Talk:StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty/Archive 4

Not Unit Oriented?
Okay, so where's that chuck where it mentioned new/possible units in the article, verified by the official gameplay video on the official website? I mean doing a huge chunky analysis of the units is one thing, but not mentioning it is another. Can't we just list out the units seen in the Trailer, and is what Blizzard has announced that they'll include in the game at the time of announcement. NeoDeGenero 13:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, a gameplay trailer for a game not even in beta yet is not a reliable source. Some of the stuff in the trailer doesn't even have a name yet, so nothing is official. -- Kesh 00:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Additionally, a unit list goes against WP:NOT and the WP:VG guidelines. If you want units, go to the Blizzard website, Infoceptor or the StarCraft Wikia. -- Scottie_theNerd  08:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is pathetic! Visitors -such as myself- come to this wiki article to see some info on what's known about all the different units and game features. What is this? Do you think that someone other than Blizzard made those videos? An now Blizzard showing their video publicly is not good enough of a source. I know a few very interesting wiki articles about upcoming games (I wont say which ones as the anti gamers here act like idiots and jerks) and they use scans of magazine as sources - not to mention videos of the designer. If the designer releases a video of his upcoming game, wtf is the problem, why is that not a reliable source of HIS game? Quit acting like some rule enforcer jerks and improve the article (but I can see that some of you like to keep this article in the stone ages, and push visitors away from this page). 65.93.133.79 01:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikpedia is not a game guide. We are here to report on verifiable facts, not speculate on what's going on in a video of a game that isn't even in beta yet. Also, please stop making insults. That is also a violation of the rules. -- Kesh 01:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Explain why the producer's released video of his game isn't a variable source for his game. Why is what Blizzard released about their upcoming game considered a speculation? 65.93.133.79 02:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Verifiable" not "variable." And it's not. It's just screenshots of units running around. We don't have names for them from the video, nor names for what they do. We don't even know that these units will make it into the final game. All we could do is speculate about them, which is explicitly not what Wikipedia is about. -- Kesh 02:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a correction - screenshots (provided from a reliable source) are reliable sources. However, we cannot make novel interpretations from those screenshots. If a screenshot shows a unit named XXXXX, then we can say, "Screenshots from a development version of the game show a unit named XXXXX." Just state the facts. Don't add in assumptions. Don't make it intentionally vague, either. --- RockMFR 02:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on the two comments above then the info from the videos should definately be added. Kesh: you obviously have not seen the videos - I'll explain what happens in the video: Units are named by the Blizzard programer who is introducing the game. He specifically says for nearly every unit introduced This is the (name)...it will be available in sc2... this is what (name) can do... - You simply call this "a screenshoot"? Please visit starcraft2.com and download the game play video before making such absurd claims. RockMFR: I agree with your wording as it represents the current situation. 65.93.133.79 02:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have seen the videos. But what we'd end up with is, you guessed it, a list of units. Which is exactly what should not be here. The entire article would become about the units and what we assume they can do. -- Kesh 03:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As I have been trying to explain above (and as soon as I get across exactly what I want to say, coneveniently no one replies to me), it doesn't have to be a list of units. And of course this article is going to focus the most on the units; that's most of what's been said about it so far! And why would it be assumptions on what they can do? No one has yet properly explained just what in the hell it is about the videos released by Blizzard that is not verifiable. Nobody has properly explained that to me, or anyone else. You have all just said "well, they might not be in the final version; better to be 100% correct than to provide information that might end up being wrong." Your overly strict interpretation of the rules is, in my entirely honest opinion, getting in the way of improving the quality of Wikipedia. Everything I have stated above still stands; the way the unit section is now written, is uninformative; the videos that were released and explained in a very official presentation by Blizzard not counting as verifiable sources, is ridiculous. People who use Wikipedia for information, are not going to care whether the information present is verifiable or not, if the information present is vague and uninformative. bob rulz 09:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You might as well give up now. In their overly anal and strict interpretation of the rules, the people who have decided that this article is under their jurisdiction have dedicated themselves to making it as bare bones and uninformative as possible. Sadly, this seems to be becoming the norm in many Wikipedia articles. Strip them of everything that might make them interesting, engaging, or informative and then call it "encyclopedic".PiccoloNamek 09:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

When did this whole "the video is not a reliable source" thing start? The current article uses it as a source in a good way, see source #14. For observations based on the video, major game reviewers are cited. User:Bob rulz, what more do you want this article to write based on the video? --User:Krator (t c) 11:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe the current sources are fine, but that's not really my point. I'm mainly talking about how Kesh (and possibly others; I haven't been paying a whole lot of attention to who is who) is claiming that specific unit abilities and names shown in the video demonstration are not "reliable" because they "might" not be in the final product. But that's not my only issue here, and I still haven't gotten straight answers on any of my issues with the article, really. Maybe they just don't feel the need to address them because I don't "agree" with the consensus. I'm willing to come to a compromise, and they're all shielding themselves by throwing out wiki-policy and pretending like that answers everything. I also just haven't recieved a good response to me stating that the unit section is depressingly devoid of information. I'm going to repeat this statement: People who use Wikipedia for information, are not going to care whether the information present is verifiable or not, if the information present is vague and uninformative. At that point it won't matter, and that's how I feel this article is. I will repeat what I said in the first part of this argument in the section above: the current unit section will help neither a person familiar with the original StarCraft or one who's unfamiliar with it, and it certainly won't help anyone trying to find valuable information on the game. Finally, I state again, I'm not looking for a list of units and all of their abilities, just more specific information on the units that have been announced (and the current information has come from a very reliable source, Kesh). bob rulz 12:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly, step back and take a breath - it doesn't help your contention when you make personal attacks against other users. Secondly, perhaps rewording instead of repeating your argument may help: Information on Wikipedia is not informative if it is too vague. Your current wording implies that WP:V and WP:RS should be thrown into the wind regardless. -- Scottie_theNerd  12:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * First, what personal attacks have I made? Second, you are also repeating your argument by throwing up wiki-policy and pretending like that answers any and all arguments. Third, you still didn't respond to any of my concerns. I don't have to reword when what I am addressing is not being answered in the first place. Perhaps instead of shielding yourself with more rules and policy, perhaps you could actually address the issue I'm trying to bring up here. bob rulz 12:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Bob rulz, could you make an edit in a sandbox to show what you want to do with this article? Currently I do not have a clear picture of how you plan to solve your observed "vague" and "uninformative" style of the article without introducing a list of units and their abilities. --User:Krator (t c) 14:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems that a few editors here are using wiki rules to ruin the article. Ok, there is such a thing as Ignore all rules - also a wiki rule. If you are here to rant about some rules in order to keep the article as crap, and completely uninterest visitors and readers - then get lost. You are trying to ruin the article and have gaven a wiki rule, and I gave a wiki rule which said to ignore the editors when they do that - end of story. I have created a units and Buildings page (WHICH CURRENTLY LIST UNITS, BUT IT WILL BE IMPROVED) in order to improve this article and raise the wiki status among those who are interested in sc2. Addictgamer 16:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR is only for when the rules prevent improvement of Wikipedia. It's not carte blanche for editors to do whatever they want when their pet subject isn't allowed. Unit lists are unencyclopedic. And your article is exactly what we're trying to avoid here. You didn't even bother to actually source it.
 * Further as to your desire to "raise the wiki status among those who are interested in sc2," all I have to say is: Wikipedia is not an advertising vehicle. We're here to present verifiable facts, not compete with fan forums for popularity. -- Kesh 18:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rules prevent improvement of Wikipedia, so I will use WR:IAR. Your only reason for deleting these improvements is because of "wiki rules" - so rules are preventing us from improving wikipedia and I will ignore them. Concerning my page - give it a few days before actually commenting on it. Addictgamer 18:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. They are not improvements, they in fact make the article less encyclopedic. And I've prodded your page. If you want to "give it a few days," copy the text to your user space and work on it there. It does not belong in article space as a fork of this article. -- Kesh 18:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What is your problem? The page is not linked to starcraft 2 article so can I have a chance here? And they are improvements and I am ignoreing your rules. Addictgamer 18:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems that these starcraft haters don't know when to give up so I have transfered the info to my page so that it can be transfered back when its improved. And how pathetic - I create a page and Kesh complains that it doesn't source anything. That's just f* sad. Addictgamer 19:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Whenever you create or edit an article, you are explicitly told that whatever you add must be verifiable. Look at your screen for a few seconds before you hit the "Save Page" button when you respond to this. It's right there. -- Scottie_theNerd  20:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't even see why this is an issue; eventually Blizzard will release info on each unit on Starcraft2.com, so just leave info out for now until it's up. --Notmyhandle 20:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I am not a StarCraft hater. I'm ecstatic that a sequel is coming out, and I'll snap up a copy as soon as it's out. However, I'm also enthusiastic about Wikipedia and want to make it as reliable a resource as possible. That means following the rules as best we can.
 * BTW, Addictgamer, you probably want to move the content from your actual userpage to a sub-page (like User:Addictgamer/Starcraft 2 units. Keeping article content in your userpage may result in the user page being deleted, and I actually don't want that. Just copy & paste the content into my redlink, and you can work on it there. -- Kesh 23:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, all I am asking is to answer this simple question, which no one has answered. Obviously I'm going to have to get all of my issues addressed one at a time. Perhaps it's too many questions for you to all absorb all at once. My question is how is the presentation given by Blizzard about the video, where it's all explained in detail everything that's happening on the screen, the units, the special abilities, how is it not a reliable source? For the love of god, just answer this question then you can go back to throwing out wiki-policy at every chance you get. For once, just put aside using the wiki-policy as an answer to everything and address this specific issue. Then I can go on trying to explain what I'd like to see in more detail. You guys are not cooperating with me. I'm willing to come to a compromise, but you guys seem to think that throwing up wiki-policy at every turn is going to answer all of my questions when in fact it's just irritating me and is not at all answering my questions. bob rulz 05:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * First off, it's a Primary source, which WP:RS wants us to avoid at all costs. Second, it's a promotional tool for Blizzard, not an independant source of information. Third, if you could point out a specific video that has commentary about the units, it would be appreciated. All the ones I've seen were just the units going about their business with no commentary. That still wouldn't solve the other problems about sourcing, but I'd enjoy seeing it as a fan of the game! Fourth, videos are subject to interpretation and can't be as reliably cited the way articles or books can.
 * Finally, I would suggest you take some time to cool off. You seem to be getting very upset about this and taking it personally. We're citing Wikipedia policy because we were trying to explain why the videos were not reliable sources. You seem to be taking that personally, when it's not, and coming close to making some personal attacks here. I'm trying to cooperate, but you seem to feel that "the videos are reliable sources" is truth, despite the policies we're pointing out. -- Kesh 06:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The 22 minute long developer explanation video has extremely detailed explanations of several of the new units, not only what they are called, but what they do and what their strengths and weaknesses are in relation to other units. As for the sourcing issue... the developer videos are, by definition, the most reliable source of information we have right now, regardles of what Wikipedia says about sourcing. All of the information is there, explained clearly in plain english, with no room open for interpretation. And not only that, but secondary sources aren't exactly plentiful right now anyway.PiccoloNamek 06:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And that would be a pretty good reason why we should bickering about this whole thing. The article is in fairly good shape as it is considering our lack of sources. Wait a few months and more information will come out from primary and secondary sources that will make this whole debate a moot point. Seriously, by the time you get your point across, we would've updated the article with more contemporary content anyway. -- Scottie_theNerd  06:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

First, thank you for explaining what I was trying to say PiccoloNamek. I also realize that I probably did overreact, but I was getting very frustrated at getting the same response almost every time I brought up my issues. I think based on Kesh's comments that I may not have been getting across exactly which video I was talking about...Piccolo cleared it up for me. Hopefully all confusion is gone now. I also don't have the perseverance to look through extensive policies and to try to connect the dots to figure out why the video in question would technically be a reliable source...I've never been very good at that kind of thing (or in stating what I'm trying to get across in a simple way, as can be seen by my overreacting), but I still believe that since the video is the main source of information for the game, that it should be used as such. There really is nothing open to interpretation. And perhaps you just missed it Kesh, but the previews for StarCraft II pretty clearly state that most of the information in the article was derived from when the speaker was giving details on the video being shown.

Now, I can get down on to what I think can be specifically improved about the units section (sorry if it's overly long, I'm probably gonna go into quite a bit of detail here):

''StarCraft II will feature approximately the same number of units as the original game.[15] Many units from the original game will return, some featuring new upgrades and abilities. For example, the Protoss Zealot, a melee unit from the original game, now has the ability to "charge" into combat[16]. Other changes to unit design have been inspired by story events in StarCraft and its expansion, Brood War, replacing old units with new, or renamed, versions which sport different attributes and abilities.[16]''

This first paragraph is actually fine in my opinion. It states an example of a change to a specific unit; it doesn't list all of the known changes, nor should it, but it gives perhaps the most prominent known example. It doesn't really matter which example of an upgrade to a previous unit it gives, but it names a specific unit and that only that unit will have this ability. In addition, it does not name any additional abilities, and does not leave anything specific ambiguous or left up to the reader to figure out. In case that wasn't clear, an example would be "and the ability to carry handheld shields." An ambiguous sentence like this would leave questions such as "multiple units?", "just one unit?", or "which units?"

It's this second paragraph that I have a problem with:

''The video demonstration also revealed new abilities that encourage more complex interaction with the game environment. Among these are the inclusion of units that can traverse varying levels of terrain,[14] or that become more powerful after gaining a number of kills[17], or that have the capability to teleport short distances for pursuit or escape.[16] Newly enhanced building structures enable units to be deployed nearly instantly into combat areas.[16][17] Many websites, such as Infoceptor also confirm the existence of units who can attack ground and air units simultaneously.[18], though it is unclear whether such features will be retained in the final release.''

The first sentence and most of the second sentence are fine. However, I begin to have a problem with "or that have the capability to teleport short distances for pursuit or escape." As far as we know, only one unit has this ability. This makes it sound as though multiple units have been given this ability and is misleading to the reader. It is misleading because it doesn't provide enough specific information. To erase this confusion, it can be said as "one unit" rather than as "units."

Newly enhanced building structures enable units to be deployed nearly instantly into combat areas.

This is the sentence I've got a huge problem with. It is hopelessly ambiguous and leaves the unknowing reader begging for more. The reality is is that only one specific structure has been confirmed to be able to do this. This makes it sound like, again, that multiple structures have this capability. Also, in reality, in this case "deployed" means "units that are produced may instantly appear at a certain chosen point on the map, within the radius of a Pylon or through the utilization of a new unit known as the Phase Prism." Obviously it doesn't have to be quite this specific, but as it is it is misleading. Anyone wishing to know more and goes to a fansite that does have this specific information will return to Wikipedia to find that this sentence is, in a sense, "wrong", or at least "misleading," and therefore be misinterpreted by a reader unknowing of this subject. The final sentence is fine as written, but could be more informative. I won't complain though.

Finally, I do believe that there should be a paragraph that describes some of the new units just a bit more in-depth. Something along the lines of:

"The video demonstration mostly revealed new units and abilities for the Protoss race. Some of the new units included a ship that can temporarily disable nearby ships, as well as one that serves as a mobile Pylon structure by powering any Protoss buildings underneath it. The Protoss were also revealed to have a unit so powerful, the Mothership, that they can only possess 1 of them at any given time."

This is just a rough view of how I can see one of these paragraphs as being written. It can be rewritten and integrated into the other paragraphs any way we see fit.

If an article can include this: Small cliffs, extensions, and even advertising signs were shown to have been improved and refined.[14] then I don't understand how it can't include something akin to what I've written above. Hopefully my rant clears up any previous confusion, misinterpretation, or frutration from my previous posts. Thoughts? bob rulz 07:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll come back to this later, as I'm rather busy this weekend. Suffice to say, a lot of what you quoted needs to be removed from the articles as WP:OR, based on the viewer's interpretation of the video rather than actual citable fact. -_Kesh 20:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Again I bring up the point that it was an actual Blizzard demonstration video, presented by an official from Blizzard, and is therefore a reliable fact. However, I will wait until you review the issues I have brought up to continue this. bob rulz 03:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * bob is correct - when such information is explicitly stated by the demonstrator, there is no room for interpretation or original research. -- Scottie_theNerd  08:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The End (and this time I mean it)
Twice now this has happened&mdash;someone has fired up the creation log and filled out a page that ends up on afd. This lastest page (Units and Buildings of Starcraft 2) makes me think we need to take this campaign against lists of units and structures up a level. I think when this page gets deleted we should see about getting an Administerator to block this page and the other one so they won't be recreated, and I think we need to add a notice about not creating unit/structure lists here; otherwise, we are going to end up with this same problem again. Thoughts on this? TomStar81 (Talk) 19:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll move for a "delete and salt" the next time it shows up. --Haemo 07:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It will be impossible to protect all names. (Units and Buildings, Units and buildings, Units, of/in/appearing in/ Starcraft II, Starcraft 2, with the possible additions of "confirmed" or "announced".)Agreeing to speedy delete it next time is the only thing we can do. --User:Krator (t c) 13:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Not the end
WTF? You deleted my page under made up reasons:


 * It's original research
 * NO it's not, it's from the starcraft2.com or from the voice of the Blizzard programmer in the videos.


 * It can't be sourced
 * Why is Blizzard's videos on their game not a reliable source for their game?


 * Not related to the game
 * IT IS. The entire point of starcraft2 is the new units and buildings that they will have.

Any other reasons for not having the page? Addictgamer 02:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What the fuck. Why do some of the editors here have the right to delete anything they don't like and completely ignore all the visitors who want the page improved? Go annoy some other article.


 * We didn't delete anything; the community, as a whole, deleted your article because it is not encyclopedic material, and a re-creation of previously deleted content. Wikipedia is not a game guide, and you do not improve the encyclopedia in any way by creating lists of units.  --Haemo 02:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What whole community? Five editors out of a million editors count as "the whole"? And it does improve the article as stated by countless visitors. It's not a guide - ITS A DESCRIPTION OF THE NEW COMPONENTS OF THE GAME! Addictgamer 02:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And read game guide before you make false accusations. Addictgamer 02:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, those 5 and the 15 previous ones -- and two closing admins who vetted it. If you have a problem, contact them, or use deletion review.  A strategy guide will list units.  Wikipedia does not.  That is the heart and whole of the rules we have here.  It's a guide to what's going to be in the game; that's not something we, as an encyclopedia, are interested.  We have guidelines for what is and is not acceptable -- this sort of content has been repeatedly rejected.  See the original AfD for an explanation of why this content is inappropriate.  --Haemo 03:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As Haemo stated, you should read the Afd page: there were seventeen votes to delete, one to merge, and a resounding five to keep it as a separate article.  That is what he means by the community as a whole deleting the article..
 * Also, I have a "Game guide" for StarCraft, and, looking at it, the first chapter (after the introduction) is entitled "Units and Structures", and takes up a quarter of the page count of the guide. Therefore, it would seem that putting a "Unit and Structures" list would be trying to make an article more suitable for a game guide than for an encyclopedia. Nimelennar 03:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Everything you wish to know about WikiPedia's anti-game guide campaign can be found here. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that units shouldn't be listed in detail in the article. The thing is that the article for Protoss and Zerg have units there for a long time and no one has ever remove them. So maybe it's ok to list units and structures there? Oidia 05:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The original StarCraft article did not have unit lists. In fact, users have already started adding new units to the Protoss and Zerg articles. --  ►ShadowJester07  05:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Aw heck naw - I just removed them. They're not appropriate anywhere.  --Haemo 05:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I made a lot of edits to try and make them less-game guide, but it didn't work. The problem is that users, anonymous and registered alike, will end up adding them back. Wikipedia may not be a game guide, but when it comes to games, some people try to blur the lines.The Clawed One 05:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Should a warning be placed at the beginning of the article and the three race articles? Something similar to " " (The tags around the text will hide it from normal viewing and can only be seen in the editing window). This might stop some people from adding such information to those articles, though its probably not very effective. --kenobi.zero 08:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Funny you should mention that; we had one there some weeks ago, but it mysteriously disappeared just before all this crap hit the fan. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I remember that too, but it's likely that people just won't care. Wikiality and all that. The Clawed One 13:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, you guys are what I said earlier. You have no care for basic information. You need to figure out what information is! You people ruin wikipedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.41.230.34 (talk • contribs) 22:05, July 24, 2007

Actually The End
how about putting something more that indicates towards the starcraftwikia and strategywikia. I just read the discussion here and realized that those sites exist. If you had something more indicating towards them then just the external links, I would have never bothered with my units page, and no one will bother you again I can guarantee it. We are happy as long as it's somewhere, and it's ok if it's not wikipedia. Thanks for those links to whomever! (Not everyone reads the whole page including the external links! - upgrade that top of the page) Addictgamer 20:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I made an attempt. Suggestions, remarks, and donations are welcome. --User:Krator (t c) 22:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I hate these giant boxes for external links. The Wikia link is clearly visible right there in plain sight. No need for a box, sorry. --- RockMFR 03:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Though clearly visible, the editor above indicated that he did not find it, and unnecessarily created a list article because of it. I have changed the section order to increase visibility. --User:Krator (t c) 09:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Seriously. People should check whether the information they're about to put in is already in a more appropriate place. --Capefeather 21:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"Promotion" Section
Since it's generally been decided that people should go watch the gameplay video itself, rather than coming here, to find unit data etc., perhaps we should make a section entitled "Promotion," which mentions the various media that Blizzard has created and distributed to promote the game (Gameplay video, cinematic trailer, artwork trailer, website, PC Gamer article, PC Gamer video, etc.) as well as possibly a brief description of the data that was revealed in each. This should allow people to find the data that they're looking for (which seems to be a common complaint from the people who want the unit data included here), without including non-encyclopedic data in the article itself. Nimelennar 16:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You could just send them to StrategyWiki. --Notmyhandle 20:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt that will solve the problem: It will just be shot down as an "unreliable source." I think a Promotion section will solve a lot of the problems we're having right now.  That would be quite a good thing, considering that we haven't made any progress on this issue since full protection was enabled, so it looks like we'll be right back into an edit war when the protection expires.  I just have no idea how to write it. Nimelennar 16:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he meant to direct people to the other wiki, not link to it in the article as a source. Just like Wookieepedia is a better place for Star Wars trivia, StrategyWiki would be better for SC2 trivia. -- Kesh 22:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We've had the link to "StarCraft II at StarCraft Wiki at Wikia" for almost as long as this article has been in existence, and that hasn't stopped the units problem from occurring. I think we need something in-article to refer them to the promotional material, and thus the much-coveted unit list. Nimelennar 22:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)