Talk:StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080706111530/http://www.gamespot.com/news/6171178.html to http://www.gamespot.com/news/6171178.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090602141340/http://e3.gamespot.com/story/6210427/starcraft-ii-by-end-of-2009-call-of-duty-expanding-to-new-genres to http://e3.gamespot.com/story/6210427/starcraft-ii-by-end-of-2009-call-of-duty-expanding-to-new-genres

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

the article should be changed to just starcraft 2
blizzard changed it from starcraft 2 wings of liberty to just starcraft 2. wikipedia should respect that.84.212.111.156 (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Additionally, The article has not fully adapted to Starcraft becoming free — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.164.132 (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the correct title of this article should be StarCraft II. Though it may have been true when first released, these days Wings of Liberty is just the first of three campaigns included with the base game.
 * I've put a move request to this talk page. — Jeremy  13:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 25 August 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. There's a clear consensus that the article in its current state is not sufficiently broad to represent the whole game/series. –Darkwind (talk) 07:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty → StarCraft II – This article should be renamed to StarCraft II, as Wings of Liberty is just the name of the first campaign (there are three included campaigns). See the official site for proof that the canonical game title is StarCraft II.

I can't make this change myself because this article was move-protected back in 2011. Back in 2011 is closer to the game's release, and was likely subject to more vandalism back then. Also, it may possibly be true that in 2011 Wings of Liberty was part of the game's paraphernalia, but it's certainly no longer the case.

If the original reasons for the move protection are no longer true, I also propose removing move protection. — Jeremy  13:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: The problem is that the current article seems to act as the Star 2 main page and also the first chapter page, as there are pages for the other 2 StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm and StarCraft II: Legacy of the Void. Seems the series needs a main article and not change this one's name. --Gonnym (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Split into two pages, one covering StarCraft II as a whole and one covering Wings of Liberty.  O.N.R.  (talk) 03:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alternate move of StarCraft II (disambiguation) to StarCraft II per WP:NOPRIMARY. It can later be made into a series article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Split as others have suggested. A google news search shows that "Starcraft II" is frequently referred to in recent RS, much more so than "StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty". So it's clearly the WP:COMMONNAME... for something. But that thing isn't exactly what's described in StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty, but rather some murky amalgamation of it with its two expansion packs, and its DLC thing, and "Starcraft II: Starter Edition", and maybe some other stuff. We need a sort of WP:BROADCONCEPT-ish Starcraft II article on this elusive creature. Colin M (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

move of generic content to StarCraft II
I've examined the complaints above, and noticed that there's been a lot of confusion here, with people linking the WoL as the SC2 article, which was sometimes correct, sometimes entirely wrong. Now the StarCraft II cover article exists, and I'm going through the list of incoming links to fix the problems. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please slow down on changes. Concerns are being raised with this split effort. Give the broader project some time to weigh in again. -- ferret (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Please explain your actual concerns, and weigh in on the content of the changes you dislike, as opposed to just being generically opposed. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've tried, but I've gotten back arguments I don't understand, like suggesting the games are separate franchises. You tagged this stuff to be split out, didn't make a discussion, though you quoted a 2 year old RM that didn't explain on how they should be rearranged, and begin making mass changes less than 24 hours later. I've contested parts of it, with clear reasons why. Masem has contested the entire thing. "StarCraft II" is not a series, which is core to the edits you're making, which will likely need reverted enmass depending on where further discussions go. Please heed WP:BRD. -- ferret (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, so, lets rewind a bit and get back to practical reality. The generic reader of the English Wikipedia may want to know what "StarCraft II" is. Before today, they would be sent to a page explaining primarily the 2010 version of the game, with the 2013 and 2015 versions described as expansion packs. Whereas, in reality, it's a free-to-play game that resembles most the 2015 version of the game. This is a fundamental issue that was noticed in the 2019 discussions - but wasn't properly followed up on, instead we just left the articles hanging in this weird state that conflicts with practical reality.
 * The encyclopedia should certainly document the past, but it shouldn't make arbitrary decisions about describing it. We can't claim both that a) "StarCraft II" belongs to the same franchise as "StarCraft" because the vendor Blizzard sells stuff under the same moniker, and b) that "StarCraft II" is fundamentally the same thing as Wings of Liberty despite the fact that the vendor Blizzard does not sell stuff under the same moniker.
 * Likewise, we have a bunch of links in the encyclopedia where the link text is "StarCraft II", but there is a piped link behind it pointing to Wings of Liberty. This is just artificial and wrong, and it looks to be the result of navigation confusion in the past, when there was apparently a disambiguation page at "StarCraft II" and then someone disambiguated a bunch of "ambiguous" links to point to WoL. This just doesn't make sense, because the term "StarCraft II" has a pretty clear primary meaning.
 * I'm fine with following procedures and trying to achieve consensus, but factual accuracy is not optional. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's not split discussion and centralize discussion at Talk:StarCraft where other editors are replying. For one thing, not a single editor has supported your assertation that "StarCraft II" is a separate independent franchise. If we're worried about factual accuracy... -- ferret (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)