Hi Gamepedia users and contributors! Please complete this survey to help us learn how to better meet your needs in the future. We have one for editors and readers. This should only take about 7 minutes!

User talk:Sandwichman2448/RTS units project

From Wowpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I'm in

Cool, I didn't knew about this proyect, I'd like to enter. I'll add links to the Warcraft III icons in the article. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure! Any help is appreciated. Sorry for my less-than-speedy response.--SWM2448 22:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought you might like this template: template: WC3UnitBox

You can see it in use on the footman page. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I like it. My only concern is that it may clash with the other infoboxes included on pages. You are welcome to help.--SWM2448 21:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
It needs editing. Basically I just grabbed a template from another wiki I work on, so it needs WoW-ification. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Fandyllic made huge changes to it. It's missing hero stuff, but it's useble now. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You can count on me

I was planning on cleaning some sections (Warcraft_III_units my eyes bleed) and I suspected I saw a project long ago.

So here I am. If I can join or just help a bit, I'll be totally glad.

A small note/suggestion: I think we should included stats of the units. (Only default stats)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lon-ami (talk · contr).

You can join. Smiley.gif Unit stats for WCIII are tricky. There are a lot of units, the single player stats vary from mission to mission, and the default stats are updated every so often in the seldom patches. Unless someone were to go on Battle.net and click on every unit, I have no idea how to get the information. I believe the Warcraft III units page started out as a list of all the unit files in the World Editor, and is useless in its current state.--SWM2448 21:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Glad to be in, then Tongueout.gif.
Well, yeah. That page sucks. Mostly, because most of the campaign units are useless or have their stats modified in-game. So no sense there.
For the stats things, I don't find it that hard. I'm good with the World Editor (I actually make maps) and it's a piece of cake for me to open the files and take the exact stats of each unit.
We're talking of Bnet mele, of course. Trying to add all the stats at the campaign would be just mad, so let's focus on their stats at Bnet. (I say this because, for example, the footman has his stats changed on some particular missions)
For the campaign units, like naga and blood elves, we'll have to check every map and get the main pattern and, if we don't find one, take the balanced one (that of those missions where you play simple rts).
That's all. I'll keep you informed when I start gathering information.
--Lon-ami (talk) 08:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Amorielle's Request

"IconSmall HighElf Female.gif Amorielle Churchlight, the High Scribe of Quel'Danil Lodge wishes to join the project.

Can i join the this project. I am fond of Warcraft 3 Units.

Queldoreifanaticz (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Merged information

I think that we could (unsure if this is the current plan) merge the stats sections of the units with the lore section of it. I mean, don't create Grunt (Warcraft 3) page, put that info on Grunt page. The units and buildings don't have many information. The only ones deserving those "subpages", imo, are the heroes whose lore info is too much to be mixed with the w3 stats, like Dreadlord and Dread Lord. Others, like Warden, should have everything in a single page.

And, for those cases with subpages, we should, of course, include the small W3 description in both pages, with a link to the stats in the main one.

And now, the problem of capitalization. Whether we decide or not to keep the W3 capital letters, the lore pages follow other rules, and don't have them, like Head hunter. What should we do in these cases?

My idea would be to change them to capital letters, and if that doesn't success, well, use the redirect or edit the templates in order to make them go to the section of the lore article with the W3 information.

After all, what I think it's best is that the W3 info should be merged as much as the WoW info, the same we way we have sections like "Whoever at World of Warcraft", we should have "Whoever at Warcraft III".

Well, opinions?

--Lon-ami (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


How should we categorize the W3 units? My main idea would be something like this:

  • Warcraft III
    • Warcraft III units
      • Warcraft III melee units
        • Warcraft III human units
        • Warcraft III orc units
        • Warcraft III undead units
        • Warcraft III night elf units
      • Warcraft III campaign units
    • Warcraft III hero units
      • Warcraft III melee hero units
      • Warcraft III campaign hero units
    • Warcraft III buildings
      • Warcraft III melee buildings
        • Warcraft III human buildings
        • Warcraft III orc buildings
        • Warcraft III undead buildings
        • Warcraft III night elf buildings
      • Warcraft III campaign buildings

Neutral units could get their own category, too, or just remain in the main one. Also, I'm not sure about naming heroes "hero units". Wouldn't it be easier if they ere simply called "heroes"?--Lon-ami (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

A question: Where would naga be included?
I think the neutral units should deserve their own category, something like this:
      • Warcraft III neutral units (under the Warcraft III units)
      • Warcraft III neutral hero units (under the hero Warcraft III units) Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

All the heroes go into "Warcraft III mele hero units". Naga would go in the campaign category... we could do this, instead:

Just like at the world editor. This organization only has one fail: where could we put those? Since, well, they would appear as Akama, Sylvanas Windrunner, Garithos or similar in the campaign category, but their "class" wouldn't have room anywhere. Or, well, we could simply put it among the named ones at the campaign category. Opinions?--Lon-ami (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Also, another possibility, this one more editor-style:

I prefer the first one, but, well, I think someone could like this, too.--Lon-ami (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer the second one, so that people familiar with the world editor can find things more easily, but I'm not sure. And just remember that is "melee" and not "mele" if the categories are made :) Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
ZOMG, thanks for the advice, didn't notice, since in my language is with a single "e". Thanks ;). Also, I'm unsure, but I think the 2 categorizations could work. I don't see link-loops.--Lon-ami (talk) 09:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Added links, I'm editing them all right now, wait 20 minutes or so and you'll have everything properly categorized ;).--Lon-ami (talk) 11:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Done. Also, categorized some of the heroes.--Lon-ami (talk) 13:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think all the complicated categories are needed... I'm thinking of something like this:

  • Category:Warcraft III
    • Category:Warcraft III buildings
      • Category:Warcraft III human buildings
      • Category:Warcraft III orc buildings
      • Category:Warcraft III night elf buildings
      • Category:Warcraft III undead buildings
      • Category:Warcraft III naga buildings
      • Category:Warcraft III campaign buildings
    • Category:Warcraft III units
      • Category:Warcraft III human units
      • Category:Warcraft III orc units
      • Category:Warcraft III night elf units
      • Category:Warcraft III undead units
      • Category:Warcraft III naga units
      • Category:Warcraft III campaign units
    • Category:Warcraft III custom
      • Category:Warcraft III custom buildings
      • Category:Warcraft III custom units

This will make it much easier to navigate through the categories, and that there's no real reason to make that many subcategories. --g0urra[T҂C] 16:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The categorization proposed (the one which I supported and Lon-ami created) is the categorization Blizzard does in the World Editor, I'm just telling as a note. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 02:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
So what? You're saying that despite logic and common sense, Blizzard's word is law? Is the World Editor a real reason to make all the categories?
And Lon-ami, I haven't seen a final vote for all this categorization, so I'd wait with adding these categories. --g0urra[T҂C] 12:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'll freeze it for now. Aside from that, each category, or groups of categories, will be supposed to have an article of its own. The nomenclature, anyway, it's fine. The organization... as pointed by Benitoperezgaldos, are the same used in the files, in the world editor and by the melee players and e-sports tournaments.
Also, making campaign be under formerly-named melee would loop categories, and we'll only be able to have one categorization.--Lon-ami (talk) 12:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any rule that every category should have an article about it, but I can see why an article such as Warcraft III units/Human or Warcraft III human units (maybe with Human instead of human) could be created, with a summary of each unit.
About campaign units: Sage Truthbearer could be in both Warcraft III human units and Warcraft III campaign units. I don't see why it should be in the category Warcraft III human campaign units, or Warcraft III human campaign hero units, since those categories would be too small to serve a useful purpose.
The organization again; just because it's categorized like that in toe World Editor, melee players and tournaments, doesn't mean that it should be categorized like that here on WoWWiki. --g0urra[T҂C] 12:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Sage is definitely campaign: his stats are custom, and, if you're referring to him having to be in melee because he shares name with the random list names of paladins, then there's no need, cause that list is inside Paladin (Warcraft III) and, anyway, this is not about characters: It's about units.
Also, I don't find any better name for Warcraft III melee units than Warcraft III melee units. Warcraft III units is supposed to have all the units.
Finally, I find it odd that you tell me to quit categorizing one way because we haven't decided yet which one should apply to just go and change the category to another one basing in your own opinion -_-.--Lon-ami (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I've never referred to that Sage is melee unit. I meant that it should be a campaign unit since it's only used in the campaign. Random names doesn't count.
The Warcraft III units that are commonly referred to are the ones that you call "melee" units, I'm pretty sure that most people who play Warcraft III haven't heard of "melee" units. At least I've never heard about it.
And I'm sure you understand that I changed to those categories since they are the faction's units. --g0urra[T҂C] 17:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Am, misunderstood! I was not referring to the melee ones, anyway, just to campaign: Category:Warcraft III orc campaign units when there's already Category:Warcraft III campaign orc units :S.--Lon-ami (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh right, I thought it would be more grammatically correct with "orc campaign units" than "campaign orc units". I guess you're not thinking the same way? --g0urra[T҂C] 17:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's just a "tree" thing. Depends where you include them, for categorization purposes. I prefer the first one, just because leaves "orc whatever" together, and campaign isn't in the middle of the name.
Categories should have coherency and cohesion in their names.--Lon-ami (talk) 11:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Categories should be grammatically correct; and if we're going to be nitpicky, if the category was under "Warcraft III orc units" and "Warcraft III campaign units", then my variant is just as logical, no? --g0urra[T҂C] 22:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, depending on the categorization... If we put campaign under melee, it should be changed, and your name would be way better. If you want it that simple, then, it should remain something like this:
  • Category:Warcraft III
    • Category: Warcraft III human
      • Category: Warcraft III human buildings
      • Category: Warcraft III human heroes
      • Category: Warcraft III human units
      • Category: Warcraft III human campaign
        • Category: Warcraft III human campaign buildings
        • Category: Warcraft III human campaign heroes
        • Category: Warcraft III human campaign units
    • Category:Warcraft III buildings
      • Category:Warcraft III human buildings
      • Category:Warcraft III campaign buildings
        • Category:Warcraft III human campaign buildings
    • Category:Warcraft III heroes
      • Category:Warcraft III human heroes
      • Category:Warcraft III campaign heroes
        • Category:Warcraft III human campaign heroes
    • Category:Warcraft III units
      • Category:Warcraft III human units
      • Category:Warcraft III campaign units
        • Category:Warcraft III human campaign units
Applied for all the races, nope? I don't know, I think that, in the end, this could end being even more complicated. Also, the point of my former ideas was to have campaign and melee all together in Warcraft III human units and then split them between melee and campaign. With this system, this can't be done. Anyway, if we don't reach a decision, we could ask via-poll to the community what's the best for them and let them choose, since, well, we're only 3 guys discussing here.--Lon-ami (talk) 09:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you made it more complicated than needed in the first place, why do you need "Warcraft III human"? First it's grammatically incorrect (if anything it should be "Warcraft III humans", but then it implies it would be for humans in Warcraft III") and second we don't need double parent categories for every subcategory. To me "Warcraft III human buildings" could be in just "Warcraft III buildings": being in "Warcraft III human(s)" is not necessary. The same goes for "Warcraft III campaign buildings"; they can be in just "Warcraft III buildings" without having to be in a "Warcraft III campaign".
To me this makes it more clean as there are less categories to keep track of. Additionally it would be grammatically correct and not to mention logical in the sense the category tree structure ("Warcraft III human buildings" in just "Warcraft III buildings"). I hope to hear the opinion of someone else than just you and me though. --g0urra[T҂C] 09:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm accustomed at seeing it that way because of the mapmaking, so I don't know how the other people would see it. I'll prepare some examples and ask in the forum later ;).--Lon-ami (talk) 10:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

More articles we would need

I think, too (tonight I'm inspired, it seems xD) that there are some other articles we would need to work out, too:

These ones would be for each race, with all their tech-trees and whatever.

And other game terms that aren't defined on the wiki.--Lon-ami (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this terms should be done but maybe we should add something like Building (RTSs) or something. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
What do you propose that each Warcraft III race article should have then? --g0urra[T҂C] 17:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
An explanation of the tech tree and main strategies of the race. Strong and weak points. Upgrades. Lore. Those things that can't be included in other places. It should serve as the main article for the race, too, with links to all the units, building and heroes.--Lon-ami (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Pages for each of the races

I think I'm going to start to work on those pages. My goal is to create something similar to these pages, but for Warcraft II and III:

And clean those ones, by the way.

The layout inside my head right now is this one:

  • Inside the lore article, we include a section for each game's appearances. The section should include:
    • The lore-text inside the manual or the guide
    • The in-game icon
    • A picture of the model
      • Both images could be place at the left side, the icon over the model.
    • A separate link for the statistics page (too much mess to include them in the lore article)
  • Inside the army page, we'd include a copy of that same section. If we decide not to make a stats page, we'd include the stats instead of the link to the stats page, or make a whole new stats page for all the units (a good choice, considering W1 and W2 share the same stats between factions).

So we'd have 4 different types of pages:

  • Lore article of the unit
  • List of units and their lore description
  • Stats article of the unit (W3) or List of units and their stats (W1 and 2)

The heroes or named units with a piece of lore in the manual or guide would get a page of their own. The neutral units would get one, too.

In the end, something like this:

Opinions?--Lon-ami (talk) 14:11, January 6, 2010 (UTC)