Talk:StarCraft II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the StarCraft II article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
This is not a forum for general discussion of StarCraft II, or anything not directly related to the StarCraft II Wikipedia article.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
A summary of this article appears in StarCraft (series).
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Warning Please read and understand Wikipedia:Attribution, and secondarily Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources before making additions to this article, or making suggested additions on this article's talk page. Blogs, emails, and fansites do not meet this criteria..
See talk page guidelines.
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5


Contents

[edit] Starcraft 2's advertisement and game launch data deleted?

I don't know what the hell tildes is but I am Yaguer, good enough.

I posted a paragraph underneath it explaining how it was listed in an PC list of game dates from GameStop, plus a Youtube video of a recording of an conversation by people inside the game industry aware of Starcraft 2's releases and all that.

So why was it deleted? I backed myself up with that video and its possible for me to get a picture of that list also.

It is an unreleased game article but anything in it could be speculation, yet I backed up mine with good sources so whats the dealio? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaguer (talk • contribs) 16:13, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

A tilde is ~ which you do by pressing Shift+` (the key left of 1). Four tildes (~~~~) sign your post with your username and the date and time of the post.
As for why it was deleted, I can see a few problems with it. First, the only linked reference is a video. Videos do not make good references because people don't want to watch ten minutes of video to see the five seconds you're referencing, especially if they have slow connections. Textual references are much more searchable. If no gaming site respects the source of the video enough to do a text piece on it, it's not verifiable. Second, you reference GameSpot without giving a link to where on GameSpot we can find this information to verify it. Third, I can't tell if this is just GameSpot speculating or if they got this from Blizzard, or how concrete Blizzard was on these dates if they did come directly from the horse's mouth.
If you post a good link to a page where it says this in text, it might be acceptable (it depends on if the information seems to come from Blizzard, and how concrete the data is). If you think the edit may be reverted again, post the text that you are trying to insert here on the talk page, along with where you got the information, and we'll try to evaluate it to see whether it's just a rumour or whether it's worth inserting into the article.
Thanks for your contribution! Nimelennar 00:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
We've addressed this before, see [1] --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 03:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Although I agree with Nimelennar's point, the "Videos are bad references" argument he uses is blatantly false. The way the information can be accessed (unless restricted to particular groups, like subscribers of the New York Times or employees of a certain company) is of no importance to the validity of the reference. Textual references are indeed better, but that does not mean a video cannot be used. The "slow connection" point is invalid too - references to books are even encouraged, and in that case one has to buy a book to search for the reference. Like a reference to a book, however, it is important to enable the reader to find the specific reference. In other words, as one does with a page number, note the exact time the information appears in a video. User:Krator (t c) 12:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Right. Video can be used if 1) it is verifiable (such as officially produced by Blizzard, a news piece by a major gaming magazine or mainstream TV news, etc.) and not just "some guy with a camera, and 2) A proper citation, including the time the reference is for, is included. There's no reason to make someone watch a 20 minute podcast for a one-line quote that's being cited, when it takes little effort to point out the time the quote occurs. Just like we don't expect someone to read an entire book just for a single one-line reference, we have to cite page numbers. Oh, and 3) proper credit must be given in the citation, which is often nonexistent for non-professionally produced video. We also have to be careful of video that uses copyrighted material that the video creator does not own. For those reasons, a majority of video cites fail. -- Kesh 15:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Also, note that the rule in WP:RS on self published sources applies to videos as well: when it concerns an expert discussing his field of study (i.e. the person being interviewed in the video is an expert), self published material can be excused. It is debatable if self-made videos of game developers talking fall under this exemption. User:Krator (t c) 15:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
So even if some person with a video camera was there recording it live at blizzcon you guys would say "its not good enough of a source"..Theres a line between stupidity and smart and obviously its been crossed at some time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ripster40 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:RS covers this issue. Some random guy at blizzcon is not a reliable enough source. He could have doctored the video. Some news agency at blizzcon is probably reliable enough. WP:RS talks about editorial oversight and stuff like that. "some random guy at blizzcon" is different than "gamespot's news guy at blizzcon", "MrZealot's blog" is a grey area. Does that clear things up some? McKay (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blizzcon Demo

So did the people that went to Blizzcon get a sc2 demo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.54.15 (talk) 15:55, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

People that went to Blizzcon 2007 got to play a demo/preview version of SC2 (which is now mentioned in the article). If you're asking whether they got a copy to take home, no they didn't, and were never intended to get a copy. XMog 17:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New StarCraft II section online

The Terran section for StarCraft II is online at the official site; if anyone is interested in adding information from that section into the article here feel free to do so. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Seen it but its under construction. Also the Zerg units section is available January 1? Is the game coming out in July or April next year?(TougHHead 05:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Linux

I talked to a Blizzard Representative in Blizzard Tech Support on battle.net awhile ago, and he said there is currently no word as to whether StarCraft II will be released on Linux platforms. I do not have a screenshot; however, I do have a logged recording of this conversation. The contents are as follows.


<twocows> I would like to know if there are currently any plans to make StarCraft 2 compatible with any of the Linux Operating Systems, as I plan to begin solely using Linux next year.

<KenD.Support@Blizzard> twocows@USWest: wow you type fast. haha

<twocows> i prewrite my questions. :)

<KenD.Support@Blizzard> twocows@USWest: That is a very good question, and not one that any of us know as of yet

<twocows> when it's decided, will there be any word on the main site?

<KenD.Support@Blizzard> twocows@USWest: Yes, very much so. =)

<twocows> ok.


However, since that's not a concrete citation, I placed a {{Fact}} tag after the statement. HoCkEy PUCK 02:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Release date

I have a good friend who is working on this game over at Blizzard and he has been told from the higher ups that it will be released on December 19th of this year. So, we should change the date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.217.240 (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not a reliable source. --- RockMFR 04:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Although I do apreaciate the info :) TomStar81 (Talk) 06:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Blizzard doesn't work that way so something got lost in the translation. They have loose targets this far out, not firm release dates. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Blizzard are Notorious for pushing back dates.**BM** 23:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree.Iceage6891 (talk) 05:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you give me three different examples, or are you just still pissed about Starcraft: Ghost? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.200.52 (talk) 03:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? Almost every single one of their games has been delayed. Not that it really matters, it's all for the best. bob rulz (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
It's at least notable that they're aiming for a 2008 release. Can't remember where I saw that, but i believe it was their SC2 site. DT777 (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

EBGames has a ship date of December 3, 2008 Dom316 (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Game stores aren't reliable for release dates; usually it's just the pre-order date that they list. bob rulz (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aditional Section for Fan Input?

You have to admit, when you see all the Q&A sessions on the battle.net forums, as well as the many times Karune himself has directly adressed the posters, Blizzard is keeping the fanbase heavly involved in the development process. I doubt we would have seen the return of the Carrier and Firebat if there wasn't such a strong connection. I'm not trying to advertise, but in an age where consumer involvement is a premium, we should atleast mention Blizzard's superb handling so far. Just a thought. --Tarage 08:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Question is, how much influence has fan input made on the game's development? Blizzard certainly does maintain open communication with fans. However, we would need sources to establish exactly what this input has achieved. If we do not have sources, we cannot claim such strong things such as the inclusion of specific units. --Scottie_theNerd 10:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree 100% that it would be nice to have documentation, but I myself am unable to take the time to find it, hence why this is just a sugestion, and I didn't actually add the section myself. A good starting point would be the Q&A sessions however, as they do mention the changes in reguards to Carrier and Firebat, as well as the fan attachment to both units. That and there is an active thread asking for input on units, this time the Mothership here: http://www.battle.net/forums/thread.aspx?fn=sc2-general&t=20895&p=1&#post20895 --Tarage 19:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Hidden message copy request

Would any object to post a copy of the hidden message in the section titled "units"? A quick glance at the history suggests that most of the unit lists added to the page have been done in this section, the addition of another hidden message here may help aleviate the problem some. Sine the previous hidden messages were deleted last time I added them I'm bring the issue up here first to gain a consensus. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What's a hidden message? - Sky —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.111.224.18 (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Its a message that is added to an article using a special code so that it doen't appear to those who are reading the article, only to those who edit the article. In the case of this article (assuming nothing has changed) clicking on the edit tab at the top of the article whould reveal a hidden message asking editers to add sources to the information added to the article and to refrain from adding any lists of units or structures. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Broken forum citations

This may have already been mentioned, but the forum citation links are broken, so the facts they cite are no longer verifiable. Ideally we would have copied and quoted the relevant bit of text (or at least the subject line), but we really need to find new references for these facts now (or find an old copy) - not that I doubt that the sources once supported them, but it's important to have verifiable sources. Dcoetzee 08:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Try recalling the page by searching the the Internet Archive website, they store past versions of pages and may have a copy of the forum page on site that we can link to. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xbox 360 and PS3 release

Hey, how come every time i put in "Starcraft II will not be released on the Xbox 360 or Playstation 3." it gets deleted. Blizzard already said that it will not be shipping for consoles. Care to enlighten me? GlassDesk —Preceding unsigned comment added by GlassDesk (talk • contribs) 14:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

How does the reader check that Blizzard said this? You fail to provide sources for your assessment, and therefore it is removed. We are an encyclopaedia, not a forum where the words "Blizzard said..." signify truth. User:Krator (t c) 14:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
What's up with this mentality that every single thing has to be sourced the moment it's put in? Instead of deleting information that needs sourcing, just put a {{Fact}} tag next to it. It lets them know that "if you don't source it, we'll delete it, but we'll give you time to put a source in for it." bob rulz (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The mentality depends on the kind of content. "StarCraft II is being developed for the SNES" would warrant immediate removal - I would not think of a {{fact}} tag there. This case is borderline. My judgement above was partly based on a Google search which found no sources that confirmed it, beyond sources that stated "PC - yes. Mac - yes. Rest - maybe/no answer/etc." User:Krator (t c) 22:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Either way I think it might be best to not even mention them. If it's not released for any consoles it would be obvious from the fact that we don't mention it in the article. In that case I think it would be redundant to mention that it's not going to be released to any consoles. bob rulz (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. User:Krator (t c) 00:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I heard it was confirmed for 360.75.68.165.212 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 14:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it wasn't. Someone on Altgn found a bit of information on the Microsoft Retail Zone that said that the Xbox 360 game "Universe at War" would have "Tactical dynamics [that] create the best RTS until StarCraft II." [2] People misread that as "best RTS for Xbox 360 until StarCraft II" and things just spiralled downhill from there. Other than that quote (which says nothing about SC II coming to Xbox), there's nothing to confirm anything of the sort. Nimelennar (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Release Rumors + System requirements.

I think this page needs more wild speculation on the release date and what the system requirements will be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.38.140.108 (talk) 06:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia is not an outlet for wild speculation of any kind. Sorry, no can do. -- Sabre (talk) 09:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
We should stick with what we know, not what we think we know. Although I think that the requirements are going to be kind of low. Look at Warcraft 3, a high quality 3-D engine and it was only 600 mhz minimum.-- user:GlassDesk —Preceding comment was added at 16:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
He/she was being sarcastic, although I don't think Wikipedia is a place for sarcasm 72.19.84.223 (talk) 03:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] StarCraft Series Article?

I suggest a starcraft series article since now there are 3 versions of starcraft (one of them is bw expansion pack so that doesnt count). If not possible, somehow merge this idea to StarCraft universe SUGGESTION btw so vote please --Storkian aka iSoroush Talk 23:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

User:S@bre is way ahead of you. StarCraft series. The Clawed One 00:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Aye, it should be ready soon. A couple of tweaks and it should, with luck, be out later today, replacing StarCraft universe. -- Sabre 09:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Oops, heh didn't see it. It's because most of the series games I played will automatically say Series rather than the version name. for example if i type mortal kombat, it will redirect to Mortal Kombat Series. There should be some sort of merge or redirect or disambiguation. --Storkian aka iSoroush Talk 02:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with Battle.net references

The three Battle.net references listed no longer take you to functional threads. Maybe that's just me of course but an archive link of some sort or another reference all-together would be appreciated. 71.132.159.36 04:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Places like the ScraftWiki.com keeps some of the more important ones, such as Q & A Batches. --Leord (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
One of the links (Batch 13) seems to work perfectly. I fixed the one for Batch 7 by linking to the Batch 1-10 Archive on the same forum, but the info from the remaining one (by date, it would have been Batch 8) was apparently in the preamble to that Q&A, and thus was not saved when archived. I recommend that reference be removed, unless you want to source it from elsewhere. Nimelennar (talk) 13:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

This sections has changed on numerous occasions, from including a few big fansites, random fansites or just the official pages. I agree that we could keep fansites out of it, but perhaps linking to the other Wikis that deal with StarCraft 2 at least? I know the ScraftWiki.com is good, and the Wikia one is decent. It would be very nice to have some place to go for further reading on game specifics. --Leord (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

StarCraft wiki was removed as it was deemed not a particularly reliable wiki. I trust the editor who made that judgement, but if you have evidence it is reliable (for example, 50+ contributors on a daily basis) then it can be re-added. User:Krator (t c) 12:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
In this case, the amount of contributors doesn't make a difference. SC Wikia is painfully unreliable, lacking sources for a lot of stuff, containing too many misleading and incorrect details and making (often completely wrong) deductions based on circumstantial evidence. And that makes it just as reliable as a fansite. I know the main editor over there (the user Kimera over here) is trying to clean up its act but it is not currently in any state to fully comply with WP:EL. The best example for reliable(ish) wikia I can think of is something like the Star Trek Memory Alpha site, and SC Wiki isn't anywhere near that quality at this moment in time. -- Sabre (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing the "will be"

I think the {{newsrelease}} tag up top is added mostly because of the tons of "will be..." constructions in the prose. Just try to convert them into "is..." instead. User:Krator (t c) 14:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Done, but its a bit pointless since the "will be" shows the game hasn't been completed yet and the new wording can imply that its already out. Given the fact that there is only limited information available with a game pre-release, its more likely the guy who added it doesn't understand the purpose of the template, especially given the lack of editing experience. -- Sabre (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Release Date

So I'm guessing (and hoping with all of my heart and more) that the new release date (1st Jan 2020) is a joke and not real, but could someone please chech on that and remove if necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.200.52 (talk) 03:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Blizzard's FAQ for Starcraft II1 is currently stating that the release date is unannounced, however Best Buy is taking pre-release orders and saying that it will be shipped on 12/3/082. Other computer game distributers also post the same date3. I don't know the difference between pre-release orders and pre-orders, if there is one. EB Games also had this to say, "Pre-order to receive release date change notifications."3 So I'm guessing this is saying that 12/3/08 is the estimate that Blizzard has given stores? [3] [4] [5] --75.71.18.24 (talk) 07:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
From WP:VG/DATE: "For unreleased games, vendor sites should not be used as verifiable sources since their date is likely based on their best estimate of when the game is to be out; always look for corroborating statements from reliable sources to confirm these dates." --Silver Edge (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
It's a PR stunt. More people will go and pre-order the game if they think it will come out sooner than later. When the game actually comes out doesn't matter since they already hav people signed up at their pre-order.

[edit] Release Date Announced (not kidding)

Starcraft 2 is confirmed to ship 2008. link: http://www.starcrafttwo.com/starcraft-2-news/starcraft-2-to-ship-on-2008/ 98.212.49.204 (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. --Silver Edge (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April Fool's '08

I would just like to remind everyone that tomorrow is April Fool's Day, and Blizzard has a tradition of releasing fake data on this day each year. So if any new information should become available within the next 48 hours, it should be disregarded unless it can be conclusively verified on or after April 2. Nimelennar (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of gameplay video

I added the relevant gameplay video [6] which was reverted [7] by User:Daniel.Cardenas without explanation.

These gameplay videos are the best original source material for StarCraft II at the moment and should be included in the article as such, I'm putting them back until someone can come up with a better reason than an automated revert message for why they shouldn't be there. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 12:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, WP:EL. The links are not necessary for the understanding of the subject, and if they were then they are already part of the official website, and are far more appropriately left for a reader to access there rather than through third-party video sites such as youtube. We are not here to show how the game is played. We are here to cover the article in an encyclopedic format, and the videos are not necessary for that. -- Sabre (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The videos should definitely be linked to. They are the best way to get a feel for the game. Thue | talk 09:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
We aren't a fansite. We're not here to give a "feel for the game", when the videos are happily available from the official site. That's the whole point of the external links. -- Sabre (talk) 10:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Task force

In case anyone is interested, Sabre has started a StarCraft task force. Please take a look. JACOPLANE • 2008-04-20 19:06


[edit] Release Date on Newegg

Newegg has the game for preorder and states the release date is December 03, 2008. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832127003 Smeggysmeg (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Passive release date "announcements" on third-party websites are not good sources for upcoming games. --- RockMFR 00:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)