Talk:Star Wars Galaxies/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: "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)
thread_title: Subscriber numbers

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Subscription Update

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title: March 2006 update

message: 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)
thread_title: Removal of "Bugs and exploits"

message: 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)
thread_title: Tatoo vs. Tatooine

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Counterfeit money

message: 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)
thread_title: Modularization

message: 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)
thread_title: Expansions

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Recent Edits

message: According to Slashdot  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)
replies: text: See the section immediately above this one. —Mira 22:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Server Emulation  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

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

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

text: 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</small> | Contribs 19:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: New Customers

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

text: I suggest adding an automatically generated 'References' section using  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Here we go. Ameise -- chat 07:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced information

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I thought I would clear up one thing; I -am- a SWGEmu developer :/ Ameise -- chat 03:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Design of the economy  

message: 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  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)
thread_title: Looks like SOE wrote it

message: 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)
thread_title: where is...

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cut from Controversy 

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

message: I've started a part about Chapters. Any help improving it would be good thanks. Bluetuft 21:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 -  - That might be a better place for that kind of information.  Powers T 00:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chapters 

message: 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)
replies: text: Actually, the editor above makes a good point in a kind of round about way. That section has been sitting with the  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Controversy Section? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I think that it might need a couple more pictures. Greeves 22:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Good Article

message: The references used for this article are poor at best. Please use a proper citation in your ref tags such as . 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)
thread_title:  Poor references 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Contraversy??? What Contraversy? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mistake in CU 

message: Before commenting:
* Please THOROUGHLY read Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies#Rumors for the detailed arguments on both sides so far.
* If you've come here via Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Art%2C_architecture%2C_literature_and_media, please provide your comments in the "Comments" section below. 
REQUEST FOR COMMENT: SHOULD THE FOLLOWING RUMORS BE ALLOWED INTO THIS ARTICLE? 
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) Lucas Arts and Sony Online Entertainment denied the rumors." (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
An editor of a New York Post blog posted on their blog 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.
*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)
thread_title:  Request for Comment: Rumors 

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Emulators 

message: Curious as to why a seperate review section of all the expansions when you discuss it immediately above this section. 
Also, actual subscriber numbers are pure rumor as well since SOE has never released their numbers. So I see this needing to go to the Rumor Section as well.BaronJuJu 18:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A professional estimate of subscription numbers is NOT a rumor, but it is also not extremely reliable information. Antman -- chat 00:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  True, but using a reported "hacked" server numbers count to justify supposed low subscriber base is I would say.80.148.22.179 08:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is that unverified fact justified in any way? We also need to consider that a first-party source has already flat out said the number is in no way accurate. Roguegeek (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, I appear to have worded my last comment incorrectly. I was trying to say that the "hacked" server number is in no way verifiable and shouldn't be included. Anyone could go out and fake a "hacked" server sniff.BaronJuJu 18:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews and Subscribers =