Talk:Star Wars Galaxies

Archives
March, 2006

Balanced Views

Clearly a balanced view or neutral pov is lacking here. If it were balanced, it would also list positive aspects about the game which does retain players and subscribers. The links only link to the negitive forums and reviews... which are important.... but with no link to alternate reviews it smacks of too much opinion. It should be pointed out that dispite some flaws, it remains securely one of the largest MMORPG game, attracting players who wish to expierence the Star Wars Universe. Fundementally the game offers the oppertunity for like minded people to explore this universe, it is largely left up to the players to develope their own plot related story lines in the game. The careers are only the 'bones' of your character, not the compleate picture. SOE and Galaxies can not be held responsible if people can not develope friendships and play out their own story lines. Yes there is vast room for improvement, but galaxies offers much more then other games do. Drachenfyre

AFAIK there are no positive reviews for the current edition of SWG beyond IGN's less-than-honest review. PC Gamer, the worlds largest PC Gaming magazine has rated SWG a 27% compared to World of Warcraft at 94%.--Dc2005silk 15:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I stand by my statement as of July, when I posted that the artical was not completly NPV (then as written). I left the game (over the NGE) and can not myself keep a neutral point of view towards SOE and Galaxies for how they betrayed the Galaxies community with the NGE. Not to mention the lack of customer suport for the years prior to then. Though I loved the Star Wars universe they was offered, I remain embittered towards SOE/Galaxies now. I was a veteran since launch and large guild leader, and even now I start to get tunnel vision when I think on how SOE treated its player base with the NGE. Drachenfyre 20:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree large parts of this article are biased. So much I want to put a neutrality warning on it. I'd add positive reviews but when I did they were removed by someone else with no explanation. This article has become venting ground for old players that no longer play the game and just want to get thier grief out but when new players like me try to add something positive, it gets removed. That's bunk, that's totally anti-wiki. I'm putting up the warning. UaConchobair 02:20 CST, 03/03/06

If you are not able to keep a non-biased point of view, you should not manipulate the article at all. It's not because your views don't matter. It's because you are more supseptable to manipulating the real facts. Case in point, the changes I just made today to the "Paying For Beta" section. There were simply untrue claims in it and you could tell it was written by someone who very much doesn't agree with SOE's development of SWG.Roguegeek 2006-03-28

First, someone should mention the fact that multiple professions are broken and/or pointless at this stage of the game. This is just as factual as stating how many professions, races, and planets are in game. Secondly, the article does not parlay the full extent of SOE's broken promises to the community. I see no mention of the long-promised CU/overhaul being delayed for the Jedi revamp or Jump to Lightspeed. Thirdly, the article makes it sound like SOE has a gameplan for the game -- anyone who's played since 2003 has seen multiple shifts in the game's "growth" and many conflicting statements made by an ever-changing staff. Finally, nothing is mentioned about the widespread invalidation of the time subscribers invested into the game. This ain't a matter of balanced POV, it's a matter of telling the truth about the subject in question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.176.78.190 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC).

It is not factual to state that "multiple professions are broken and/or pointless"; there are plenty of people playing all nine professions right now as we speak; if they were broken or pointless, this would not be the case. "Broken promises" is a highly subjective category. The devs are very careful to not promise anything, and it's a fact that in the world of MMORPG design, nothing is ever set in stone. I believe it mentions the delay in the combat upgrade under the corresponding section, however. SOE does have a publish plan, at the very least. I'm not sure what you mean by "gameplan". Conflicting statements are inevitable in game design, as are changing staffs. "Invalidation of time" is also subjective. I do not perceive any invalidation of the time I spent playing the game; why should I? Powers 12:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Added POV disclaimer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.176.78.190 (talk • contribs) 25 May 2006, 14:31 (UTC)

Why? The article discusses negative feelings perfectly well, if anything I'd say too well. —MiraLuka 23:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think a lot of the statements about "broken promises" stems from historical and long running promises that were never kept. Take Smugglers for example. They make spice, but when the foodstuffs like Brandy came out, the need for almost all spices went away and a lot of our income. Promises were made by Devs to address this, but nothing ever happened. Same with slicing - it was horribly borked for a long time and promises to address it took more than 18 months (don't know if they ever were - I gave up and quit). I also played a Master Sqaud Leader for a long time, and they were horribly broken as a profession. And to counter Lt. Powers, we SLs played them because we were role playing, they certainly did not 'work' as a template. And don't even get me started on Commando (Master SL/Master Commando was virtually useless in combat). Now, I am not trying to have an argument here about the relative merits of a profession, just pointing out that these are three professions that have well documented issues with promises being made that were never fulfilled and two of them were broken yet people still played them. I think a lot of the rancor dates from those days. IMHO "Ashet" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.101.3 (talk • contribs) 26 May 2006, 21:40 (UTC)

I don't think that this article should be about the past, but the present (although a brief mention of the history of the game is warranted). Also, you can sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~). —MiraLuka 05:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Then clean up the article to accurate reflect the state of the game. Almost completely player run economy? Nine fully functional professions? Obviously someone has not played the game recently. This article stills smacks of bias, and does not accurate reflect the current state of the game. Hence, NPOV was readded.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.176.78.190 (talk • contribs) .

Do whatever you want with this article, I'm done fucking with it or the fanbois. It is nothing more than bunch a cherry-picked highpoints of the game, with only a small kernal of truth at it's core. This is not an accurate reflection of the game by any means.

As for the "current state of the game" versus "the true history", what kind of arguement is this? Let's discuss Germany, but negate the whole Nazi era? Let's talk about Native Americans, but just briefly mention their historical place in the Western Hemisphere? The bottom line is SOE/LA are full of shit with their selling points to the game, which some people have chosen to spew forth on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.176.78.190 (talk • contribs) 2 June 2006, 15:26 (UTC)

Btw, this can all be deleted (the stuff from me.) I seriously feel the article is biased toward the publisher's perspective, not my own. While I've used wiki many times, I am new to editing and discussion. Disagree with my maturity here, just remember I am not touching the main page and will leave that to other people to fix. - Renea/Tempest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.176.78.190 (talk • contribs) 2 June 2006, 16:01 (UTC)

I don't think a comparison to actual historical events holds up. This is a video game, for goodness' sake. And please don't mistake me for a "fanboi," I quit when the NGE came out, but I don't let that get in the way of my neutral editing. —Mira 23:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand the complaint. I just read through the article fresh, and it covers the current state of the game in a very factual way. None of it sounds like advertising copy, and none of it is inaccurate that I can tell. The history section is clear on what the game used to be like, and the Controversy section gives a broad overview of the numerous criticisms that have been leveled at SWG. I would be surprised if any other MMORPG article had as extensive a Criticism section as this one. Beyond changing the text in the "Features" section to read "Players can choose from one of nine broken professions", I really don't know what else we could do to satisfy Renea's concerns. Powers 02:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

"If it were balanced, it would also list positive aspects about the game which does retain players and subscribers." It's in the Star Wars universe... That's really all that keeps me and many other players playing Jonny Lighning

Subscriber numbers

User 80.136.249.231 has removed the information from the first paragraph regarding subscriber numbers and SWG being "one of the most popular MMORPGs in the United States".

SWG has been hovering around 250,000 subscribers for most of its history. Until the release of World of Warcraft, this was in the upper eschelon as far as US subscribers go (Lineage and Lineage 2 have WoW-like numbers mainly due to the Asian market; Final Fantasy XI also has a major Asian subscriber base). Unfortunately, no one yet knows what the NGE has done to SWG's subscriber numbers.

But that's the crux -- there's no evidence to support saying that SWG is no longer one of the most popular, but likewise it could very well have dropped significantly after the NGE. However, unless those subscriptions have dropped below 100k or so, I'd contend that SWG is still among the most popular in the US -- and I strongly doubt the NGE caused the loss of 60% of active accounts.

So what do we do? Powers 20:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Put it back. Just because Ford/Chevy loses market share one year doesn't mean they are no longer popular. Its the same thing. Plus, people are totally passionate about SWG, either pro or con, they're all talking about it. When even non-subscribers are talking about a game, that's popular. UaConchobair 03/30/06 5:57 CST

Subscription Update

As already stated SOE doesn't normally release subscription numbers, however around the time Dec 2005 on "Attack of the show" Julio Torres did state that the game had roughly 250,000 active subscriptions. SOE policy is generally not to count the station passes in their subscription numbers, so the actually number of players playing the game could very well be higher. However, that said SOE announced that they lost around 10-15% of they base do to the release of NGE. Even if we say that number is higher like 20% it would only bring their numbers down to 200,000. Recently SOE announced that their numbers have increased with the holiday sales an additional 100,000. No matter how you look at it they picked up more players then they lost. I personally do play the game and although I have seen a lot of guilds lose players and even go under... I have also personally seen a lot of old time players return to the game along with a flood of new players. The game is very much alive and well.

Good, but do you have any concrete sources? Ideally, we need something like a transcript or even a really good summary of the "Attack of the Show" segment. Also, a link to the announcement of increased holiday sales would be great. If we get that stuff we can add it back in to the article. (Oh, and don't forget, you can sign your comments with four tildes (~)...) Powers 14:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

When a user is logging into the game, his client receives current server loads to determine server status and display it to a user in non-numerical format. Around the beginning of February 2006, almost 90 days since NGE was launched, an annonymous person, using packet sniffer, got his hands on actual server load numbers and published them. It was done at prime time friday, and total ammount of people logged into the game was around 10 thousand (one to a couple of hundred per serever). This goes well along with the fact that servers are mostly ghosttowns nowadays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valuk (talk • contribs)

That's all well and good, but surely you understand we can't put unverifiable information from an "annonymous" person into this article, right? Furthermore, usage doesn't reflect subscriptions, either. I, for one, have not been playing much due mostly to shock and various friends leaving the game. But I maintain a subscription with the intent of playing again. It's just a new game I have to learn. Powers 21:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I knew there was just 10k of players playing the game this is sad —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.130.6.130 (talk • contribs) .

Well if you created a new character when you log on you can look at the server loads (done it a few times lately). Since the release of NGE I've never seen the load go above Light, just very light and light load. Havn't seen heavy load since Pre-CU and seldom saw medium load during the CU. --Revener 23:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The mmogchart.com needs to be omitted as a valid source - considering it doesn't even offer itself as a valid source. It clearly states that the majority of its "data" is a result of speculation and has little tangible evidence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.111.222.234 (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

March 2006 update

Actually, John Smedley recently confirmed that SWG is still the fifth most popular (in terms of subscriber numbers) MMOG in the United States (behind WoW, EQ, EQ2, and Runescape). I'll take a look at the article and see if I can fit that information in, sourced of course. Powers 13:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Runescape beats SWG? Holy [bleep] lol JonnyLighning

Check http://www.mmogchart.com:

"In a more recent statement in March 2006, Smedley said that SWG was the fifth largest MMOG in the North American market, behind WoW, EQ, EQ2, and RuneScape, which would put the number of subscribers somewhere between 175,000 and 250,000. Inside sources have offer a more precise but incomplete picture; as of March 2006 SWG only had 120,00 monthly paying subscribers, but this number does not include those who are subscribed to the game via game time cards or SOE station pass subscriptions. SOE station pass subscriptions are not counted unless they actually have registered a SWG account. Based on previously known data, I put the total number of subscribers for SWG at 190,000 for March 2006. Since that time, another source has indicated SWG may have only 110,00 total subscribers, but I believe that figure is most likely the monthly paying number. As of May 2006, I have put the number of total SWG subscribers at 170,000, but the actual number could be anywhere from 110,000 to 175,000."

Interesting stuff. BrownHornet21 00:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars Galaxies Revival

Many of Star Wars Galaxies players are unhappy about the New Game Enhancments (NGE) and one such person is in the middle of creating a private server that takes place before the New Game Enhancments and maybe before the Combat Upgrade (CU) the projects page can be found here swg-monster.com

If I'm not mistaken, such a server would be illegal, as against the EULA and violation of LucasArts' intellectual property rights. Powers 23:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

incorrect. The Emulation is Not Illegal. It is just against the terms and conditions to play SOEs products. Its merely reverse engineering. It is not illegal to run a emulation of the game, as you need the cd to play it (its not pirating) and its free to play, meaning that your not selling a product of someone elses labor. It is perfectly legal. user:wolfofwar

That's incorrect it would be illegal unless they are making an entirley different game from scratch and not including any Star Wars characters. Just look at the COPYRIGHT laws, Title 17 specifically, which forbids without permission "rental, lease, or lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending.", giving is the same as lending. Since SOE would own the actual code and rights to SWG, the act of making any full or partial copies of SWG without permission would be theft, and the same applies to the SW characters and Lucas as well. You do not have to actually make money off a crime for a crime to be illegal. You couldn't copy XP SP1 and try to give it to XP SP2 users at all, MS would kick your ass if they knew you were even just planing to copy it. Lucas normally encourages fan works though, so he might just let it slide since it will be "Old SWG", and will probably suck due to inferior support if it ever actually happens. Sony on the other hand would prolly go ninja on them. They could take the server hosts to court after a Cease and Desist Letter, and then if they failed to shut the servers down they could be held in Contempt of Court and face prison time, fines, or both.

I'd like to add that in my experience there are too many vocal 'Old SWG' fanbois out there ruining the game for casual players who just don't care that much and just want to play a Star Wars game online. UaConchobair 68.96.139.48 02:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

From Anima Rytak (Rytak of SWGM)- SOE's customer agreement doesn't have any loops to ensue legal action against free servers or emulator developers. The WORST they can do is cancel ones SOE Station account. Since the server is free, they cannot be sued as they are not making money with a monthly subscription. Also, the SWGM admin/owner lives in Europe. So United States law doesn't exactly apply to him, and the US goverment wont step in for such an issue.

On the contrary, they can and will kill these servers. They have done it in the past and will now, people who break the rules should be punished, and they will be punished. KCMODevin 18 June 2006

I can almost guarantee that those servers are illegal. Private WoW servers are illegal, and it is no different. Companies don't like people using their work and not paying for it. Vancar 18:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Negative. The are only illegal if they are pirated versions of the game. You must havea CD to play the game, and as long as its free to play, and you have the game, there is no legal action one company can take besides freezing any violaters account. Which, since nobody playing the Emu wants to play the NGE anyways, means nothing. It is not illegal, look it up, why do you think Ultima Onlines Emu shards are still up? Its just against the Reverse Engineering terms in the TOS of SOE, which is not a lawful contract, just an agreement of usage. They can't do a thing about it, because its legal. wolfofwar

One other thing WoW server use Blizzards own leaked code. SWG-EMU's server is written from skratch to talk with the client, using reverse engineering. Reverse engineering is legal. Revener

Can someone tell me why the small addition I added to the snippit about the SWG Emu, specifically, what it is (That its a PRE CE and PRE NGE version of the game) was edited out? Its important to say what it is, and it ties it back into the Controversy subsection. wolfofwar

Well, according to MiraLuka's edit summary, "current consensus is to wait and add more information if the project succeeds". That sounds about right to me. There is significant reluctance among editors of this article to include too much information on a project that is only in the very earliest stages of implementation. That said, I tend to agree with you that the reasons for creating the emulator are as important as the fact of it -- but we need a reliable source that explains those reasons in order to add it (or not remove it, as the case may be) to the article. Powers 19:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Its worth noting that a Video Trailer was published which sort of disproved the idea they had written the code from scratch. All of the loading screens from the game were present, including the lucasarts one, SOE one (including the copyright warning) and the Star Wars Galaxies Jump to Lightspeed one. If they did write the code from scratch, then they are at least using resources from SOE's work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.13.83.92 (talk • contribs) .

That kind of stuff is purely on the client; you can tell because it all comes before the client attempts to connect to the server. SWGEmu is emulating a server, not a client, and apparently uses the player's existing client data to connect; it's expected that splash screens and whatnot would continue to look the same. Powers ^T 01:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of "Bugs and exploits"

I have removed the section titled 'Bugs and exploits', due to it irrevelentcy. What follows is the section its entirety with my comments in parenthesis. Enjoy!

• Bugs and exploits
• The game has had numerous problems with bugs and exploits throughout its life, with many of them going unresolved for long periods, some even remaining from the game's launch in June 2003. This tends to be the norm for MMORPGs though, and not the exception, but SWG stands out of the crowd regarding the enormous amount of bugs that the development team at SOE was unable to fix.

(Virtually all software has bugs, there are only two identified bugs listed here neither of which are current, that does not make it a stand out in the genre, perhaps more documentation is needed.)

• The oldest of the bugs in the game since the launch is the warp bug. A player will sit in a chair or on the ground and, 5-15 minutes later, the character "warps" several in-game meters. Another longtime, and long complained of issues, is the game world not realizing where non-movable objects are. A needed NPC or creature may spawn inside of the foundation of a player house.

(This is not something currently experienced in the game. Although rarely some NPCs do spawn inside objects, I have never seen a required NPC do such)

• A known bug for jedi was meditating before using the shuttle or traveling somewhere. This would give them an unlimited supply of Force. Instead of the jedi losing force within his force bar it would stay full and thus they could fight forever. Usually a jedi force will get depleted while doing an action such as attacking or activating a special like force run. This was a horrible exploit because it pretty much ruined pvp battles giving players incredible advantages over other non exploiting jedi or non jedi.

(This is irrelevant to current gameplay as there is no jedi force bar.)

UaConchobair, 02:13 3/10/06

That section's been bugging me for a while, but I was reluctant to delete it. You make a good argument for doing so, though. Powers 12:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Tatoo vs. Tatooine

I'm tired of reverting the well-meaning efforts of various editors, so I'm going to place this here in hopes it gets noticed. Tatoo is the name of the system in which the planet Tatooine is located; the suns are named Tatoo I and Tatoo II. Thank you. Powers 20:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Counterfeit money

I heard a story about this game (or was it a different game?) having counterfeit money that infiltrated in the economy, and Sony banned everybody who had counterfeit credits, even innocent players who didn't even know about it being false. And when people tried to protest it, the game masters just beamed them out into space to die. If this story is true, I would certainly love to read about the incident in detail, and it should be added to the page.--Sonjaaa 03:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The rumor was blown well out of proportion, but some of the details are at least based in fact. The trouble is that I don't think there is a definitive, verifiable account. Powers 17:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of the counterfeit money, is that some players figured out how to make creds through an exploit. With their new found creds, they went out and bought armor and tipped entertainers etc, spreading the counterfeit creds through the economy with the potential to wreak havoc in a player based economy. When this was found out, SOE suspended all accounts with counterfeit credits. In typical SOE fasion, they botched the communication to the community. They investigated, and those players whose counterfeit money was legitimate, say they received it through a purchase on a vendor, were restored. Those who counterfeited were banned, and things sorted themselves out but as SOE got around to explaining itself well after the suspensions, as in months as I recall, it caused a lot of bad feelings with the player base. 19:30 28 April 2006 Ashet

Yeah, one of my friends had counterfeit money, that he aquired from some Imperial officer. His character got deleted, though. It was good character, too. He had quite the collection of lightsabers and AT-AT's patroled his home. Life was good. Then, he had start all over again. :p -Alex, 74.133.188.197 09:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sony has the worst customer service I had ever dealt with and though I was not happy with the NGE, 50% of my leaving the game was due to Sony's CSR team. As I recall this was the case and though I know how the credits were dup'd I'll not go in to it. As well I will not go in to the Ubber Item Slicing (players could upgrade a item several times by slicing it while off the world map), I've seen the infinate force bar and that was not pretty... but I finally killed the jedi anyways...

Modularization

I added a few snippets that relfect the NGE adding a higher level of modularization to the coding of the game. I can find the documentation if need be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.38.51.134 (talk • contribs) .

Please do. I don't recall that being mentioned very often. Powers 13:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Expansions

Considering reorganizing this section - only 3 of the 7 items are truly expansions; two are gameplay revisions and two are in essence gameplay history. In such a reorg, I'd like to create a new section for the gameplay revisions and the justifications for them (hinted at in the various Wars info). Also, for the purpose of flow, I'd suggest section 5 (Criticisms) precede section 4 (Academic Research). Seeking community opinion before I undertake any action. Stilsha 12:05, 18 April 2006 (MST)

I have no objections. Several weeks ago I went through and completely rewrote the beginning of the article, and have been meaning to do the rest as well, but the enormity of the task has scared me off so far. I welcome other attempts. Heck, if you want to go so far as to excise large portions, I'll be the last to complain. We should strongly consider rewriting the article to reflect the current state of the game, with anything about the CU and NGE moved into a "history" section. Powers 00:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it would a good idea to give a clear summary of the current state of the game. Right now, the major things that can be derived from the article is the fact that there is controversy about NGE and CU...that doesn't help those who have no idea what old/new combat was like, etc... Just food for thought. --67.110.56.131 17:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent Edits

Several users and anons continue to add biased information into this article. While small portions of it are accurate and useful (ex. using the word "hologrinders"), most of it is irrelevant. This series of edits has also removed legitimate links and minor formatting. I have removed this multiple times, but I do not wish to violate the 3RR rule. Please, stop adding this to the article. MiraLuka 02:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty ridiculous. Thanks for reverting it and for respecting the 3RR. I removed large passages from the Jedi section that really didn't belong (POV or not) in hopes that this stops the edit war. Feel free to excise anything I missed. Powers 12:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

That looks a lot better. The article as a whole is way too big anyway. MiraLuka 21:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just removed a large amount of excess information on the expansions. That information can be found at User:MiraLuka/Sandbox while I work through it - some of it is worth putting back into the article. MiraLuka 02:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've also just archived parts of this talk page. MiraLuka 02:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just been talking to U.A, previously editing as 72.129.250.6. He feels that his large scale edits/content removals were justified, and not (as I initially assumed) vandalism/testing by a newcomer. I am therefore leaving this explaination; I intend to leave further discussion relating to those edits to someone more qualified than me in the subject, and have suggested to U.A that he discusses such large-scale modifications here. --Chrisd87 20:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

On some of the edits, my biased opinion got in the way and I apologise. However, on the gameplay section I am working on rearranging content to reflect the initial system that SOE had in place, then progress towards the NGE. I believe this will reflect the game as a whole better, rather than going from current to past.

UA 20:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to do a large scale restructuring (which sounds good btw), what I might suggest is make an article like Star Wars: Galaxies/draft and cut and paste the current article into there for these large edits. That avoids the disruption to the article if you cannot do it all in one sitting. If you need help setting up that draft (if thats what you want to do), let me or one of the other experienced editors know. My 2 republic credits. Thanks! Syrthiss 20:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Considering I just *did* some large-scale restructuring (see section below), I'm not sure why UA wants to go at it again so soon. Furthermore, I am strongly against placing increased focus on the way the game used to be. I am of a firm belief that the article should present the game as it is today -- that's what's important for people who are not familiar with the game. The history is useful only for people who care about that sort of thing, and so it should come later. Consider a user who is thinking about purchasing the game and comes to Wikipedia to see what it's like. Should that person read all about the way it used to be, only to later find out that it's all changed? Powers 22:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, that's why I reverted UA's changes. It's not because I object to anyone making changes to my "preferred version" or anything like that; I just strongly disagree with placing the history first in the article. Powers 22:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I would also very much agree that the history section should come later in the article, and should be brief. —MiraLuka 01:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Major Cleanup

I've excised and rewritten large portions of this article. It's shorter in most places (longer in a couple) and hopefully more balanced. My changes are still a bit rough, so there are some more, more minor changes I want to make. But I wanted to give everyone a chance to consider the large changes first. Comments welcome. Powers 01:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That looks much better. Two things I want to mention:

1. I think the "Jedi in SWG" section is still way too long. In fact, I'd consider removing it entirely.
2. I don't really think the information on subscription costs belongs in the introduction, but I can't figure out where else to put it. —MiraLuka 02:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hah, I meant to remove "Jedi in SWG" but missed it. =) I think the article does need a brief discussion of the evolution of Jedi in the game, plus a bit on the extreme animosity between Bounty Hunters and Jedi especially in the time leading up to the NGE. Powers 13:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If the jedi section should remain it should discuss the controversy over jedi, not how jedi used to be. We need to focus this article on the current game. Rekov 17:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are some things that could be done.

1. Shorten the jedi thing and move it into subcategory of controversy, anyone remotely familiar with star wars lore would believe that the jedis existence in the timeline is controversial, and im sure all of the players thought a super secret unlock mode character was controversial, and people who did have jedi who were reduced to a standard class was likely controversial as well. So it will fit well with the subject and can replace the pointless piece about players feeling ignored.
2. Greatly shorten info about each revision, makeing a seperate article detailing each revision (Original, CU, NGE)
3. One book made by the producer of the game hardly designates an entire section for spinoffs, maybe just put a note into the trivia section. While we are at it the academic study can be moved there also, trivia name could be renamed to something broader also if wanted.

After all that will knock out three unneeded sections and should shorten the overal length to be perfectly acceptable. Personally I think the length is fine as is. Dabigdeez 17:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should turn this article into more of a comprehensive guide to the game and drop all this non important stuff about "The Battles" and "Broken Promises." This wiki needs to reflect the game as it is now, so that when people read this article, they understand what SWG is, and not what some pissed off players think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rekov (talk • contribs) 26 May 2006, 12:23 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above points except one: do we really need to break off separate articles? I'm not sure that we have enough information. —MiraLuka 01:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah no need for separate articles. However, SWG has been marked with unusually high levels of controversy, and it does deserve some explanation in this article. Powers 17:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I just suggest the seperate articles becuase it seems to be general concensus that the Main article needs to be about the CURRENT state of the game, that being said The Original and CU are VERY diffrent than the current state of the game. So either A. Have information for all incarnations of the game in one article. B. Disregard All information regarding the two previous versions of the game. C. Make the main article about the current state of the game, and Make a seperate Article for the previous version. Choice A is being generally said to be bad because it is taking the focus of the article off of the current state of the game, and Choice B is counter the entire purpose of this website. It would be willfully throwing away information rather than documenting it for the future. So to me at least it seems C is the best option if your concern is the preservation of information. Oh and lastly the controversy is MUCH more historically relevent than the minutia of the game. If you look up tianamen square you dont find out how many shops are on it, or when it was repaved or anything that would be relevent to a typical square, you find out about controversy surrounding it.Dabigdeez 14:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you actually check the Tiananmen Square article? It's almost entirely about the square itself. The protests of 1989 are covered in Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. SWG, however, is primarily a game, and Wikipedia should cover the features and, yes, some of the details, of gameplay. The controversy is also important, but I see no need to split it out. There are ways to keep the focus on the current state without breaking out the history/controversy into a new article. Powers 19:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I just looked at the article and 1/4 - 1/3 of it is about the protests that took place, But back to the page here, I think the current version of the page, With all relevant current features listed first with a history section later is satisfactory, heck all of the revisions done its about ready to lose its needs cleanup flagDabigdeez 19:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

swgemu

www.swgemu.com is a swg emulator being developed which will have all the old features of the original game along with some other rules. I don't know too much about it so I was hoping someone else could get the facts and add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MonJoe (talk • contribs) 13 June 2006, 23:59 (UTC)

They claim that they are developing an illegal emulator. I think that's about all that belongs in the article about them, if even that much. (They've been around for how long now? I remember reporting them back when I was a correspondent.) —Mira 05:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It might be notable if they actually find some measure of success. Was it the SWG developers who once said that if anyone could actually write a successful emulator for the game, they'd want to hire them? Powers 12:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

They said that, but it was most likely just a way to snoop them out. Well anyways, the SWGemu dev team has released there alpha video found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lmc5rKg3vhw . Note that the health bars no longer work. This is more of a series of screanshots, and 3 additional ingame screenshots have been taken afterwards with specific text to prove that they are real. I heard the HAM system has been implemented recently. Its only a matter of time from this point on. Rekov 22:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Will it be illegal in the EU or just in the United States, and can illegal status of servers possibly stop people from playing on them?Tjb891 00:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe it is illegal in any way. It is most certainly in violation of the Sony EULA; but that is not a legally binding document: the worst they can do is ban you from Sony-operated servers. Seeing as these users already would have owned copies of Galaxies, it is not illegal; they are simply running their software, just not off of the current choice in Sony. I do not understand why it is being repeatedly deleted, sounds like someone might have some stock in SOE? Ameise -- chat 02:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, don't have stock in SOE. Don't have stock in anything, actually. Interesting comment, though. —Mira 05:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No one owns stock in SOE, it is not a publicly traded company. It is a subsidiary of Sony (which is on the New York Stock Exchange, by the way, symbol is SNE). While I like the idea of someone building an emulator of the game at its most playable publish, I think the emulator will be illegal in any country with copyright laws. Copyright law is not dependent on or preempted by the EULA. The emulator seeks to emulate a copyrighted software program that uses one of the biggest brands in the world under license. Don't think it won't go unnoticed by SOE or LucasArts if these guys get this thing off the ground. No lawsuit because no damages, you say? These companies can recover up to $150,000 in statutory damages. SOE and LucasArts may also suffer damages if they can show the emulator caused subscribers to cancel and go to the EMU. But damages are really beside the point, they would seek an injunction to shut down the emulator. If these guys launch a successful emulator on PayPal donations, I think SOE ought to fire their entire development team and hire the SWGEMU folks. It cost SOE millions to build SWG from the ground up, and costs -- millions? -- well, a lot of money to keep the servers up and running. BrownHornet21 03:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I added this way up there too, but it is a violation of Title 17 Section 109 of the US Copyright law. 68.96.139.48 02:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)UaConchobair

Well I looked into this a bit more, and although they don't say it on thier boards, the emu-swg is being built from the ground up. They are not actually stealing code from SOE, but recreating it. The legalty of it would be entirley dependant on how much the finished product resembles the 'look and feel' of SWG. They will however be violating the liciencing rights of SW characters. I survived many flames and ban threats to get this information...

68.96.139.48 21:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)UaConchobair

I recently realized that myself -- that SWG is a licensed product and it seems as if this server emulation would be in violation of Lucasfilm's copyrights on Star Wars. But I'm not a lawyer... Powers 01:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I seriously can't believe there's an actual debate or any doubt that it's completely illegal. Proprietary software and code that isn't allowed to be copied or redistributed in any way, especially in derivative form. Does anyone ever read terms you agree to when buying any type of commercial software? It's more like you're renting it then owning it. Anything done without consent from the publisher is simply a copyright infringement of software. Roguegeek 02:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If any code were being copied, then that would be an issue. However, I can verify that all code in the SWGEmu was written by the developers of the code, without any sight or knowledge of the proprietary SOE code. Ameise -- chat 07:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. The cut screens are identical to SWG. The buildings are identical to SWG. The emu puts wookiees, rodians, TIE fighters, dewbacks, the planet of Naboo, bantha milk, thermal detonators, Jabba's Palace, etc. on it - that's an infringement of Lucasarts' copyrights. BrownHornet21 05:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean trademarks, not copyrights... unless LucasArts actually built a TIE Fighter, and then copyrighted the design. Regardless, have you even looked at the SWGEMU? Your entire argument is completely irrelevant, as we do not modify the client, which controls all of the media such as films and textures; we are writing our own SERVER. Ameise -- chat

(bumping this thread back to the left-hand side) No, I'm talking about copyrights. Trademark law might be implicated, if you folks use any of Lucas' (LucasFilms, LucasArts, et al.) trademarks - LucasFilms owns over 700 of them, from the obvious ("Star Wars") to the not-so-obvious ("Javva the Hutt," Application No. 78/649380, approved for publication in the PTO Gazette next month). (LucasArts, BTW, owns about 60 or so.) You don't have to build a TIE fighter to copyright its image. They appeared in a number of movies, all of which LucasFilm owns the copyrights. I'd search the Copyright Office's database but it's currently down. The infringement is not the copying of code (you're not doing that); the infringement is copying the SW universe. The client/server distinction won't matter to a federal judge who sees that the SWGEMU has Lucas' copyrighted critters and doodads on it. In the end it still reproduces and displays copyrighted images without the consent of the copyright owner. For these reasons one cannot create and sell his/her own SW comic book, screenplay, or computer game (although odds are it will be better than most of the dreck LucasArts has put out over the years).

I've looked at the SWGEMU, logged in a while ago and ran around for 10 minutes. My avatar didn't have any clothes and my guy couldn't talk after a bit (bug?). Don't get me wrong, I like the idea, because SWG was pretty fun back in 2003-04. If you guys pull it off I think SOE ought to offer each of you a cushy job in Austin, Texas. But I just don't see how it gets around U.S. copyright law. Unless Lucas either gives you a license, is indifferent to the SWGEMU, . . . or likes it! BrownHornet21 01:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You couldn't talk after a bit because of a bug recently introduced that I am still hunting down---the client gets a bad packet, and then disconnects. You had no clothes? What server were you on? That was fixed recently (After it was fixed and then broken). Ameise -- chat 04:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Lowca -- back in July, after it went live. No one had clothes on. BrownHornet21 05:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well duh, nothing was in after initial release -- many of the things in there now, I added since then. Ameise -- chat 06:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If a federal judge dosen't care about the client/server connection like you said, then your legal system must be pretty bad. The server does not produce or display the copyrighted images, it only connects with the client to interact with other users. All the copyrighted stuff is in the client, which has not been modified at all, and which was created by SOE, meaning that the images couldn't have been displayed or reproduced without the consent of the owner. Therefore, it's completely legal. Server emulator explains a lot about this.--Windsamurai 02:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

(bumping this thread back to the left-hand side) Lotus v. Borland isn't going to help, and it's a stretch to state that case suggests that emulators are OK under copyright -- Borland didn't create an emulation of Lotus 1-2-3, they created their own program that shared a lot of operational/functional features of 1-2-3. That case was also decided before the enactment of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). Read for yourself the actual language of the Blizzard v bnetd litigation, at 334 F. Supp. 2d 1164 (E.D. Mo. 2004), affirmed by the 8th Circuit, 422 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 2005):

The users of the Battle.net service have occasionally experienced difficulties with the service. Blizzard has also received complaints about user profanity and users who cheated to win games by modifying Blizzard's software ("client hacks"). Although Blizzard has taken actions to correct these difficulties with its Battle.net service, including adding additional server capacity, banning cheaters, and providing for private channels and games, defendants were frustrated by the difficulties.

To address their frustrations with Battle.net, the defendants joined a group of non-profit volunteer game hobbyists, programmers, and other individuals called the "bnetd project." Combs, Crittenden, and Jung were lead developers for the bnetd project. Combs led all the developers. The bnetd project was a collaboration focusing on development of the bnetd server, which is a program that attempts to emulate Blizzard's Battle.net service. The bnetd server was created for "hack value" and to address the difficulties that users sometimes experienced with the Battle.net service. In addition, some or all of the defendants developed bnetd, in part, because they believed that Blizzard game players should not be forced to view advertisements displayed via the Battle.net service and that it was morally wrong for Blizzard to require people who want to play Blizzard's games over the Internet to agree to the Battle.net TOU or other restrictions imposed by Blizzard. The bnetd project is a volunteer effort and the project has always offered the bnetd program for free to anyone who wants a copy of it.

...

The Court finds that the defendants' actions constitute a circumvention of copyright under the DMCA. It is undisputed that defendants circumvented Blizzard's technological measure, the "secret handshake" between Blizzard games and Battle.net, that effectively controlled access to Battle.net mode. It is true the defendants lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of the computer programs when they agreed to the EULAs and TOU. The statute, however, only exempts those who obtained permission to circumvent the technological measure, not everyone who obtained permission to use the games and Battle.net. See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429, 444 (2nd Cir. 2001) (court rejects argument that because DVD buyer has authority to view DVD, buyer has authority of copyright owner to view DVD in a competing platform; court finds that argument misreads § 1201(a)(3) because the provision exempts from liability those who would "decrypt"--not "use"--an encrypted DVD with the authority of copyright owner). The defendants did not have the right to access Battle.net mode using the bnetd emulator. Therefore, defendants' access was without the authority of the copyright owner.

...

The Court finds that the defendants' actions constituted more than enabling interoperability. The bnetd emulator developed by the defendants always allows the Blizzard game to access Battle.net mode features even if the user does not have a valid or unique CD Key, because the bnetd emulator does not determine whether the CD Key is valid or currently in use by another player. Unauthorized copies of the Blizzard games were played on bnetd servers. Then, defendants distributed the bnetd program for free. Because the bnetd source code was freely available, others developed additional Battle.net emulators based on the bnetd source code. In addition, the defendants distributed binary versions of the bnetd program to make it more convenient for users to set up and access the emulator program. Finally, the defendants did not create an independently created computer program. The bnetd program was intended as a functional alternative to the Battle.net service. Once game play starts there are no differences between Battle.net and the bnetd emulator from the standpoint of a user who is actually playing the game. Based on these facts, defendants' actions extended into the realm of copyright infringement and they cannot assert the defenses under § 1201(f)(1). See 17 U.S.C. § 1201(f)(1). Therefore, the Court will grant summary judgment to Blizzard on Count II of its second amended complaint as to the anti-circumvention claim and deny defendants' motion for summary judgment on this claim.

Reverse engineering is generally an affirmative defense to copyright infringement (via fair use doctrine), but it's a safe bet the SWG EULA prohibits reverse engineering and thus waives fair use, like it did in the bnted case. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to grant summary judgment for Blizzard:

Appellants's circumvention in this case constitutes infringement. As detailed earlier, Blizzard's secret handshake between Blizzard games and Battle.net effectively controlled access to Battle.net mode within its games. The purpose of the bnetd.org project was to provide matchmaking services for users of Blizzard games who wanted to play in a multi-player environment without using Battle.net. The bnetd.org emulator enabled users of Blizzard games to access Battle.net mode features without a valid or unique CD key to enter Battle.net. The bnetd.org emulator did not determine whether the CD key was valid or currently in use by another player. As a result, unauthorized copies of the Blizzard games were freely played on bnetd.org servers. Appellants failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to the applicability of the interoperability exception. The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Blizzard and Vivendi on the interoperability exception.

Under U.S. copyright law LucasArts and SOE can wield some pretty powerful legal tools under the Copyright Act and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Copyright law in the U.S. is very slanted in favor of the copyright owners. Read the introductory facts of the bnetd case above; how does swgemu distinguish itself from that? BrownHornet21 05:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a world outside of USA, perhaps you should bring up some international law too. Revener 23:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Server Emulation

According to Slashdot [1] there are now efforts in the alpha stages to emulate Star Wars Galaxies servers to allow the use of purchased software without the use of Lucas Arts fee based servers. I assume in the United States the operation of one of these servers would lose in a case similar to the case against bnetd but nothing will stop users from using foreign servers. Should this be included in the article?Tjb891 15:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

See the section immediately above this one. —Mira 22:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

External links

I've tried chopping down these links, but I feel like more work could be done. Are the "resource sites" worth keeping, either as a whole or individually? Or did I go too far? —Mira 05:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

We certainly don't need a link for every server forum out there, but it is a bit notable that groups of former players have banded together and keep in touch via various fora. I don't know if it's worth trying to pick one as an example, but it ought to at least be mentioned. As for the "resource sites", some of them are worth keeping (the Wiki, for example). swgcraft is a great site but only useful for current players of the game, not for readers of an encyclopedia entry. As for the rest, we only need one or two, but I don't know how to decide which ones to keep. =) Powers 15:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I overdid it by removing that paragraph. I put it back, along with a link the site that was in the news article already had linked here. I figure that's the best way to stop silly edit wars over which site to include. I agree on the links, the problem is that I don't know how to decide which ones to keep either. ;) I'll think it over, I guess. —Mira 23:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just removed the creatures link. I thought it was a little too specific, like SWGCraft. —Mira 23:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Emulation

Wikipedia is very careful about adding minor fan groups or projects into the encyclopedia. I believe this emulation project may qualify under that. And censoring is watering down something that will offend people, not removing possible non notable information. On the other hand, it might be a significant project; I have yet to check out the source.

Let's reach consensus on its inclusion or deletion. — Deckiller 02:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

My argument is that the project most definately has made substantial progress. Not only have they shown that they have their own servers working, albeit simply, but they have even released screenshots, an AVI video (that showed both AI and zone control, something that is server controlled), and have stated that the source to the core server will be released on July 9th. I believe it deserves a mention, if not it's own article! Ameise -- chat 02:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that is has nearly 4,300 registered users, which almost puts it under the notability guidelines for forums. This is indeed a very close arguement for both sides. — Deckiller 02:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but some of the sites that have pledged to create servers (such as PureSWG) have thousands of users registered as well. Ameise -- chat 02:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• In my opinion, I don't think details should be addressed, but I see no major issue in at least providing an external link if it is exactly that notable. I leave the real discussion up to the major contributors of this article. — Deckiller 03:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm willing to concede a link and perhaps a sentence mentioning that this emu is being developed. I'll make the edit very shortly, let me know what you (generic you) think. —Mira 04:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

There. And I have a question: what's the correct spacing and capitalization for the project? SWGEmu? SWGEMU? SWG Emu? —Mira 05:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the new version; it's a fair compromise. — Deckiller 05:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess I don't have a problem with the link, although I'm still not convinced there's anything of substance there. However, it really ought to be mentioned that the project is a violation of the EULA and emphatically not supported by the developers (even if it's unenforceable due to not being in the US). Powers 15:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of the developers are indeed in the US; the EULA is not a legally binding document as far as I know, it only entitles SOE to ban them from their own servers. Ameise -- chat 17:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you both might want to read Server emulator#Legality, if you haven't already. —Mira 20:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

And as per that article, they are not violating any tested law or legal sentement. However, that being said, once there is substantial news and progress on the EMU, I will take it upon myself to expand the information about it beyond the scant sentence is has now. Ameise -- chat 01:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that you discuss any emu-related changes here before making them, because they are obviously controversial. That may help stop edit wars before they start in the future. —Mira 03:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, whether it's legal or not is irrelevant to whether it's notable or not. We should be very careful not to let what is essentially a competing product become too prominent in this article. (I also note that the article Mira linked specifically says that simple EULA violations have not yet been tested in court, although that section is conspicuously devoid of references.) Powers 12:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not a competing product; in order to compete, a product must be marketable -- products released for free are not marketed products, and hence do not compete; at best, they detract. Ameise -- chat 07:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Article name

I was just looking at the name of the article, and it conflicts with the introduction. The title is Star Wars: Galaxies, and the intro says Star Wars Galaxies. Certainly one of these needs to be changed, but I'm honestly not sure which one. I know I always used "Star Wars Galaxies", but that might have only been because it's easier to leave out the colon. Anyone have any ideas? —Mira 05:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I almost forgot, if we keep the version with the colon, does it still need the space, or should it be Star Wars:Galaxies? —Mira 05:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

There should always be a space after a colon. However, the website never uses a colon. The article title probably shouldn't either. Powers 15:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The box(es) has(have) a space; it is implied by the return carriage. Ameise -- chat 17:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to move the article then. If there are major objections later, it can always be moved back. —Mira 19:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it's Star Wars Galaxies: An Empire Divided. there is no colon after Star Wars.Trocisp 08:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is only called Star Wars Galaxies now after the release of the NGE I believe the An Empire Divided was taken out.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 19:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

New Customers

I find myself disagreeing with this:

It is unknown as to what percentage of the actual playerbase agrees/disagrees with the direction of the game. Many long-term players have left, either out of disgust or frustration, but others have returned to the game after previously leaving, and the game continues to attract new customers.

Many people who return often leave again after remembering why they left in the first place. Also, any statistics site will show that Galaxies has been gradually LOSING subscriptions at a steady rate since the introduction of the NGE; no doubt because it now directly competes with World of Warcraft. Ameise -- chat 17:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

And I find myself disagreeing with that. =) Any statistics site is questionable since SOE no longer releases subscriber numbers (and subscriber numbers for StationPass games are inflated anyway). Also, SWG does not compete directly with WoW except in so far as they're both MMORPGs. They're completely different genres with completely different strengths. Powers 18:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Powers here. Without statistics to prove such an assertion, it really doesn't belong. And since SOE doesn't release numbers, I don't see how there can be statistics. Although I have to say, I'm not so sure that the second sentence belongs without a source. This article desperately needs references. —Mira 20:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Powers. But, for what it's worth, scroll about 4/5 of the way down for an interesting read at Bruce Woodcock's MMORPG statistics site. He admits it's not perfect, but Bruce pegs SWG's numbers at 110,000 to 175,000 (probably 170,000) as of May 2006, a hefty drop from its 275k-300k peak. BrownHornet21 03:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll just say that when I left the game all most a year ago there was about 1/10th the player base... and the reason that Sony is not saying how many players they have is because it's no where near the Million they had after the first year. Which would only go as far as to prove that the bulk of thier players do not like the game now compaired to the orginal version.

Unsourced information

Please stop adding unsourced information to this article. This is getting incredibly out of hand. Provide a source, otherwise the "information" is actually wild speculation, and not worth including in an encyclopedia. —Mira 04:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

After some poking around, I'm willing to bet that this is where all of these edits are coming from. —Mira 22:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I semi protected the page. These people need to discuss the matters on this talkpage; they will get nowhere by editing the article. — Deckiller 23:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. —Mira 02:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest adding an automatically generated 'References' section using <references/> and the <ref> tags for citations because I think that would help organize the sources. There's more information here: Wikipedia:Footnotes Al001 19:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have posted a thread (or will in about a minute from this point) on the forum requesting that people refrain from vandalism, or at best good-faith but biased edits. Ameise -- chat 07:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Here we go. Ameise -- chat 07:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Design of the economy

I believe this statement is still accurate: "Like many other MMOGs, the game design of Galaxies includes realistic social institutions such as a dynamic player economy and other real-life social phenomena like a complicated division of labor." It can be argued whether or not the design is successful at producing those results or not, but there's no question that as long as traders are still in the game and producing mutually-exclusive products that there is a complicated division of labor, and that as long as traders can harvest resources, craft their items, and sell their wares to other players that there is a dynamic player economy. Powers ^T 01:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

And any crafter in SWG will now tell you that he is useless; the NGE brought about looted items that were vastly superior to crafted items; crafters basically have no use, anymore, and you can tell by the rampant inflation in galaxies that it is no longer a dynamic economy. Ameise -- chat 02:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That sound suspiciously like original research. Do you have any verifiable sources that the design no longer includes a dynamic player-driven economy? Powers ^T 13:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Powers here. The design does include those things. It's not for us to decide if it works or not. —Mira 03:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The Design does, but to say that it actually -has- one is also original research. Now, if a third party investigatory body actually say "yes, it does!", and this was confirmed by others, then it would indeed have one and then it would be appropriate for an encyclopedic article. Do not create a double standard. Ameise -- chat 07:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

When making statements about the current design of the game, the developers' statements on the topic are a perfectly good source. What we need sources for are if we want to say something contrary to the developers' stated design goals. Powers ^T 01:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If that is indeed the case, then the developer's own statements on the EMU should be perfectly allowable to allow an expanded section on the EMU. Ameise -- chat 01:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The developers' stated goals for the game are totally relevant when writing about their stated goals for the game. Their comments on SWGEmu, on the other hand, are probably not any more informed than yours or mine, and thus don't constitute a reliable source. A source can be reliable and valid for one purpose and not for another, after all. Powers ^T 02:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought I would clear up one thing; I -am- a SWGEmu developer :/ Ameise -- chat 03:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you meant the SWG developers. You can see why I was confused, then? =) Yes, of course we can say things like "The developers of SWGEmu intend for it to emulate a pre-combat upgrade version of Star Wars Galaxies". That's without dispute. The issue, though, is whether the project is notable enough for further detail, along with needing third-party sources for verification of the claims. Powers ^T 11:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like SOE wrote it

It talks about features and such so much that it truly looks like SOE wrote it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.128.213.120 (talk • contribs) 21:32, August 20, 2006 (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 Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). 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. —Mira 07:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

where is...

can any body tell me where I can fined Darth Vader? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.252.199.152 (talk • contribs) .

Hi, this isn't a discussion forum for the game, but rather for the article about the game. I suggest trying one of the sites in the external links section for specific information such as this. —Mira 20:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Cut from Controversy

I think the Questionable Tactics and Customer Voice sections should be dropped. The fact that a refund was offered after NGE and the expansion is listed earlier in the article. And the Customer Voice section is pretty unsubstantiated - 'many players feel...' (appears twice) and 'team has pledged to improve' need verifiable sources if they are going to fit here or it is bias. I don't feel this section adds anything - why would an encyclopedia article on SWG include references to what some people on a forum think? Scottsh 06:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed them - I noticed that comments about player unhappiness and developer statements is also covered earlier in the article. Scottsh 14:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Questionable edits

Is it just me, or has this article been gathering a lot of questionable edits lately? It makes it hard to keep up with the good changes while reverting the bad ones. I wonder if this is evidence of a resurgence among players? Powers ^T 15:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection to make it easier to separate the wheat from the chaff. Powers ^T 15:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Chapters

I've started a part about Chapters. Any help improving it would be good thanks. Bluetuft 21:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your contribution! However, I think a detailed description of the features of various chapters is too much detail for a general-purpose encyclopedia. There is a SWG Wiki - [2] - That might be a better place for that kind of information. Powers ^T 00:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Controversy Section?

Anyone else think there should be a controversy section in here? It'd have to be a balanced article, and include both views —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.139.80.122 (talk • contribs) .

Um, Star Wars Galaxies#Controversy. Powers ^T 00:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the editor above makes a good point in a kind of round about way. That section has been sitting with the {{unreferenced}} tag since July 2006 and no one has even attempted to start adding citations to it. Unreferenced information usually gets removed a lot quicker than this in any other article. I'm going to start removing large parts of the article where no sources are provided. If someone has a problem with this, please start referencing statements. Any statement with a source that is valid as per WP:RS will not be removed. Thoughts? Feedback? Roguegeek (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that tag from July 06 applies to all of the controversy section's sub-sections also. Roguegeek (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I am deleting the controversy sections of the article since no one has been able to apply reliable sources to any of the statements in any single one of the sections since July 2006. If you have a problem with this, please find reliable sources to back up any statement made in the sections. Roguegeek (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Article

Hi, I've been trying to make changes to this article and I'm thinking it's just about ready to be a Good Article. I would however like everyone to look at it and see what else is needed. If someone could please tell me what needs sourced in the controversy section then could you please do that? Also can someone maybe add a picture from in game? Besides that I think it might be ready to become a Good Article. Basically I would like to know what I can do to improve this article because at the moment I'm not too sure where to go at the moment with it.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 02:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that it might need a couple more pictures. Greeves 22:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

No amount of pictures in the world will get this article a GA recognition. There's simply too many POV problem statements and even more unreferenced content. In an attempt to start bringing this article in line with a GA, I'm going to start removing some of this poor content. See discussion on controversy above. Roguegeek (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Poor references

The references used for this article are poor at best. Please use a proper citation in your ref tags such as {{cite web}}. I would recommend someone start converting over the already existing ones to this format as soon as possible. The tag in the reference section can be removed once this is complete. This will greatly help with the actions that are needed to get this article to GA status. Thanks. Roguegeek (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Contraversy??? What Contraversy?

I played the game when it first came out, I played this game in 2004 and again in 2005, And now im playing it again and i can safely say that the game has NEVER been more fun and more fair to newer players than it is today. Just cause a couple of hardcore players dont "own" like they used to doesnt mean the game hasnt gotten better. ACtually the fact that they arent doing as good as they used to should prove that the game is getting better. I can safely say the game is better now then its ever been, never before have i actually wanted to continue playing and i cant wait to get back online so i can continue my progress through the jedi profession(WHICH IS BETTER THAN EVER) and still doesnt take away from the other professions. In conclusion the game NEEDS change in order to become better, just cause people are scared to play something new does not mean the game is broken, cause it isnt, its getting better. everyday. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.164.64.54 (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Regardless of your opinion, there was a major outcry and backlash due to the games update, thus it was rather controversial. I played the game from release and know what happened. This article wasn't solely written by people who dislike the game. I believe you should read through it again to understand it better, before making unecessary comments.--Xero Anarian 22:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact you say Jedi is "BETTER THAN EVER" shows you are clueless when it comes to knowing what Jedi was like PreCU. Hell even during the CU it was better than what it is now. Bottom line is you can't compare the experiences of playing NGE vs PreCU if you've only played one of them (2004 suggests CU), I'm a pretty average player but even I enjoyed the diversity from being able to spread your points out across 32 professions. --Durzel 10:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As stated above, please be polite, assume good faith, and keep in mind this is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. It should only be used to discuss improving the article itself. Also keep in mind that anything added to this article regarding this subject better have full and correct sources as per WP:RS or it will be deleted. Thanks. Roguegeek (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Mistake in CU

Doesn't this paragraph belong in the NGE section and doesnt apply to the CU:

Tokiea(Edit) -- In addition players could no longer gain experience in multiple skills such as being a medic and a swordsman. Many of what players considered the best professions were lost such as the Bio-Engineer and Creature Handler professions allowing players to create or use creatures as personal pets. Now characters had one skill set and one sole purpose in the galaxy further enforcing the need for a guild or group.

After CU i still had skills spread across CH, BH, and CM, and advancement in any branch was still possible and respeccing allowed players to move into anything they wanted to. NGE is what makes the above true. With NGE people were forced to respec into a specific fixed profession, and removed CH and BE from the game completely.

Puffmouse 15:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This Article Reads Like A Marketing Brochure But The Game Sucks & No One Plays It Anymore

So I added a POV tag. Plus, nothing is referenced in the article. It totally vioates wiki verifiability. Clean up this article or I will. Jonawiki 23:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing has been referenced in this article. I will soon correct the lack of neutrality in this article. Jonawiki 14:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I do agree, you can't just place those tag on the article and not give a thorough explanation as to why you feel they should be placed. Please make sure to do this before you place the tags again. Roguegeek (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Leaving neutrality aside for now, how does one go about providing a "thorough explanation" to prove that the article lacks sourcing and verifiability. It lacks it. What else can be said? I'm putting the "unreferenced" tag back in. Jonawiki 23:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well first off, there are sources. Not many, but there are sources. Second, if you have a problem with a particular subject, tag that statement with the {{fact}} tag before tagging the whole article. It give editors a change to go out there and hunt down information. You don't have to tag each and every statement that isn't sourced. Just do a couple and that's enough to get the point across. It's also clear the entire article is not poorly reference. Some parts are, in fact, very well referenced. The blanket statement of "the whole article lacks sources" is rarely going to be true on any article here so read through it and find some specific things to tag so we can start investigating as a group. Don't just tag the whole article and say "i'll take care of it later". You aren't the only editor looking at this article. Also please check out the WP:RS policy for more info on this. I hope this is helping answer any questions you may have. Roguegeek (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well to address your first point, yes, there are sources for 3 statements.

1) The first Force-sensitive character slot was unlocked on November 7, 2003

2)The new game enhancements, along with the new downloadable trial, were pushed to live on 15 November, 2005, and the Star Wars Galaxies: Starter Kit retail box was released on 22 November, 2005. Reviews were largely critical of the changes.

(3) The new system was intended to restore a more "Star Warsy" feeling to the game—to bring the game closer to player expectations which were more in line with a game that felt like the action seen in the movies. A large part of the change also came about due to the realization that the actual code of the game did not lend itself to modification. Many of the changes were directed to allow the game code to be more modular, allowing further changes and enhancements in the future. The development team has repeatedly affirmed that this is the direction they want to take the game and they are slowly but carefully modifying the game to address player's desire.

EVERYTHING ELSE IN THIS LONG ARTICLE REMAINS UNSOURCED.

I'm not the only one who thinks the sourcing/verifiability of this article is atrocious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies#Unsourced_information.

Per your suggestion, I placed the "fact" tag for every unsourced statement in the first third of the article. Personally, I think it looks retarded. Don't you? Jonawiki 00:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks terrible. If you had actually listen to my suggestion, it wouldn't have looked that way. Since it doesn't look like you read it, I'll write it again. You don't have to tag each and every statement that isn't sourced. Just do a couple and that's enough to get the point across. Roguegeek (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the latest policy on Attribution which replaces Verifiability (see WP:ATT), it states "The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material." As such, I am putting back the unreferenced tag on this article.

This article is more like a game manual or marketing brochure. Compare it to GTA III. It lacks a section showing the dismal reviews of the game. It lacks a section covering the controversies of the game (loss of subscribers, NGE, Jedi alpha class, etc.). As such, I am placing back the NPOV tag and the other tag on bad game content. Jonawiki 15:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Fear not, over the course of this week, I will be improving this article. Have patience and soon all will be well. Jonawiki 15:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI to all, later this week, I intend to add information to this article on reviews and subscriber figures. Jonawiki 22:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Emulators

Why is there not a section under this article for Emulators? As far as I know, there are at least 3 projects currently engaged in developing emulators, and several of them are quite far along. Antman -- chat 19:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

But there is a subsection on "Emulator Servers" in the "Controversy" section. Jonawiki 19:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is it in the controversy section? Although they definitely spawned from controversy surrounding the game, the Emulators themselves are not a source of controversy. Antman -- chat 19:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The controversy section is not meant exclusively for the sources of controversy, just anything being related directly to controversy. It was the result of the NGE controversy. But I would also argue that it is a controversy in and of itself because the legality of it remains in question per the Wiki article on Emulator Servers. Jonawiki 19:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't feel as though it fits under that section, though; almost anything can be considered controversial from a certain point of view. Antman -- chat 19:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Antman, the emulators should not be in the controversy section because there's nothing verifiable about it being controversial (yet). I think they should be in a "Developments To Watch" section. I'll also add into that section the forthcoming Star Wars: Online MMORPG. Magonaritus 01:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Freeman "Controversy"

Removed the completely ridiculous Jeff Freeman reference. Take your smear campaign on developers you don't like to the MMORPG.com fourms.I understand you don't care for the game now but leave the personal attacks out of the refernces.BaronJuJu 19:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL, your attempts to censor the record on Jeff Freeman were immediately reverted by someone else and then you got warned. u gotz pwned. kekekekek :) Jonawiki 19:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a smear: "provided an endorsement of the NGE on his blog" - because it isn't true, and even links to references that prove it isn't true. I'm not going to edit it because it is about me, so I can hardly be unbiased, but you are, in fact, waging some kind of personal war against SOE/SWG and me, and shouldn't be allowed to touch anything related to any of it. At least your attempt at recruiting meat-puppets from MMORPG.com seems to have failed. Skeptack 19:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh my. I think you misunderstand me. I just want to bring to light the truth, that is all. I'm sorry that you personally find the verifiable truth to be unappealing. Jonawiki 20:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you two going to act Civil, or do I need to bring someone in? Antman -- chat 19:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have some issues with quotes being taken out of context, and especially filtered down to present only negatives about myself and the NGE. I don't understand what really warrants a mention at all, apart from Jonawiki's personal problem with me. i.e. he hates the NGE, blames me for it, and wants to publish this negativity on Wikipedia. There were other developers who have also spoken publicly about the NGE. So why I am the only one mentioned? Skeptack 20:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If there are other devs who have spoken publicy about the NGE in a manner that conforms with WP:ATT, please let me know and I will be sure to include them. Trust me, I will get to Smedley soon enough. Fear not, you won't be the only dev mentioned in this affair by the time I am done ! :) Jonawiki 20:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this statement makes it pretty clear, you're on an attack mission, here. Skeptack 20:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I guess it's easier to attack the messenger (i.e. me) than the message.... Jonawiki 20:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The message is the problem: it is filtered so as to support a particular point of view. Call that point of view "the truth" doesn't actually make it so. Skeptack 20:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:ATT: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true" Jonawiki 22:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You're pasting together snippets from sentences posted at different times, in different threads, to reconstruct a new paragraph full of "quotes" from me. To put it bluntly, you're a liar. Enough is enough. Skeptack 18:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Calling me a liar as you just did is a serious violation of No Personal Attacks and Civility. You have admitted that you are biased because it's about you. So your frustration on this is admittedly no longer germane to the validity of the edits. I bear you no personal malice. Please conduct yourself with the docorum as required by Wiki policies. Jonawiki 19:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you poor victim. I'm done discussing this with you. Skeptack 19:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Jonawiki 19:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, what? So you're openly saying that you're just grasping at excuses to post stuff that isn't true? I'm fairly sure that WP:UCS and/or WP:POINT would take effect there. R4gamuffin 04:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. He's made it quite clear that he just wants to make a personal crusade against any SWG devs he knows about right here. Skeptack 18:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Jonawiki, please read WP:POV and WP:NPA. Antman -- chat 20:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The only people who can be blamed for the NGE are the poor researchers at SOE, and their marketing department. I fail to see the importance of that section in this article. Antman -- chat 20:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Freeman is mentioned in Slashdot, so it conforms with WP:ATT. Plus, Slashdot is notable. Freeman is linked to the NGE controversy in Slashdot. Freeman posts in MMORPG, so that conforms with WP:ATT. Freeman publicly repudiates his past behavior and his prior employer with respect to the NGE. That's why I think it's relevent. Jonawiki 20:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It isn't about notability, it simply has nothing to do with the article. Antman -- chat 20:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

How is Freeman NOT relevant to SWG and the NGE controversy? You can't just deny it without further explanation. He is mentioned as being connected to it in Slashdot. He published his opinions on it in his blog. He then completely reversed his position on it PUBLICLY on MMORPG.com. I know you're a game dev yourself per your user page. Do you feel professionably uncomfortable with setting the precedent for a game dev being held accountable publicly for poor design decisions? If not, then please provide more justification than "no, it's not connected". In the meanwhile, I will revert your deletion of content. Jonawiki 20:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Being a former SWGEMU dev who was mostly blamed for the failure of CORE1, that's a stupid questio, User:Jonawiki. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a blamebook. I will revert your edits, and then ask an administrator to lock the article, if that is what you want. Antman -- chat 21:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I see we are back on the smear campaign again eh Jonawiki? How long does this take before this Personal Attacking becomes Disruptive Editing?BaronJuJu 21:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I published opinions about one piece of it on my blog. You're misrepresenting that as "an endorsement of the NGE", using references which themselves explain that. Skeptack 20:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

And again, you state your mission: "Do you feel professionably uncomfortable with setting the precedent for a game dev being held accountable publicly for poor design decisions?" Nevermind that only by laying the entire NGE design and every part of it in my lap can you express your opinion that "poor design decisions" were made, and by me - Wikipedia isn't even the right place to put your soapbox. Skeptack 21:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think what's written implies that the fault of the NGE is placed entirely in your lap. It just says that you endorsed it, then hid your endorsement, then backpedaled on your endorsement. It doesn't say that you designed and championed the entire NGE by yourself. Jonawiki 21:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Made another edit to make it clear that Freeman was not solely responsible for the entire NGE. Hopefully that will address his concerns. Jonawiki 21:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

But now you say I made an "enthusiastic endorsement", which is untrue, and certainly unattributed, since it is your personal opinion of how to interpret something you can't even provide a reasonable cite for. How about you stop using Wikipedia to attack me, is that too much to ask? Skeptack 18:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, blatant smear campaigns with made up "facts". They changed your game and you come here to spread lies. Meh, so I can't delete, but I can edit eh?BaronJuJu 19:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Your edit was too ambiguous and vague. So I corrected it. Jonawiki 19:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, nothing but smear and vauge references to what you think it meant. But as we can plainly see this is about the most we can excpect from you.BaronJuJu 20:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As soon as I am done laughing at this garbage, I would have to say that this has nothing to do with SWG and it needs to be removed immediately and the page locked for now. No neutrality, Personal Attacks and blatant blog thoeries that are based on not one fact. How many times does this kid need to be warned?. BaronJuJu 22:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Attribution - Living persons - Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it's about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page.[2] This applies to any material related to living persons in any article, talk, user page, or project page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material - Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Attribution, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source." No cite in that section meets the standards specified and much of it is a conjectural interpretation. Skeptack 20:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the contentious material about you WAS sourced in a manner 100% compliant with the guidelines of Attribution. The content is NOT unsourced and it's NOT poorly sourced. It's well sourced. So your citation does not apply. Jonawiki 20:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_Sources - "Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet - Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or comments on blogs, should not be used as sources.". Skeptack 21:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

*Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it's about a living person* - All of section 4.5 is contentious, about a living person, and provides only forum posts as citation. Skeptack 21:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I recommend that write-up on Freeman be dropped for the following reasons:

First, he's not notable nor is his involvement notable. According to Notability, "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other." Freeman is mentioned in Slashdot, but he is not the "subject" of the article, he is just mentioned in passing. And the heart of his "controversy" is not mentioned, just the beginning of it. Jonawiki also failed to show that "multiple, non-trivial published works" mentioned the Freeman incident.

Second, per Biography of living persons > Using The Subject As A Source, it fails the "contentious" test.

Third, per Biography of living persons > Reliable Sources, it states "Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable, third-party sources, a biography will violate our content policies of No original research and Attribution, and could lead to libel claims." I think that if you could point to non-self-referential sources that talk about the Freeman "controversy", you'd be in clear. But that's not the case here. Magonaritus 02:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Good points made, especially considering Wikipedia policy backs this up. I agree with the deletion. Roguegeek (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine, fine. I'll drop it. I looked but couldn't find any articles from a reliable source talking about the Freeman controversy. But be warned! If any do arise (which I admit is doubtful), I'll be back here again advocating inclusion again. Jonawiki 13:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Gameplay Features

Uuhhh... why is the Gameplay Features section so short now? Compared to City of Heroes, Lineage II, World of Warcraft, Age of Conan and Vanguard, the Gameplay Features section seems underwhelming. It seems someone deleted what was there before. Why? Magonaritus 01:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

SWG did a great job in its gameplay features on music, graphics engine, art design, cool creatures to fight, big buildings to explore (like the Naboo palace), the fun POIs and cameos, and so forth. Shouldn't we talk about that kind of stuff? Magonaritus 02:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Those articles should be trimmed as well; they are irrelevant to an encyclopedic article. Antman -- chat 19:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide the Wiki policies that support your statement?

I also pointed to other Wiki articles on games like City of Heroes, Lineage II, World of Warcraft, Age of Conan and Vanguard, they all feature more detail on gameplay. Why did you ignore my statement on this?

In addition, if you refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Massively_multiplayer_online_games#Good_Articles, it shows World of Warcraft, RuneScape and Final Fantasy XI as Good Articles. Again, these 3 examples provide much more detail on gameplay.

I will revert your deletions until you can provide more justifications than blanket generic statements. Magonaritus 03:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Proper discussion

I wiped the slate clean, as it were, and archived the talk page in hopes of having some decent discussion on the current edits. It's obvious editors have strong views about what should and shouldn't be in this article and that's totally fine. Before any major changes happen with the article, though, let's have some proper discussion about those edits here. The whole rogue editor thing isn't going to fly, especially since admins have already been made well aware of the situation with this article. Be civil and follow policies. I've been looking forward to making some decent changes to this article for some time now. Maybe with this newly energized enthusiasm from everyone, we can finally make that happen. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 05:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't archive a talk page when there are several active discussions taking place on it. Thanks. Magonaritus 05:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Rumors

Whoever is adding these nonsensical 'rumor' edits - stop. I've already warned you, and if you keep it up, I will ask an admin to lock the article. Antman -- chat 07:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I can find nothing under WP:ATT or WP:NPOV that excludes reporting on rumors that have been covered in the mainstream media. I'm also stunned that you would want to exclude Jedi as controversy. They've been controversial from day one within the game, being the source of flames within the community at every turn. Everything has been exquisitely sourced to sources compliant with WP:ATT which is admirable. Please discuss your concerns within the talk page first before making mass content deletions in an article. Thanks. Magonaritus 13:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Rumors and other edits are simply NOT relevant to the article within encyclopedia context. Antman -- chat 19:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I will repeat what I just said immediately preceding this latest comment: prove it. WHERE does it say in Wiki guidelines that you should EXCLUDE rumors that comply with Attribution. I think rumors are perfectly acceptable content since Attribution even states: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. So I'm gonna revert your content deletions until we can resolve this on the talk page. Jonawiki 20:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You also deleted the Freeman controversy and "SOE blames Lucas Arts" controvery. They were not rumors, so why did you try to delete them? Jonawiki 20:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Rogue and Antman, I'm waiting for your response.... Jonawiki 20:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I myself can find nothing within the policies that excludes adding content about rumors that can be tracked back to a reliable source per WP:ATT and written in a neutral manner per WP:NPOV.

I have found numerous examples of other Wiki articles that mention rumors substantiated and unsubstantiated. They include:

Apple_Inc.#2005_to_present:_The_Intel_partnership "Jobs confirmed rumors that...."

History_of_Google#Growth "There are also rumors of a Google web browser...."

Elvis_presley#Controversy_surrounding_death "These rumors have been strongly rejected..."

Do a search for the phrase "denied rumors" at en.wikipedia.org on Google ("denied rumors" site:en.wikipedia.org) and you get http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2003-34,GGLD:en&q=%22denied+rumors%22+site%3aen%2ewikipedia%2eorg which lists 43 results of articles within Wiki that use that specific phrase.

In conclusion, can someone explain why rumors about SWG should be excluded from the article? If not, can we put them back in? Thanks Magonaritus 03:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe antman suggested in his latest edit that rumors are not notable. According to Notability, "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other." Both rumors meet this definition of notability.

In addition, Notability states: "Notability is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance"." So just because you feel these rumors are trivial does not mean it should be excluded from the article.

Lastly, Notability is a guideline which is not as strong as WP:ATT and WP:NPOV which are official policies. Official policies have more weight than guidelines. These rumors comply with WP:ATT and WP:NPOV. Magonaritus 12:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they don't have independent sources. Everyone got that rumor from Kotaku.

If it's trivial, shouldn't it be moved to trivia? :) Jeff Freeman 13:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the rumors section makes the article look bad. It'd be different if there were tons of them, and SWG was known as "the game with all the rumors about it", but it's not. This just seems like clutter, to me. Jeff Freeman 13:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

By what Wiki criterion does the article look "bad"? I think it looks super sweet. By more objective Wiki policies of ATT and NPOV, it's one part win one part l33t.

And it's totally relevant cause remember the 2nd sentence of the article? "There has been no MMORPG that has caused more controversy than Sony Online Entertainment's (SOE) Star Wars Galaxies" according to MMORPG.com. Rumors like these get published by reputable media sources because of the SWG community's eternal haterade for John Smelly at $OE. It's partly because of such rumors that get such media attention like this that leads MMORPG.com to call SWG the most controversial MMO EVAR !!!!1111!! Jonawiki 13:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That's just my opinion, not a WikiOpinion. I think it's just a bit of clutter.

Incidentally, that quote is from an editorial. It's obviously Kevin Tierney's opinion, or maybe just a bit of hyperbole to make the article more interesting. It's not a "fact" from a reliable source. It's an opinion from an editorial written by a former SWG player: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/903665#903665

And no offense to mmorpg.com, but they aren't exactly one of the heavyweight gamesites on the net...

http://mythicalblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/traffic_rank.png

UO players back when GM Darwin was creating and selling stuff on eBay, rumors of GM/volunteer hot tub parties and sex-based-promotions within the program, refusal to put in a PvP switch was controversial, then putting in a non-PvP mirror, and on and on, might find that 10-year-old MMO has generated more controversy than SWG. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skeptack

There is no response needed to any of this. Information that can not be verified is non-encyclopedic information. A rumor, in nature, is unverifiable information. Therefore, rumors are not allowed in these articles. It doesn't matter if other articles don't follow this policy. I'm only caring about what goes here right now. If you have a problem with this, I suggest you get an admin over here to explain it. Rumors are being deleted. Roguegeek (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The big key word here is verifiability. Things here need to be exactly that. A reference pointing to the rumors is not verifying a rumor. If there is a true source to the info, then the information wouldn't be a rumor anymore. Roguegeek (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Rumor 2 can not be included for the same reason listed in the previous statements above. It's about a report on a rumor and not the rumor itself. It's also been completely debunked by a first party source. Furthermore, it was not an actual NY Post report, but a blog entry from an editor and should be viewed as an editorial piece and not an actual new report. The blogger does not even list their own sources. Roguegeek(talk)01:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, also, this is incorrect: "The New York Post reported on a rumor". That was blogs.nypost.com - there's a HUGE difference. Seriously. Jeff Freeman 15:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Vitka is a paid journalist for the New York Post. It's not a personal blog of some random joe using a free community feature on nypost.com. It's his column, but to make it more "hip", it's called a blog. But it's all in an official capacity with editorial overview which makes it WP:RS. See http://kotaku.com/gaming/new-york-post/new-york-posts-new-game-blog-229833.php or http://blogs.nypost.com/pgr/ or http://www.mmognation.com/2007/01/20/the-post-stars-posting-rips-swg-a-new-one/

I know that, part of the editorial oversight is deciding what to print in the NY post, and what's better as a blog post. Things posted to blogs.nypost.com are not "Reported by the NY Post". The issue isn't with citing it as a source, but with mis-attributing the source. There is a New York Post, and even they wouldn't just post an email like that. On the blogs, they tend to behave a bit more like... bloggers. Jeff Freeman 20:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Your blog concern is 100% moot. Check out Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ#Are_weblogs_reliable_sources.3F, it states:

Are weblogs reliable sources? In most cases, no. Most weblogs ("blogs"), especially those hosted by blog-hosting services such as Blogger, are self-published sources; many of them published pseudonymously. There is no fact-checking process and no guarantee of quality of reliability. Information from a blog may be usable in an article about that blog or blogger under the self-publication provision of WP:ATT. Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university or employer (a typical example is Language Log, which is already cited in several articles, e.g. Snowclone, Drudge Report).

Per Wiki policy, the NYPost blog from the reporter Vitka is in 100% compliance with Wiki policy of WP:ATT. Magonaritus 01:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I say remove the BIOWARE rumor as well. It has nothing to do with this (SWG). Either that or move it to the Bioware page under their rumor section, or developments to watch or whatever you want to call it. BaronJuJu 20:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's relevance to SWG is that it's unclear at this time, according to the article that provides this information, if the launch of a Bioware Star Wars MMO will result in the simultaneous sunset of Star Wars Galaxies. Or both may co-exist. Jonawiki 21:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:NOT.

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

Antman -- chat 22:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The Bioware rumor is pretty weak. I don't think it's worth mentioning as its relevancy to SWG is not well established at this point. Now, if it becomes public that Bioware is working on a Windows-based MMORPG for Star Wars, then that'll be a different story. As such, I agree, we should delete the Bioware sub-section for now. Magonaritus 04:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This Kotaku rumor is a year old. http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/sony/shakeup-at-sony-online-entertainment-162338.php - It also says "Place has been falling apart for a while," writes our mole. "Smedley is not long in his job.". But it's 2007 and he's still there, and SOE still runs SWG. The other cite is tentonhammer's "With industry buzz and rumors flying that SOE may not renew its license with LucasArts in early 2006." It is now 2007. I realize things don't have to be true, as long as they are cited, but doesn't this defy common sense? Jeff Freeman 04:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The "Controversies & rumors" section is mainly about controversies and rumors that took place in the past. There's no requirement that the controversy or rumor be currently on-going in order to meet Wiki standards of WP:ATT or WP:NPOV or WP:NOTE. The section is not titled "Current Rumors". In that light, do you still have a concern about the currentness of the rumor? Magonaritus 04:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The mix-n-match of more recent with former (and controversies with rumors) confused me, but I guess as time passes, they'll all be former. The inclusion of "an anonymous email was sent to Kotuka which claimed some things that SOE and LEC denied, and which later turned out to be untrue" still strikes me as a weird thing to include. Jeff Freeman 04:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's the policy that puts an end to this issue as taken directly from WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL:

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for an editor to insert their own opinions or analysis.

I understand how newer editors have difficulty dealing with understanding of these policies, but that's still not an excuse to repetitively revert edits that remove invalid content. Please stop doing this immediately. Thanks. Roguegeek (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball does not apply to rumors, it applies to SPECULATION of future events that have yet to occur or not occur i.e. an editor writes "At some point in the future, SWG will probably be nominated into the Gaming Hall of Shame" but then doesn't back it up with a source.

Rumors many times have nothing to do with speculating about what will happen. Many times, rumors are about things that ARE. Then people verify or deny them. Like SOE employees CURRENTLY think there's an anti-SWG cabal. It has nothing to do with speculating that an anti-SWG cabal WILL exist in the future. It either exists now or it doesn't.

Even if you accept all rumors as speculations (which they aren't), your crystal ball policy also says that "it IS appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur... provided that discussion is properly referenced." So if NY Times reported in an article that gaming experts argued over the speculation that SWG will be nominated into the Gaming Hall of Shame, then it IS OK according to the policy you quoted to discuss this speculation. You need to read things more carefully.

So I invite you to tell us all what Wiki policy or guideline prevents editors from including rumors that were denied or verified and reported in the press (aka ATT-compliant) and written in a neutral manner (aka NPOV-compliant).

Bring in an admin or third opinion or arbiter, I don't care. I'm pretty sure that you'll be proven very quickly wrong by the real experts on Wiki policy.

Until then, consider your content deletion... reverted. Jonawiki 19:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the blog you referenced, that would be "Like SWG players CURRENTLY think SOE employees think there's an anti-SWG cabal"? Not that it matters on this page - but if you're going to use that post as a reference in the article, be sure not to jump to a conclusions. Jeff Freeman 20:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No idea what you just said. Please rephrase. Jonawiki 21:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the official case is, keep in mind you are not the only editor of this article and right now, consensus is going against you. Work with people here and keep in mind that you are about to break 3RR yet again. Roguegeek (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think consensus is against him. It looks more like 2v2 at this point. Reverted. Magonaritus 00:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Developments to watch?

The announcement of no expansions for 2007 is not something that should be included and under Developments to Watch. There is nothing to watch, they said they are not going to do it. Heck the XBOX 360 is the same thing, it talks about the development of an entirely new game, not SWGBaronJuJu 20:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I am indifferent to including or deleting the X-Box sub-section. I can see how it may be relevent. But I can also see how others like yourself may feel the linkage is too weak to be worth mentioning.

I am also indifferent to including/deleting the no expansions sub-section. Same thing. I can see how both sides may feel about it worthiness or lack thereof. 04:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Proper citation

If you're going to cite sources, cite them properly using the {{cite web}} and {{cite journal}} templates. Jonawiki has created a lot of work for everyone with all of these improperly cited source's they've introduced in the last couple of days here. Beyond that, make sure your source is a reliable one as defined by WP:RS. We have a lot of cleanup work to do now. Roguegeek (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Rumors

Should the following rumors be allowed into into this article? Before commenting, please THOROUGHLY read Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies#Rumors for the extensive and detailed arguments on both sides so far.

''Rumor #1: SOE loses SWG license

On 23 March 2006, Kotaku reported a rumor that: "Star Wars Galaxies has been an enormous screw up. The massively-multiplayer online version of the popular George Lucas films has been a fiasco, costing SOE players and money. ...Moreover, Lucas Arts is not extending their Star Wars license. Yikes." (Source = http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/sony/shakeup-at-sony-online-entertainment-162338.php) (Source = http://www.tentonhammer.com/index.php?module=ContentExpress&func=display&ceid=109) (Source: http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/24/1913240) Sony Online Entertainment and Lucas Arts denied the rumor. (Source = http://www.fohguild.org/forums/mmorpg-general-discussion/18739-soe-loses-star-wars-mmog-license-chief-creative-officer-allegedly-4.html#post454426) (Source = http://www.corpnews.com/node/126) (Source = http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2586&Itemid=2)

Rumor #2: Anti-SWG cabal

The New York Post reported on a rumor that some Sony Online Entertainment employees apparently believe that there exists a secret organization or "cabal" that is paid by other companies to spread false and hurtful rumors about Star Wars Galaxies. They believe this group has at least a hundred members and is partially responsible for the current state of the game. John Smedley denied any knowledge of this. (Source = http://blogs.nypost.com/pgr/archives/2007/01/galaxies_cabal.html)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• Rumor 1 can not be included in the article because the so-called rumor has been categorically denied by a first party source. It also appears that Kotaku is the only source that is reporting on this rumor. Everyone else talking about it refers to Kotaku reporting it also. Furthermore, a blog on video games is hardly considers a reliable source. It should also be noted that it seems Kotaku attempts to make notoriety from reporting rumors. In any case, the issue has been proven to be false for the time being. 23:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• The rumors above comply with WP:ATT, WP:NOTE, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. They should not be excluded from the article just because other editors think the rumors are not important enough or do not describe an event that actually happened. -- 00:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments