Talk:Star Wars Galaxies

Archives
March 2006 March 2007 May 2007 October 2007 August 2008

Controversies!?

The player's disappointment in the game is hardly worthy of a title as bold as controversy, a lot of this information is heavily biased and completely unsourced so until someone can come up with reliable sources that prove this information I'm going to remove all unsourced information in the controversy section. This original research might just be what's been holding this article back from "good" or even "featured" article status. 68.219.26.177 (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SWG Trading Card Game: Champions of the Force

Could we please have section on the article about the new Star Wars Galaxies Trading Card Game: Champions of the Force which was released just recently. Here's a link about it: http://starwarsgalaxies.station.sony.com/tradingcardgame/index.vm?page=1
http://www.lucasarts.com/company/release/news20080702.html
Please someone add it in. Thank you. --VitasV (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Powers ^T 03:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)