development. --Scottie_theNerd 10:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You forgot the Protoss mothership, so there are eight officially announced new Protoss units. 10:36 AM, 20 May 2007 (CST)

From what I'm reading sc2 will be signifcantly different from the original. See http://pc.ign.com/articles/790/790186p1.html and http://www.gamespot.com/news/6171178.html.

• game will be even more competitively oriented...design goal: "skilled players will be able to absolutely crush those of lesser ability"
  • firing from high ground no longer reveals unit
  • 'hard' unit counters, eg. templars to be the counter to zerglings, immortals to seige tanks, etc.
• more low-level tech options to make rushing more deadly (and scouting more important)
• games designed not to last more than 20 minutes (original games could last an hour sometimes)

Jason13086 18:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Stalkers aren't modifications of Dragoons. They don't use dead or dying protoss. They instead take regular dark templar and fuse them into the machine. They are inspired by them, but that's where it ends.

Listen, about that,I feel the need to say that the imortalls won't replace the dragoons in-game, although I read the unit profile who states that they are modified dragoons they are superior, and in-game the stalkers will take the place from the dragoons, that of early game ranged unit.

Multiplayer

• designed to be the ultimate competitive game
• ign article mentioned something about a tv channel showing games in north america
• will run on battle.net

Jason13086 18:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

mengsk

clearly hes the person in that picture and should be added to heros list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.130.39 (talk)

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. There's no source claiming that the concept art is "clearly" Mengsk nor are we sure that he will feature in StarCraft II. Be patient, wait until more information is released, and we can add to the article accordingly. --Scottie_theNerd 09:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It could just be a flashback, after all ;) --Haemo 09:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ha! so many rules here, even one that prevents you from looking in the future. how corny. Good friend100 13:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

We're interested in building an encyclopedia and our rules and policies are intended to help guide contributors towards that goal. You're welcome to contribute elsewhere if our rules and policies are too restrictive. You're also welcome to attempt to change some of those rules and policies. --ElKevbo 14:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not interested in changing the rules. Good friend100 14:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports facts. That doesn't include guessing what might be included in the future. --Scottie_theNerd 15:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

71.190.24.67 18:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Mengsk is in the game. The billboard in the center of this concept art says "Megnsk"

http://media.pc.ign.com/media/850/850126/img_4560470.html

Well, the statue and billboards could be a memorial for all we know. Fang Teng 19:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Aye. Mengsk was the Emperor of the Terran Dominion... there are going to be pictures and statues of him everywhere regardless. Until we know for sure that he's in it, we CANNOT include him in the article. -  Ennuified  talk   00:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

theres a picture of him that meanns hes important also hes in sc2 ghost which is post to be 4 yrs after bw where sc2 is right after though this propably will change no one cares for dead ppl in terran colonies there wouldnt be memorials or stuff also who the fuck else is the picture gonna be mengsk family is dead. terrans dont have cloning tech

DirectX

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the article it is stated that "It supports DirectX 9 (pixel shader 2.0) and the development team is considering adding DirectX 10 as well." (Under "Features") But in the site's (starcraft2.com) FAQ, Blizzard has said that the game will be "compatible with DirectX 10" (post-consideration); also, there's no direct mention of "DirectX 9" in the FAQ, although the FAQ goes on to say that it'll be compatible with previous versions of DirectX. Celeritas

The distinction appears to be that the game does not currently use any DirectX 10 features, but that it is compatible with DirectX 10, i.e. it can be used on computers with DirectX 10. —Centrx→talk • 18:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Like every DX9 game. Offtopic: Why the hell did Blizzard even use DirectX for graphics at all? If they are releasing a Mac version, they will have to reimplement the graphics engine with OpenGL anyway. WhyTF implement the same thing twice? It's not as if OpenGL is unsupported on Windows, or anything... despite Micro$oft's FUD department trying to tell everyone otherwise. In fact, with OpenGL you will get full DX10-equivalent graphics capabilities on Windows 98 ... if the GPU manufacturer bothers to provide a driver. </rant> - Anonymous 22:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. –Wulf 05:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"Demo"

The word demo is used a lot in the article. However, there is no explination as to what this is. Blizzard has stated that no publicly available demo exists (http://www.starcraft2.com/faq.xml). I'm assuming this is from what was playable at the Blizzard Convention or given to reviewers. But even so, it doesn't make sense at the moment. What demo is the article talking about? --Notmyhandle 18:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The demo is the demonstration of game play displayed at the Convention. It is not the kind of demo you are thinking of. Jeltz talk 19:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Then it should be noted as the Korean release game footage for accuracy. A demo in most contexts is playable. That is definitely not the case here. Someone should reference the youtube video instead of calling it the demo. I thought we were going for accuracy. Guess not. datchoy86 21:12 20 May 2007

That, or simply call it a "demonstration", as demo makes people think it's something that one can play. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  04:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Got it. I linked it to the 1up.com game footage main page for all of the SC2 videos from the Korean release. datchoy86 21:23 20 May 2007

closing SC 1 multiplayer servers

There were rumors that blizzard would be closing their original Starcraft servers. Does anyone know if this is true or false? That would be good info to have here (it would be very out of character). Fresheneesz 22:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a chance. They are people who still play SC1 especially the Koreans. --SkyWalker 22:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

They wouldn't dare do that. 67.162.10.70 02:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

According to their FAQs [2] (as of this writing), SC1 will still be playable on Battle.net:

Will we still be able to play the original StarCraft on Battle.net after StarCraft II is released?

Yes, you will.

--AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

YouTube

Please don't use YouTube videos as references. That's just laziness. All these gameplay videos are coming from somewhere, right? We certainly don't copy IGN articles to GeoCities pages and then cite that. Don't do the same for videos. --- RockMFR 03:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

they load the fastest though 65.2.87.44 03:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia, in general, does not allow users to link to YouTube for Copyright sakes. Unless the video was posted by its creator, ei CBS' Youtube Channel, it should not be posted on Youtube. See WP:External Links --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  03:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

1up.com has the footage. http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3159662 datchoy86 21:12 20 May 2007

Blizzard itself has the videos. This would seem to be the most official source. However, the videos on Blizzard's site are not streaming; they must be downloaded. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 18:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You can currently stream the Cinematic Trailer and the Artwork/Gameplay trailer from the Starcraft II homepage via the flash at the top. 216.167.228.167 03:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

As this relates to Ghost...

Its finally here!!! (eight years overdue, but I am not going to complain). On a more serious note: Has this announcement effected the development of SC:Ghost in any way, or has Blizzard refrained from providing that infomation? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ghost was put on indefinite hold way before StarCraft II was announced. There has been no announcement about how SC2 has affected the development of Ghost. --Scottie_theNerd 07:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason I bring it up is becuase some of the FAQ-related material I read seemed to suggest that Blizzard was developing a StarCraft II in line with Ghost. My take on the matter (and remember this is my opinion, not a fact) was that StarCraft II and Ghost were to be released around the same time on different platforms, which explained why a PC version for Ghost was noticably absent. Then I get the news that an official development announcement was made regarding SCII; so I thought that there may have been some connection between the two. Thats why I brought it up. In any case I thank you for the answer. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Not releasing a game for PC doesn't make it any easier for the StarCraft II development. --Scottie_theNerd 09:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems doubtful that Ghost will ever come to be, and I would disagree with your opinion here, TomStar. -  Ennuified  talk   15:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ghost is in development hell. It will come out on the same day Duke Nukem Forever comes out. Then again, I'm also willing to bet that this game will also be delayed, similar to the original StarCraft. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  16:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What constitutes a fact?

While reading the article I can across a footnote referencing this as a fact "One of the most surprising revelations in the team's presentation was that StarCraft II will have the same number of units as the original game. That means that for every new unit added to a sides' army, one had to come out." -- gamespy [3]

This hardly seems like a reasonable fact. To me, it comes across a bit as somewhat of an outlandish statement. The question I ask is, when reporting information from an establish source (such as gamespy), should we subject particular claims, like the one above, to a bit more scrutiny when there is only one source to back it up? Sysrpl 17:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Gamespy had an interview with several of SC2's production crew. The crew stated that the number of units would remain the same. What's so outlandish? - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 18:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It only comes across as outlandish if you don't consider that a lot of "new" units will be replacing old ones in roughly the same function (Immortals replacing Dragoons being the most obvious). There's nothing outlandish about that, it's par for the course for RTS sequels. Gotta keep things fresh, after all. Just adding new units without removing old ones is expansion pack material, and not something you can do in a sequel while still keeping things balanced. 82.95.254.249 23:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Gamespot did seem to mention that the number of units would be *around* the same, but I think that the thought of developers arbitrarily limiting themselves makes no sense. Yes, it's good not to dump in everything, but to keep the number of units EXACTLY the same? Stupid and pointless. darthsuo 23:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms

I've seen a lot of people criticizing the 'cartoonish' graphics (eg. I've only heard bad things about the seige tank's design). Although other people seem to like it. Perhaps a section of this sort should be added (probably not right away though). Or maybe instead a sentence could be put in the 'differences' paragraph mentioning this. Jason13086 20:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Source? Fan criticism is not an attributable source. Floria L 22:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

When a reliable source mentions something, add it. If it's just stuff in fan forums. it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 22:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It's extremely unlikely there will be any notable "criticism" of the game that could be considered valid without, you know, having an actual released game to criticize. Unless magazine articles start popping up titled "What We Didn't Like About The Precious Few Minutes Of Pre-Alpha Footage We Saw Of StarCraft II", none of it belongs here.

Besides, the style is no different from StarCraft. Since I haven't seen any notable criticism on StarCraft's style (the low resolution is criticized, but that's a technical issue), it appears people are arguing that that style was alright 9 years ago but isn't now, which is more of a fashion argument than anything. Wait for actual reviews to whine about this before you mention it. 82.95.254.249 23:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Potential Additions For The English Article Has been Obtained from the French version.

Some information from the French introduction can be translated and added to the English version.

[4] French excerpt: "On sait qu'actuellement, des professionnels du jeu vidéo sont en train de tester le jeu. L'équipe de développement est composée de 40 personnes environ[5],[6]. StarCraft II est très attendu par les communautés des STR de Blizzard Entertainment que sont les joueurs de Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne et StarCraft: Brood War. En effet, celui-ci est censé réunir les deux communautés et devenir ainsi le jeu de stratégie de référence pour les compétitions de sport électronique."

My translation: As of now, we know that professional players of the video game are currently testing the game. The development team encompasses approximately 40 members. As expected, StarCraft II has been very well received by Blizzard Entertainment's Real Time Strategy (RTS) community which revolves around Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne and StarCraft: Brood War. In effect, this game is intended to reunite these two communities and is therefore predestined to become the new game of reference for future electronic sports competitions. --IntricateBalance 04:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please refine my translation and help incorporate the new information into the article.

Well, the only thing in that article which is sourced is the claim of 40 members on the team. The rest is unsourced speculation. --Haemo 05:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That's strange in the french version they say that: "actuellement, des professionnels du jeu vidéo sont en train de tester le jeu" Meaning professional players are currently testing the game. Yet so far all I've read in that regard is: "Blizzard will also apparently consult with professional players during the course of the game's development, most likely during the game's testing phase, which will likely take the form of a by-invitation closed beta--the same kind Blizzard has held with its previous games--at an undisclosed date in the future."[5] So I take it the French version misread the gamespot article--IntricateBalance 05:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition Blizzard already has two former pro gamers working for them fulltime, these people are Pillars and Zileas, both were incredible succefull online Warcraft/starcraft players, besides those two there prolly won't be any professional gamers involved until the Beta, The Beta of starcraft II, judging from former RTS betas of blizzard will go on for atleast 1-2 months, this gives Blizzard plenty of time to get feedback for game balance and such and this is where the progamers will come into the picture. And probably not before then Salle79 11:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

New section being added

This section has just been added to the article twice. It was originally removed as original research, then re-added with the comment that "video observations are totally valid".

Gameplay Video

Several interesting things are seen briefly in the recently released gameplay video. In the beginning of the video, what appears to be a new Terran structure can be seen mining minerals with a laser-like beam and extracting them without the involvement of SCV's or similar mining units. Also interesting is that no command centers are seen in the vicinity, indicating that these structures are independent and self sufficient. The use of an advanced shadowing engine is also apparent, allowing shadows to behave realistically and stretch or compress according to the curvature of the texture they are falling upon. Debris and doodads also appear to cast their own dynamic shadows. It is also interesting to note that a sign doodad seen partway through the video advertises the name Mengsk, feasibly in reference to Arcturus Mengsk whose inclusion in the plot of Starcraft II is the subject of much speculation.

The assertion is patently untrue. Not only is this original research, as explained in the guidelines, but it wholly inappropriate editorializing and assumption on the part of the editor. Words like "interesting", "appears to be", "to note", "feasibly in reference to" should not appear in an article like this. This section wholly constitutes original research - like it or not, watching a video and making comments about what you see in it, and find "interesting" is the very definition of original research. We should be aggressive about removing material like this. --Haemo 22:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing I posted was opinionated. I would like an admin to read over my latest edit and clarify that it fits wikipedia policy, only stating fact of what was in the gameplay video and never stating opinion. It entirely fit into neutral point of view and encyclopedic content, coming from an official source and its relevancy (the blizzard video.) Nothing I stated was opinionated or speculative in nature. Everything was concrete, factual, official and relevant.

It is also important that the gameplay video section be kept because it is relevant to the game and important to the encyclopedic data available thus far.

(also, open google and type define:opinion while you're at it.) - pyrogenix

I would suggest that you read over the guidelines on original research since your recent edits patently failed that. Also, since when is calling something "interesting" anything but an opinion? --Haemo 22:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"Also, since when is calling something "interesting" anything but an opinion?" This does not indicate opinion. Interestingly was intended to be taken as citing points of interest, not as in "THIS INTERESTS ME." You perceiving it as this just goes to show that you are nitpicking every bit you can to support your hypothesis. There are several points of interest in the video, as in points that can be factually and objectively expanded upon - this denotes no bias or subjective interperitation. Did it occur to you that certain things in the video stand out as indicative of key features in SC2 not as a subjective interest, but as an objective indication? Secondly, nothing is "assumption" on the part of the editor - a new terran structure was shown clearly, as was showcased an advanced shadowing portion of the graphics engine. Likewise a sign doodad was clearly seen referencing Mengsk. Statements like "feasibly in reference to" are not unencyclopedic at all and are found at a glance on countless wikipedia articles. This also does not count as speculation by any means nor does my edit contain opinion at any point.

Whatever the case, if you take issue with things like "interestingly" and "feasibly in reference to," rather than deleting the entire section (which obviously belongs in this article) you should edit it to fit wikipedia criteria. While after reading the wikipedia article on OR (I did not previosly know the meaning of the acronym), I fully admit that it counts as this - however, it would be astoundingly easy to take what I wrote and make it not fit this model. The video is published, official, press released material and therefor is free range to have facts and concepts extracted from it. --pyrogenix

I am not "nit-picking" anything - to claim that saying something is a "point of interest" is not expressing an opinion about the material is semantic necromancy. What is "interesting" is inherently subjective - there is no such thing as "objectively interesting" material; it is quite plausible that there is nothing of interest to some people in this entire article. In fact, let's look at the guidelines on "words to avoid" - we can clearly see that interesting is specifically mentioned in the article!.

Furthermore, a statement like "feasibly in reference to" is totally unencyclopedia. Feasibly according to who? It's simply a rewording of "this could possibly be a reference to", which is the very definition of unsourced speculation in an article - the fact that they are found in many Wikipedia article is a knock against those articles, not the policy which comports against such statements.

There is simply no way that you can "re-word" a section like this to make it anything other than original research - and the fact that you persist in saying things like "the video is published, official, press released material and therefor is free range to have facts and concepts extracted from it" implies that you still don't understand the policy, or the reasons behind it. --Haemo 00:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's just put our (well, my) arrogant feud asside and unite in our love of starcraft 2 and wikipedia. --pyrogenix

Fair enough. <3 --Haemo 03:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know what "GG" refers to from the gameplay video? I went to the wikipedia page to try to find out but was unsuccessful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tacobif (talk • contribs) 23:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC).

Good game. --- RockMFR 23:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Article Picture

I don't remember seeing that in the gameplay video. Where was this picture from?

It's the official logo of starcraft II, various newsites, forums and other starcraft II related webpages uses it, it is the new symbol of Starcraft II, you can also see the logo at the very end in the official Starcraft II movie released at starcraft2.com. Source for movie with the logo at the end of the movie:http://www.starcraft2.com/movies.xml Salle79 05:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Try clicking the picture next time. [6] :-p --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  05:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that the picture he's referring to? I can't find any link between his comment to the logo. In case he meant the other picture: Comparing the minimap in the screenshot with the officially released gameplay video on starcraft2.com, it appears to be the identical map. Yet you are correct that it did not appear in the gameplay video. Perhaps it is from an extended version of that video or from the collection of screenshots on starcraft2.com. Khono 05:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Design team

Shouldn't we mention that the lead designer is no longe Rob Pardo and is now Justin Browder (CNC and LOTR RTS games) ? Clearly his influence on the game has been seen..

It is mentioned that the lead designer is Justin Browder. --Haemo 06:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

possible confusion with: "Additionally, the ability "recall" has been extended to structures."

Some citation stuff

I think whoever wrote this confused the old Recall ability with the new ability to create units within pylon/phase prism power fields. It looks like theyre warping units in (ie, recall) but in fact they are creating them on the spot, the phase prisms are only used to create a power field. In addition, we dont actually know whether arbiters are in the game or not, and the fate of the Recall ability as well. I say the line should be removed unless someone has a source.

also, "Terran Marines have been given a physical shield." I don't think a citation is actually NEEDED, seeing as how it can plainly be seen in the screenshot to the right of the paragraph. Someones been going citation crazy. And if someone wants a source for the units being called marines, its in the gameplay trailer (when the zeals first engage the marines, he calls them marines).

--66.215.17.13 08:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What's with the citation templates anyway? The abilities are specifically stated in the video demonstration and actually shown in gameplay. --Scottie_theNerd 09:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, for instance, where's the citation that these new Terran units are called "reapers"? Where's the citation for the fact that "recall" has been extended to structures? I'll remove the physical shield one, but the other two are really necessary. --Haemo 21:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You can hear them being referred to as "Reapers" in the developer walkthrough video. Not only does the narrator refer to them as such, but their own in-game team leader as well. ("Reapers, move in!")PiccoloNamek 21:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Good man - we've added a ref for that; we still need one for the recall one. --Haemo 01:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The recall ability doesn't have a name yet, it's just referred to as "warping in" a unit. --Notmyhandle 06:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a good thing we removed it then! --Haemo 08:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Mengsk II

It seems kind of obvious that Mengsk would be around he is a major character after all and since he was in Ghost and Ghost takes place at the same time it would be apparent that he is alive. Another thing we should mention somewhere in the article that it takes place at the same time as Ghost. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamhaw (talk • contribs) 18:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC).

Since Ghost was never even released, it cannot be used as a definitive reference point. --Scottie_theNerd 09:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Release Date

I'm sorry, I must've been mistaken about seeing October written on the page somewhere. 216.197.215.173 23:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)funkinthenight

If it was there it probably got removed. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and Blizzard has a long history of rolling back release dates for their products. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Problems in Articles

Wikipedia should keep a record of people who change/create articles because many abuse the capabilities of changing/making an article. For example, when I viewed the Starcraft 2 article it says that "Starcraft 2 is going to SUCK BALLS" and all other information that was once in the article are now missing. I know that this complaint doesn't belong in this discussion. Thank you.

Soniqe 03:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to pile on or hit this point again but the article is still in it's vandalized form. What gives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.120.5 (talk)

It's typical vandalism that can be undone by anybody. Wikipedia keeps records of who edits what with each article History page, but it is up to other editors to identify more malicious vandals and report them to administrators if they continue to vandalise after repeat warnings. --Scottie_theNerd 04:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless the vandalism on high traffic pages like this happens to pop up on MartinBot's radar the edits to the article have to be checked manually. Thankfully, since the edit history of the page is stored everytime someone hits save, its an easy matter to determine who is responisble for the vandalism. In most cases vandalism is caught and revert rather quickly either by people monitering the recent changes list or Wikipedia Users (like me) who have the article on their watch list. Its not perfect, but its the best we can do. From a technical stand point this article already has an edge against vandalism since it is Semi-protected. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This article has been in it's vandalized form for hours. What gives!? 151.199.55.201 07:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you cleared your browser's cache? --Scottie_theNerd 07:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Infocepter

Firstly, my main irk with adding it is that it appears to be just like any other fansite, and Wikipedia is not a directory for such sites. But, I don't think notability would be too hard to establish with proper explanation here. However, I'm concerned as to where the site gets its information from. The background information is taken from the official SC2 site, and the abilities are derived from the WWI demonstration, but the "original" information such as unit stats and costs appear to be speculation based on the original StarCraft. Comments? --Scottie_theNerd 14:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If there are any fanbased websites that could be considered as "good enough to backup what they are claiming" then it would be Infoceptor and Starcraft.org. both these websites have existed for a very long time and currently has or had former Blizzard employes as members of their website. their knowledge and "know how" of Starcraft is quite extensive, i would trust them a hell lot more than for example gamespy or gamespot even if they claimed that they claimed that they heard it directly from a Blizzard employee, Infoceptors Unit F.A.Q page is more than just speculations and guesses, i can tell you that much and that it probably with high accuracy reflects the current condition of Starcraft II, I wouldn't be suprised if they gotten the stats directly from someone inside Blizzard. iF anyone still thinks that the information Infoceptor has provided is "crap" then atleast consider it "perfect crap", Infoceptor has existed for a very long time and the people on the site knows starcraft. Only website that can compete with them is Starcraft.org and Blizzard themselfs. 89.160.65.215 11:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather we pick between linking to just the official site or linking to a handful of decent mostly-reliable fansites and whatnot. I'm a bit confused why we're linking to Wikia right now. If we're going to remove links solely because they aren't entirely reliable, we shouldn't be linking to off-site wikis. --- RockMFR 22:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Links to Wikias allows readers to access more resources that might not meet Wikipedia's requirements to be used in the article itself, and I see many articles that link to more in-depth Wikias for that reason. That's arguable, of course, and that can be discussed on the VG WikiProject if it's a point of debate. Back to the point - given the amount of resources on Infoceptor, I'm personally satisfied with it, but I'm unsure as to how it fits in with WP:EL. Additionally, the original StarCraft article doesn't link to Infoceptor, though I haven't been following the article enough to know if it was there and removed. --Scottie_theNerd 01:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

New section being added

User:Ceptryn is repeatedly adding material "sourced" to a fansite, purporting to explain new features and activities that units will be able to do. While this is all well and good, the problem is that the source is not a reliable source, and their analysis amounts to essentially performing a visual inspection of trailer footage, and inferring possible gameplay mechanics from that. This is contrary to our attribution standards, and though it may be true, it should be aggressively removed until there is actual reliable evidence on this account. --Haemo 02:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As the previous responders have been mentioned. Infoceptor has existed since 1998, and has always been a reliable source of Starcraft Information. They have in the past, scored numerous interviews with Blizzard Employees and High Profile Starcraft players. The Information provided within is more accurate than many of the links given. Im particular, half of the entires in Starcraft Wikia, if you notice, are directly copied from Infoceptor. The two facts that I have written are true with almost complete certainty, given that Infoceptor has clearly presented the evidence for stating them. --Ceptryn 03:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but none of the links you've given are interviews with anyone - they're unsourced speculation, based on inferred mechanics from footage. This is an encyclopedia, not Wikia, and we don't deal in fan-theories and "almost complete certainty" unless it comes from a reliable source - since this is not, then it should not be included. --Haemo 04:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Almost complete certainty is a figure of speech. Nothing is completely certain, and all game mechanics are subject to change prior to release. The two points made are not a fan theory, but a consensus amount the Blizzard community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceptryn (talk • contribs)

It's not a figure of speech; it's a contradiction. And speaking of contradictions, if nothing is certain until release, there's no point in referencing unverified unit FAQs before the game is released, is there? --Scottie_theNerd 11:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course there is, because the information is correct with almost certainty. There are Wikipedia articles on the standard formulation of Quantum Mechanics, which is only correct to a fair degree of certainty. The purpose of an Encyclopedia is to present knowledge to the best that we know it. To claim anything you right if 100% certain is sheer arrogance. Sourcing events clearly deduced from the video is as certain as sourcing from gamespot, who simply wrote their article based on the same video. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceptryn (talk • contribs)

The information could be as correct as the sky is blue - that doesn't mean that we are going to include it over guidelines. Videogames are not Quantum Mechanics, and the fact remains that Infoceptor is not a reliable source, while GameSpot is. I'm sorry, but that's the way it goes - we don't claim to be 100% correct, or totalistic; we claim to be an encyclopedia. Even the article about Quantum Mechanics relies on reliable sources for its statements. --Haemo 04:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Checking, I see I can't revert the latest insertion of this material, contrary to guidelines, due to the 3 revert rule, so I will request that someone else does it. This is really objectionable that you have decided to do an end-run around trying to build consensus, and have instead opted to simply insert material which is not backed by reliable sources. --Haemo 04:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Infoceptor can be used on the StarCraft Wikia as much as you want. Wikipedia, on the other hand, has guidelines. --Scottie_theNerd 06:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

So why can we have the external link to the Wikia but not Infoceptor? bob rulz 05:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Technically, we shouldn't have links to either, since both contain univerifiable material, and therein violated external link guidelines. --Haemo 06:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Still ongoing

The insertion of this material is still on-going - I just wanted to to ensure that we have consensus that:

1. Infoceptor is not a reliable source
2. This material should not be included in the article.

--Haemo 02:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears you are the only one interested in reverting a reliable source. Notice how the information I gave about the Starcraft 2 storyline on Tychus Findlay is now verified officially by Blizzard at Starcraft Insider. Of course, this information was made available to official fansites days ago. --Ceptryn 03:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is asinine - seriously, other people need to speak up about this. Do we, or do we not, care about having reliable sources for this article? Reliable sources are a guidelines, but not one I can do anything about alone - am I way off base in thinking this? --Haemo 07:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Leave the edit in for now; we can yank it if we called for it, otherwise the rule is "verifibiliy, not truth."

Hidden message(s)

I see there is a hidden message here with edit info for would be contributors. For ISP chicks like me the message up front works fine since we can't edit the page anyway, but wouldn't it make more sense to place the message in each individual section so that people using the edit tab for that section see the message? I mean no one is going to scroll all the way up to the top of the page if they can help it, right? So why place the only edit guideline section there? Thats, like, not well thought out (duh). --Samantha

Ironically, someone just removed all of them, saying that "once was enough" and asserting that people enforcing them were being "nazis". --Haemo 20:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It may be easier to simply place a message that tells people to refer to the Discussion page, rather than starting an Attribution Tutorial. It would also save the article some space/size. Also, you may want to consider going back some more edits, when all the warnings were in place.[7] --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  21:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was me. I apologize if someone took offense to use of the term "nazi", from nazi

The terms are also used to describe anyone or anything seen as strict or doctrinaire. Phrases like "grammar nazi", "Feminazi", "Open Source Nazi", and "parking [enforcement] Nazis", are examples of those in use in the USA. These uses are offensive to some...

But there were about 7 of them, and it's several lines long, so, I thought 1 would suffice. If there are so many that it's annoying to edit, they should be removed. McKay 21:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem - I didn't think it was offensive; just funny! I re-added the one to Gameplay, but I think that should suffice. --Haemo 21:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

2 isn't too bad. If that's where you think they'd best be placed, then go for it. McKay 21:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

We'll see if it work; the other sections are pretty short, so I don't see similar problems with them. --Haemo 21:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It was the short sections that were bothering me, the ones where the warning was actually longer than the text it was trying to protect. McKay 21:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree :) --Haemo 21:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Justification

Here my fellow editers lies the reason for the hidden messages in each section: the appearnce of the page Starcraft II Confirmed Units and Structures. I notice that the hidden message in the section to which the see also tag was added had been removed, here we are not even a full day from the descion to redact some of these messages and pages that meet our criteria for speedy deletion have begun popping up. I admit that the messages are large and imposing, especially in sections where there is little visable written material, but they did serve well to stop this kind of thing before. I submit that we need to reinstate these massages ASAP. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Television broadcasts

The article currently says something about multiplayer matches being broadcast on television in North America. I checked the IGN article, but it doesn't seem clear whether they are referring to StarCraft or StarCraft II. Any comments on this? --- RockMFR 01:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If we're not sure - and I'm not, since it appears to refer to both - I'd lean towards eliminating it, to be on the safe side. --Haemo 01:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are a few hints WHY it could mean starcraft II and not original Starcraft

1) Original Starcraft is not as popular in USA as SC II Starcraft is to old, and therefor no television

2) they talked about it during a Q&A sesssion ABOUT STARCRAFT II, NOT ABOUT ORIGINAL STARCRAFT

3) EVEN if it was about original starcraft which makes no sense they will broadcast about starcraft II as well. (YEs we are broadcasting Starcraft games in America, but what about Starcraf II, you know the NEW better improved ultimate competitive game we just created" "fuck that" lets stick to a +10 year old game we cannot television starcraft II) sounds kinda strange to me....

4) Since Blizzard is stating that Starcraft II will be a game that focuses on competitive gaming exclusivly and that they want to push that aspect further which pretty much means broadcast television

5) Blizzard has added alot of features that will enhance the drama effect so normal people can watch the action and really get into it, like poker television (taken directly from the IGN interview) 89.160.65.215 08:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In other words, it's nothing but speculation. Which means it doesn't belong in the article. -- Kesh 00:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)