Talk:Shattered Galaxy

Untitled

It is said that SG is free, but when I try to sign up, I am required to pay to activate an account. Has this offer been discontinued? -Fragrag

Nope, it hasn't been discontinued. You're allowed a "basic" account with limitations (no time, but other stuff). When they say "activate", they mean paying for a activated account. You are allowed to play with a basic account for as long as you want, without needing to register. -BuddyJesus

I added a table that details the differences between a Basic (Free) and Elite (Monthly Fee) account. I hope it helps a little bit. Feezy501 04:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Units

Would it be a good idea to add a list of units and what they are good add to this page?

sry didnt know where to post, but hte newest version ich 1.84 not 1.82 84.169.93.124 (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Units

Yes, it would be a great idea to have such information available.

- Ichiro Yamato 06:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Unit Section Added

I've added a section on the units in the game, included short forms for their names, and I wrote descriptions for each one. This is my first major contribution to Wikipedia, I hope I did well. Koncur 06:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Units Added Look Now!

Triviumrocker

I've reverted, and here's why: The units aren't notable enough on their own to justify their own articles, nor is a full detailed list on all the units required in an encyclopedia article (see WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information).

The level of detail you are proposing here should go into a gaming wiki such as GamerWiki. Marasmusine 11:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont think i understand, this would be a great way to show everyone the units available, thier uses, stats and other things about them which could be referred to.
I think its a great idea..

88.107.65.11 17:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a great idea for a gaming wiki, but it's too much trivial detail for an encyclopedia entry. You seem pretty eager, so why not go along to GamerWiki and get started? :> Marasmusine 20:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes ok i will, but can i copy the general template of this page in terms of the article. Would i have to write a similer one or could i copy the information already here?

Triviumrocker 10:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that. Wikipedia isn't paper after all. There's a page for every frickin' Pokemon for Christ sake. And one for minor characters in Blade Runner. And one for several major Naruto characters. Notability should only matter in so much that it can be verified. This shouldn't be a problem as information on each unit is on several websites as well as the game itself. Still, in depth information on units might need its or even their own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.168.243.43 (talk)

See WP:Pokémon test. There's a difference between creating articles for units and providing unit lists and statistics. The latter is game guide material, which goes against WP:NOT - notice that no game article with good article or featured article status has extensive lists of items, weapons, units and so on. Also see the video game article guidelines. --Scottie_theNerd 07:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

So...are you agreeing with me? Units should go in their own articles and notability is basically irrevelant...right? Or did I miss some important point of what you're trying to say? I was thinking something along the lines of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legend_of_Zelda_series_weapons_and_items —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxser (talk • contribs)

No, you missed my point entirely. The items in the above article are a controversial point and has survived several attempts at deletion. The main notion behind the survival of the article is the significance of the Legend of Zelda series. Shattered Galaxy has nowhere near the same amount of significance. A unit list will not be accepted on Wikipedia as an article or as a list in the Shattered Galaxy article.

Seriously, the SG Wiki linked to in the article already lists the units. What more do you want? --Scottie_theNerd 09:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm Im back to SG now, and i agree with each unit having its own page. OMG i made one frto deava and such and someone reverted them! I cant belive this. Also, im the first oster btw at the top --Triviumrocker 12:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Added/Updated some In-Game Terms

Hope they explain a bit more, and reflect upon the changes since the last update.

Also, I would like to point out Ballistic gunfire Shades are practically worthless in most situations. Laser Shades are a bit better, but not much. From personal experience, make sure you use the Maxus series, since they provide Missiles with low cooldown. If you use Shades, Cloak is a must-have, unless you make FastPoccer Shades.

- Ichiro Yamato 23:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

-Edit- Sorry if it may sound somewhat misleading in some cases, but I'm a frequent Relic player, so my perspective mainly pertains to Relic.

- Ichiro Yamato 19:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

-Fixed Quorg description. It does not take a special promotion code; rather, it takes 800 uranium to unlock.

- Ichiro Yamato 17:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed some of the unit descriptions. Apps and Ghasts do not deal AP damage, medics charge warp in 45 seconds. Another way to get on camo Revs is to use Knells. Knells have no effects related to cloak. Spirits' and Hawks' ability is called Sensor Evasion. Gear-Docs also have neutron. Elaborated more about Neutron. Did some other fixes that are not that important to mention.

I understand that you play on Relic, but remember that the game is based on MP, so this should be based on MP.

--

Edited the Stat discussion mainly and added in a link at the bottom to the forums. Added in the qualification that Hawks are better than Owls on Relic.

This page needs to be thoroughly overhauled to bring the language and scope inline with that of a encyclopedia as apposed to a fansite or game guide, removing and reorganizing strategic discussions and rewriting to avoid coloquial words and phrases in favor of a more formal standard english composition.--68.231.174.183 18:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

starcraft units

The starcraft units sections is totaly irrelevant, inacurate and takes up way too much space. If it is decided to remain in the page, there should also be a section explaining diffrences the two games have.

Cleanup

This article is messy, lacks organization, detail, citing, and just has a very over bad style of writing. It requires major cleanup. 68.181.224.187 10:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Julius/NuclearJJJ

Anon comment

Basically, there should be any information which country has made it. I saw this page is written it comes from Germany last time, but it has been changed. When I checked the country which made it, it was from South Korea. You can check it in the game, also Nexon is Korean company —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.156.52.103 (talk • contribs) .

POV

Is anyone bothered at the fact that almost the entire page consist of point of view statements?128.208.125.95 02:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Unit fix: Super Organics

A friend came here and wanted to know more about the super organics. Since I'm a SG vet, I took the liberty to fill out a more descriptive section on super organics. Also I've made a few additions to the units page. Also most of the units are not detailed in description and or have inaccurate description. AWP Lizard

POV

There is an excessive amount of POV in this article. Too many snippets saying things like, "Specs have some pretty decent ground-to-air attacks." or "It is debatable as to whether or not they[Behemoths] outlive their usefulness in MP". There even is some wrong information, like "Neutron Shields also offers passive protection against one of the game's four damage types (laser, ballistic, missile and flame), increasing their armor by 6 against the selected type of damage". There is too much POV here.XXjsXx 01:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)XXjsXx

Change

I support the deletion of the characters section, and I think that it makes this article less of a game guide and more of an encyclopedia entry.XXjsXx 05:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Why was this given a {notability} tag? It seems easily notable enough to me. Most major games are given Wikipedia pages, and SG is also one of the first MMORTS games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XXjsXx (talk • contribs)

I added it because the software notability guideline (Wikipedia:Notability (software)) says: Software is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the software's author(s)..

No independent references have been provided in this article; however I'm sure it should be pretty easy to find some. When they have been added, the notability tag can be removed. Marasmusine 21:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is more appropriate to use the {{references}} tag than a non-notable tag. --Scottie theNerd 23:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Must've been in a funny mood. Added {{references}} (also kept the cleanup tag). Marasmusine 20:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SGscreenshot.jpg

Image:SGscreenshot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

We need pictures. For a game there are only words and no pictures which doesn't look good.