More information Edit
A tactics person will have to write that article. PsiSeveredHead 01:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
They still wear capes? Edit
They wear capes? That is not cool. Nobody in the real life wear capes during any war. They worn them in Starcraft 2. I even see their capes. we all saw it. Assaulthead 7-7-07
Have you noticed that they wear capes? Assualthead 9-9-07
- First off, capes are cool.
Second: Wars in which combatants wore capes,
1. Almost any medevil war. 2. Civil War. 3. World War 1
Hell, I could name more than that, just don't have the time. Capes not only look cool but protect the wearer from dust that could affect their weapons and in some cases can even help protect from falling debris.
Is it worth noting in the article that the Dark Templar that appeared in StarCraft original had 80 shields, 40 health, 0 armor, and 45 damamge (+1 per upgrade)? They also cost 150 minerals and gas, with a build time of 50 seconds, but this is never an issue as you cannot build them. They also have the name "Dark Templar" rather than "Protoss Dark Templar". Fred 13:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Made the change. Sorry it took so long; I saw this right before I had to leave the house to get to work. Please feel free to expand on the article section. PsiSeveredHead 22:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Capes are cool(at least on dark templar) so IMO they should wear capes and masks makes them look like assasins after all thats what they are. PRitender 16:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Article Split between Unit and Group Edit
Would it be appropriate to make a separate article for the Dark Templar 'tribe' and let this article concentrate more o n the 'individual' Dark Templar and unit? (Sort of like what we have for the Ghosts and the Ghost Program.) I'd like to get that cleared up before doing anything with this one. --Meco 22:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
That sounds good. Which page would be the "original" then? Unit, or Lore? PsiSeveredHead 00:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Rats, more complicated than I thought. >< If the group gets referred to more often, perhaps the unit should get its own page.
Or we can go the heavy-duty route and have three new articles then. A unit article ("Dark Templar (Unit)"), a group article ("Dark Templar (whatever)"), a disambiguation article, and the current article redirects to the disambiguation page. That might be good initially as we redirect links tot he proper pages. --Meco 02:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Although a disambiguation page might be more 'proper', I'm inclined to divide the article into Dark Templar (Unit) and Dark Templar (representing the tribes). In virtually all cases the Dark Templar group is being referenced. Basically, the only time the unit is referenced is in the 'occupation' category of characters.--Hawki 03:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I think Hawki has the right of it; the Dark Templar, as a unit, is really only discussed in a few tactics pages plus hero occupations. PsiSeveredHead 03:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm for it. You should set a redirect for "Protoss Dark Templar" to the unit page, however, for fairly obvious reasons. Fred 10:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Slaps own forehead* Would you believe it wasn't obvious to me? Good catch. PsiSeveredHead 13:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the Protoss Dark Templar would keep linking to this page, not the new unit page. At the moment only one link uses that redirect, so I think it might be easier just to fix up that single link and discard the redirect altogether. On the new unit page, I just discovered that if we make a new article "Dark Protoss (Unit)", the unit infobox uses "Dark Protoss (Unit)" as the title. Are we ok with that, or is a modification to the infobox template in order? --Meco 21:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
If you know how to fix the unitbox, please change it. You'll notice the newer infoboxes (eg superherobox) use the appropriate title. Changing all those unitboxes would take some time (since you have to alter it for each existing StarCraft I unit) but the change would be relatively simple.
The Protoss Dark Templar redirect isn't much of an issue; the one link can be changed and the redirect converted into the new article (or redirected to the Dark Templar (unit) article). PsiSeveredHead 23:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Looks like the infobox template is more versatile than I thought. It can handle a custom 'name' value, so all good there. <whew>. New unit page created. --Meco 00:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The numbering on the references section is messed up. Does anyone know how to fix it? -Capefeather 03:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Never mind. That was odd. -Capefeather 03:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
There are rumors in Korea that the Dark Templars are currently being lead by a Stalker named something like Rusvelic, Ruthvelic, Rusbelic or something similar. Is this true of just another rumor? Can anyone find out? I'd pass if this was a minor claim, but quite many people are insisting that this character exists, so I can't help suspect this is a truth released stealthly. I need someone to find it out from the Battlenet. Star II discussions or somewhere because I don't have an account in the Battlenet, please. Thank you. StarShade 13:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
You can still visit http://www.battle.net/forums/board.aspx?ForumName=sc2-general if you don't have an account. I'll ask there, but so far this is literally the first time I've seen this rumor. By the way, can you give me any links? (It doesn't matter if I can't read them.)
Most likely we're going to have to wait 2-1/2 weeks to discover the truth. :( PsiSeveredHead 13:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The current leader of the Dark Templar is Mohandar. I figure if Zeratul comes back he takes over the position. (Mohandar practically begged Zeratul to take it.) PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Does famous mean well-known within the StarCraft community, or important within the Koprulu sector. If the latter is the case, one could argue that Mohandar is also famous, as he is one of the leaders of not only the Dark Templar, but the entire Protoss race. at least according to the Twilight and Hierarchy articles.--220.127.116.11 09:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Fate After "Death"?Edit
I was asked an interesting question recently in terms of the lore of dark templar deaths. We know that when zealots and high templar come close to death on the battlefield, their suits teleport them back to a safe place so that they might be able to carry on in dragoons (now immortals). Before the stalker was invented, do we know what happens to dark templar when they vanished after running out of HP? I would think that, now that the stalker is around, they have a similar feature on their suits, but before they began to coexist with the khalai, where did they go? When they released the lore background of the stalker and how a dark templar takes control of one by having his "shadow essence" put into it, I assumed that maybe their shadow essence returned to the Void or something (meaning that the protoss learned to handle it before it just vanishes). I could be horribly wrong, though. --Thebrowncloud 01:06, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's all speculation until we hear differently :)
The Dark Templar death effect looks so similar to that of a zealot that I figure the same kind of thing happened to them (eg teleport), although, without stalkers until post-BW, presumably they just went to a hospital. I figure a bunch of these crippled Dark Templar became the first stalkers. But yeah, I'm just speculating. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 01:39, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
In Starcraft 2 the stalker is a fused dark templar with machinery in order to protect their people better, but they could also make stalkers with wounded DTs and that blue flame that appears when they are dead I believe they are teleported, so I support the teleport theory The Valader, Talk//Contributions 03:22, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
Dark Templars are very different from KDNF...
It's the subclass of Female Ghost Knight.
- First of all, sign your posts. Secondly, what are you even talking about?--Hawki (talk) 12:49, September 20, 2013 (UTC)
This has been bugging me for awhile, but I'll get to it - any objections to renaming this page "Nerazim?" While "Dark Templar" tends to be the more common term, I feel that the use of it as the article name feels out of place when compared to the Khalai and Tal'darim, both of which get their 'real name' rather than titles. "Dark Templar" would still redirect here of course, and we'd keep the template up the top, but IMO, "Nerazim" feels like the more appropriate term.--Hawki (talk) 07:19, October 5, 2015 (UTC)
- No, it wouldn't bother me to change it. It would make it easier to distinguish lore from units anyway. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs 11:12, October 5, 2015 (UTC)
Nerazim vs Dark TemplarEdit
I get why it was done with the information at the time, but with Legacy of the Void there now appears to be a difference between the Nerazim and the dark templar. Nerazim appears to be the race as a whole while dark templar appears to be a position earned after the shadow walk. It'd be a pretty large ordeal since a lot of the two articles would be the same, but should we split the two? Subsourian (talk) 12:52, February 14, 2017 (UTC)
- You might need to elaborate. The Shadow Walk gives one the mantle of Dark Templar, but if every Nerazim completes it, then they technically remain synonyms. Okay, there might be some who don't complete it, but we can't name any.
- Technically one could argue that there is a difference in that 'dark templar' could be the name of Nerazim warriors, but as the terms are so interchangeable, my view is that it works better to just have the one lore article, and we can cover the pertinent info as a whole.--Hawki (talk) 21:46, February 14, 2017 (UTC)