Talk:Star Wars Galaxies/Archive 6

Edit Block
Can we get an edit block for the page so only people logged on can edit the page. --Victory93 (talk) 02:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Controversies!?
you all are wrong!!The game doesm not need to be removed and yes it does need more PvP space.SFI... 19:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colemccully (talk • contribs) The player's disappointment in the game is hardly worthy of a title as bold as controversy, a lot of this information is heavily biased and completely unsourced so until someone can come up with reliable sources that prove this information I'm going to remove all unsourced information in the controversy section. This original research might just be what's been holding this article back from "good" or even "featured" article status. 68.219.26.177 (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Completely agree. It took a lot of time researching the history of the development and finding all of the properly cited material in the article. I would love to see this thing become GA or FA. Roguegeek (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to start playing around with this section a little bit more. Try and condense it as much as possible, but not take away from the issues it brings up. Join in if you have time. Roguegeek (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, I sat down and started making changes. The real problem I had with the section was the length and detail. Although detail is good, there is such a thing as beating something to death. I've compressed it as much as possible. Kept it short and sweet, but didn't ignore what I felt were valid points. I may have missed something here and there and I may have even left something in that doesn't belong there. I'm open to discussing the changes. Just know my only goal is to get this article to GA status. Roguegeek (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's good work, but I think it may have been pared down a little too far. Right now it reads as a series of rapid-fire factoids rather than as a cohesive narrative.  For a game that has been described as "perhaps the most controversial" MMO, spending a little extra time on those controversies -- which extend beyond simple "criticism" such as that found in other articles -- is not unreasonable.  I would also agree with Eica below that some discussion of the NGE in particular and the tumultuous history of the game in general should be present outside of the "criticism"/"controversy"/"reception" section.  Powers T 14:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That makes sense to me. I just don't want to over-emphasis something like "most controversial" when our sources show that statement came from one media outlet, and a minor one at that. I agree with the factoid comment as well. It just doesn't flow from one paragraph to another. I'd prefer to keep it all in one section instead of giving every last bit of criticism its own section as well. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that every last bit of criticism doesn't need its own section. For a game that continues to be referenced throughout the MMO community as an example of "what not to do", though, the article doesn't convey that very well.  The trick is finding reliable sources that convey that sense.  Powers T 23:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree. Roguegeek (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As one of those loyal members who abandoned ship and were subsequently banned from the message board for making a critical post that was in no way inflammatory, I was very surprised to find so little in the controversy section. It reads like it has been through an SOE execs hands before being approved. There is shockingly little said about the specifics of the so called Combat Upgrade and the NGE and it's actual ramifications on the game community. Nor does it mention anything about the heavy handed actions on the message board where they deleted any and all posts that were negative towards these changes and often suspended members on their first offense. The following might supply some additional sources for said section: http://www.henryjenkins.org/2006/07/so_what_happened_to_star_wars.html#comment-137255 Livingston 10:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * roguegeek has friends at SOE and so keeps trying to mute any criticism of the game. his wholesale deletion of criticisms were reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.25.31.194 (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree the Controversy section could stand to be fleshed out. Roguegeek pared it down from a ridiculously bloated section that threatened to overwhelm the article, very similar to the one being reverted to in the current edit war.  That version is not acceptable.  If you would care to collaborate to flesh out the section that's there (as opposed to blindly reverting to a version with severe POV and sourcing problems), well that's what this talk page is for.  (And by the way, Livingston, comments on a blog don't even remotely meet our standards for sourcing.)  Powers T 20:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am very well aware that a blog does not constitute as an adequate source for article material, otherwise I would have edited the article myself and listed it as the source. I said "the following might supply some additional sources for said section," namely the publication of Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide as well as additional publications that may be in print from individuals involved in those works. Had I meant the url as an actual source, I would have said "the following would be a good source." Frankly I am completely disgusted with the treatment of the fan base of SWG by SOE, thus I would not even attempt to flesh out the section myself as it would invariably lead to POV issues, and edit wars, which I strive to avoid. Livingston 08:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My apologies, Livingston. I didn't understand what you meant because the blog comment you linked doesn't mention that book.  I thought you were specifically referring to that comment because you linked to that comment rather than the blog entry.  Powers T 13:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Bah, I apologize as well. I have no idea why it came out as the comment link rather than the blog entry itself. I'm guessing my original bookmark for it had the comment link and some how it got mixed up with copying and pasting. My bad. ^_^ Livingston 07:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

For me, personally, I've been with the game since beta and am still a current player. I've sat through all of the bs SOE has put its players through and am probably just as disgusted as the next person. Even so, I did the rewrite because the section overwhelmed the article and it shouldn't. These articles need to be written with NPOV and the article clearly wasn't that before the rewrite. Is my edit the end all, be all? Absolutely not. It was meant to correct the POV and that was all. It clearly could be fleshed out and organized even more so. The problem I see comes from the lack of sources. The fan base is mad and that usually means the only "reporting" of the problem is going to be seen on forums and blog, which are, of course, not proper sources. Still, there's enough info out the from major and minor media outlets to make some proper statements and I fully plan on working with all editors to make this article good. Make no mistake about my intentions here. I truly feel like this article is close to GA and FA material and I want it recognized as such.  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 18:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Honestly, SWG is a constantly referenced everywhere on the Internet as the "what not to do" example amongst MMOs - if the criticism of the game overwhelms the details of the game, that's probably for the best. It is, afterall, exactly what the MMO is known for.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.102.219.22 (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

We still need to include info about the new Star Wars Galaxies in game expansion Champions of the Force. --Victory93 (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I was quite surprised that the controversy section wasn't bigger, and I don't think the current passage reflects the sheer amount of controversy associated with the game. I agree that it is wrong to overwhelm the article with such points but on the other hand it seems ridiculous to exclude valid, cited information for the sake of establishing neutrality, given the weight of evidence and statistics. I any case I believe the section could stand for elaboration, specifically what caused the decline in subscribers and the effect the upgrades to the game had on the subscriber base. I have never played the game and this probably improves my credibility as an impartial observer. It is a testament to the amount of controversy surrounding the game that I, someone with little knowledge or interest in MMORPGs, was alerted to the fact that due to certain circumstances, subscription figures fell dramatically after the release of specific software updates. I would be inclined to edit the article myself with appropriate sources and information, however from previous experience I know how 'accommodating' the Wikipedia community can be. 86.163.204.202 (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

In the "Reception and Criticism section", it introduces the NGE and says that it was kept secret from the base until 24 hours before it was implemented. I started playing a few months before the NGE, and I can tell you that we had at least a month of warning before it actually hit. Not saying this justifies the NGE in any way, but it sort of add's unnecessary and basically untrue criticism of SOE's incompetence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.109.94 (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Similarly, the section for criticisms and such had two pieces in it that didn't belong in it, and I deleted them. Some folks don't seem to know what that section is for. Simply puting things up, even factual, that make the game look bad but are not about criticisms or responses is not acceptable. One I can't even remembet minutes after deletion but didn't belong and may have been offensive to the game and it's loyal players. The other was alleged facts, but even if legite facts had no place in that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.114.2 (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey I think you most of you are wrong and yes it swg does need bigger PvP zones but no it does not need to be removed.Thanks for removing those parts in the article and yes facts should be facts.SFI... 19:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colemccully (talk • contribs)

SWG Trading Card Game: Champions of the Force
Could we please have section on the article about the new Star Wars Galaxies Trading Card Game: Champions of the Force which was released just recently. Here's a link about it: http://starwarsgalaxies.station.sony.com/tradingcardgame/index.vm?page=1 http://www.lucasarts.com/company/release/news20080702.html Please someone add it in. Thank you. --Victory93 (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  Powers T 03:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

7 Guiness World Records...
The section claiming that SWG holds 7 World Records for MMORPG's needs to be updated, there are larger PvP zones in other MMORPGs. In my opinion it should be removed all together, simply because you could make claims about all MMORPG's holding certain World Records. Relentless Sinner (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The statements you are referring to are sourced and by Guinness World Records no less. That's a pretty notable thing. Maybe there are larger zones and maybe we could claim whatever we want all day long, but it's unverified and could be considered original research which has no place here on Wikipedia. I have reverted your removal. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 18:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep the records section as it's part of the history of the game. I mean there are awards shown about other things on wikipedia. --Victory93 (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

'Largest Player vs Player Zone' and 'Largest Player Ship' should at least be changed, as these are grotesquely incorrect. Last I looked, Eve Online is considered an MMORPG, the ships get much larger in that game. The Player VS Player Zones in Warhammer Online also get much larger than the Restuss zone. Relentless Sinner (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Relentless, with all due respect, this is completely original research on your part and it is not allowed. We have hard reliable secondary references that show this game hold those records. Wikipedia is built on reliable secondary sources, not original research. roguegeek (talk·cont) 19:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is an official scale of the various ships in EVE Online, down the bottom left corner you will see a (very small) silhouette of the Eiffel Tower which has a height of 324 metres. Here it states that the Y-8 Mining ship (the so called 'largest player ship) has a height of 140 metres, a width of 30 metres and a length of 80 metres. The first link is also used Here on Wikipedia. With all due respect, it is essentially logic that ships referred to as a dreadnought or a battleship are larger than the Y-8 Mining Vessel (and you can tell it by looking at screenshots from EVE Online), but now that there is more solid evidence, it is hard to ignore. Relentless Sinner (talk) 14:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, this is original research. Do you have a reliable secondary source that says the Guiness World Records book that is cited does, in fact, not state what is being claimed on in the article? roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur with Roguegeek. The core issue is that 'Guinness has an incorrect listing, so we should either remove the citation here (for being an inaccurate secondary source) or leave as-is. Relentless Sinner, please note that Wikipedia isn't saying that the Y-8 is the largest player ship. Wikipedia is saying that Guinness is saying that the Y-8 is the largest player ship, precisely because of the guidelines on original research that Roguegeek cites. Kyle Maxwell (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Release and expansions
An Empire Divided I have a serious issue with the statement about player housing not added in at release. I am a player from release, starting just a few days after go live ( in july 2003) and player housing was most definately already in the game. it was NOT delayed until november 2003. also, I am trying to stretch back in history and I think player housing came out in 2004, not 2003. but as a fact, player housing was definately available in july, not november 2003. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.142.222 (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that while player housing was in the game at launch, what wasn't implemented was the mechanics for player towns. That may be what the person who put that bit into the article was thinking of. Syrthiss (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Chapters section
I removed the following Chapters section (discussion below).


 * The Game also involves chapters which are released around every six months. The current chapter (December 08) is chapter 11 - The battle of Echo Base. Which involves taking place in the battle of Hoth, the ice planet from the second star wars film 'The Empire Strikes Back'. Players can see wampa creatures and battle in or against walkers. As part of this chapter players are rewarded with a snow machine that can be used to create snowballs to throw at other players or placed in a players house to create a snowing environment indoors. Players gain this regardless of whether they are involved in the battle of Hoth.

Other than the need for general copy-editing, I believe that this text doesn't fit the article as it gets very specific. As the current guideline on |scope for game guides recommends against exhaustive version histories, I believe it should stay out of the article. -- Kyle Maxwell (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * SWG adds content via chapters/updates, not via expansion packs. It is an exact equivalence, so not mentioning magor updates makes the game look unchanged, which is not the case. It is information that should be on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.114.2 (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Trading Card Game
I changed the heading from 'Champions of the Force' to Trading Card Game since CotF was the first in a series of card expansions. In terms of the actual SWG community (which I happen to be a part of), the card game is known as the Trading Card Game, or TCG for short. Pingsteal (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Player Housing
I changed the line regarding player housing, as player housing was available when the game first launched. The ability to incorporate into cities didn't come until later. I edited the article to reflect this in one statement. Pingsteal (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Anniversary Logos
I'm going to agree with EEMIV and suggest that the anniversary logos are not needed on this page (and thus fail the Non-Free Content Criteria). Powers T 12:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Last? Criticism
"SWG players were outraged at the closing of SWG, and outraged by being forced to move to an uncomparable game if they wanted to continue playing a Star Wars MMORPG. They were especially outraged it occurred as the game was recovering from it's past mistakes and picking up in player population. Some SWG players remain outraged by LucasArts turning it's back on the next generation MMORPG in favor of a generation that is becoming a dinosaur by gaming generation norms. Some SWG players feel LucasArts should rebirth SWG under LucasArts management, and/or that they should create an even better SWG II that has learned from the mistakes of SWG. Those with both opinions would like to get back SWG to play until completion of a SWG II." < Please, do not remove this. This is 100% factual of the SWG player base. It does not require provng, because anyone of the player-base or staff saw the outrage in-game in its final months, on the game's forums board, in private chats with players, etc. If you personlly did not care for SWG, that is fine, but do not remove the voice of those who did, as you have no right to do so. Keep in mind all of the abuses these thousands of innocent people have already been through, and do not add to it by censoring their voices on it. Remember we not only dealt with abuses by the staff at those certain points, but the abuse of the closure itself, which directly followed the abuse by hackers who victimized SOE-run game players instead of SOE itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.240.208 (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We have every right to remove material that doesn't meet our standards. As with everything on Wikipedia, the primary criterion for inclusion is not truth but verifiability.  It doesn't matter how true something is if you can't back it up with reliable third-party sources.  Powers T 20:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

SWG Emu Projects
There are a few places in this article that sound like advertising for SWG Emu projects. While I do not deny these projects relate to the article, I would dispute their neutrality. Just a thought, and perhaps something I will address in an edit should I find time to fully vet this article. Pingsteal (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC) -Actually they're all non-profit, and that's a complete list. It's completely relevant to this game's article that it's restoration by fans be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.40.162.23 (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Reddit Interview
I admit to being not very familiar with Reddit, but is this really a reliable source for this article in regards to quoting John Smedley? As with my previous question regarding the neutrality of some of the SWG Emu statements, I would argue it's neutrality and it's authentication. Pingsteal (talk) 06:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My point of view is it is a public forum and he was answering questions regarding the game. In a similar manner as if he was having a conversation while on Twitter. Look at the other interviews done by reddit's IAMA "I am a" series, and also this Forbs article on reddit interviews. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk
 * What about the more recent talk on reddit in which Smedkey saying that the next SOE MMO is going to be for SWG players: http://www.gamebreaker.tv/news/unannounced-soe-mmo-designed-swg-players/ 173.230.160.201 (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing Information and Grammatical Errors
If you're going to edit this article to reflect any reconsideration on Lucasarts to redeploying this game, provide the source for that information please. Also, please use proper spacing, capitalization, and grammar. This article looks like crap as it is. Pingsteal (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)