Talk:Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords/Archive 1

message: Someone on this forum thread claims to be a Bioware representitive and knows info about the third game. I dont believe the info but I just wanted to show it. -- Psi edit
:On the bioware boards bioware officials denied this claim. --Anon.
the developer of kotor is curently working on an unnanonced project for x box 360 and playstation 3
== Deleted Content: == 
What is intresting it that there is a debate about the "Cut Content'... I have to submit that games are considered C-Cannon... N-Connon covers game stats... Now, M4-78 is mentioned in a magazine. There is question about if it is cannon or not... After heavy debate, I can only say that it is inconclusive. However, it is very clear that the other 'Cut Content' is not cannon. Since the current state of the 'Cut Content' is on the cutting room floor, there can not be anything to support it as cannon. If the 'Cut Content' was built in game, and was apart of the final product, then it would be considered C-Cannon. Since this is not the case, the 'Cut Content' "can not" be considered cannon in it's current condition. In order for the 'Cut Content' to be considered cannon, it has to meet the following: "It must be a 'completed piece', which belongs to a type of media: Movies, Games, Books, etc. If the 'Cut Content' was apart of the game, and was not deleted, then it would be considered cannon. <MC>
== Restoration Team: == 
Since they are not employeed by George Lucas, and they do not hold a Lucas Licence, they should be removed from the KotOR II page.. I took steps to ensure that someone will take notice. As an artist myself, I would be very upset to see a non-licsenced group manipulating my work, and then being advertised all over the place. Modding is different.... When it comes to work that I personally deleted, I would be offended and insulted by another person being recognized under my license... <MC>
:::Your points about Deleted Content would be relevant if the events that were cut are being inserted into the articles on characters and such as canon. They aren't.  That section is there because it is a major feature of quite a few people's (including my own) great disapointment with the game, its intrinsic interest and rarity, and because about the only activity or encyclopedic matter that took place after the games release relates to the deleted content viz. the mods.
:::As for for your Restoration Team arguments, that is strictly your point of view, that "omg! This modding stuff is morally wrong and illegal! We must not mention them or we will be contaminated by their poor ethics and questionable legality as well!" Attacking what they are doing will not suffice for reasons to remove information on them from Wikipedia.  I doubt most people here would be sympathetic to your arguments- this is a Free encyclopedia, predicated on letting people do stuff with your contributions that you have not specifically licensed them to do. --maru  (talk) Contribs 01:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible sequel 

message: At the moment, I'm having issues with this paragraph:
While some gamers are quick to dismiss late-game plot holes on the rushed ending, many of them are beginning to discover that many of the "plot holes" are explained in sizable detail, if the player is willing to spend the time to accomplishing this task. For example, each party member has considerable backstory and plot revelation, which is only heard in-game if the party member likes the player character. Since many actions cause the gain or loss of influence with party members, it is not uncommon to find that a critic has never gotten acceptable influences with certain party members. The originally planned ending would have provided in-game fates - and in many cases, deaths - for all of the characters who travel with the main player character. In-game, the game ends with a Force User revealing the party member's futures. By explaining their futures, instead of showing the events leading up to the finale, it leaves just what happened to the designers of KOTOR III.
My main problems with it are actually the first and last sentences.
Starting at the end: The last sentence reads like a post-hoc rationalisation that a fan of the game came up with to defend why the ending that shipped is better than the deleted one.  However, unless the developers have come out and said that that is why they used the ending they did, then it's merely speculation/opinion and likely doesn't belong.
The first, on the other hand, has a potential tone to it that I feel doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.  Too many weasel words ('some gamers are quick to dismiss plot holes, many of them are beginning to discover that many of the "plot holes"), and a general dsimissive tone of "Oh, all those complaints are obviously only coming from people who haven't played the game enough."  That's not to say that there isn't a kernel of truth in it (in that explanations of some events that were considered to be plot holes are actually included in game), I just feel that the tone of the sentence doesn't work.
To be honest, though, I'm not certain that removing the paragraph entirely would cause any harm to the article.  (It appears to have been added as a response to a paragraph that was in an earlier version of the article that made mention to widespread outrage, boycotts of any KotOR III, and all the usual Internet-based drama.)  g026r 06:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted Content 

message: Since there has been some minor edit warring over the inclusion of this section on the two modding projects, I think there needs to be some discussion here about them. I see nothing wrong with these sections, could one of the editors who think these sections should go explain why you think this? BryanG(talk) 20:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not an issue about the scope of the article, and has absolutely nothing to do with copyright law, this is a WP:V issue. If the information can be sourced using reliable secondary sources (e.g. articles in gaming publications, etc), then it should stay. Otherwise it should go. Nifboy 21:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That is an argument only for removing external links, not the wholesale deletion of the section. And last I checked we still had links to much more egregious offenders like Home of the Underdogs and even a template to make linking there easier. Don't forget articles like lolicon, either. Nifboy 22:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks good to me, but then my main concern was avoiding a massive edit war over this issue anyway by discussing it here (of course, then I had to leave, but I see a discussion occurred anyway). BryanG(talk) 03:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also looks good to me.  Btw, I know nothing about these laws DarthMethos is talking about.  Will someone here or DarthMethos himself preferably cite several links proving these laws exist and apply to the content here?  It's the Wikipedian way.  ;) Btw-- several Obsidian devs already know about the TSL restoration project and in fact it's been pointed out numerous times on the Obsidian forums and no alarms have gone off, so this seems to be a void issue.  -- Solberg 10:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Considering that Wikipedia has an article on Pirate Bay and a link to it, I don't think they're concerned about copyright violations. Besides the fact that mods are not illegal (if they were, the makers of Hot Coffee would be in real deep trouble) and the fact that there are links to the Restoration Project and Project M4-78 on the Obsidian offical forums. Put it back in, and Darth Methos, as a Law student you should know that YOU can get in trouble once/if you pass the bar exam for making claims like you did. It's one thing to be a little concerned, but to go into an edit war over the issue when you're not even a registered user, nor are you a wiki mod (nevermind a member of their legal team) I have half a mind to put it back and get it protected, but I prefer to settle things over talk when possible. Leoroc 06:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd like to point you to Mod (computer gaming) right here on Wikipedia which includes a section on Knights of the Old Republic 2. This really isn't an issue and you appear to be the only one who thinks it is. Leoroc 05:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: They really aren't "altering" anything. They're "restoring". Difference. All that they are "altering" is bugs, which are highly unwanted in the first place. And LucasArts (the publisher) has given permission to mod any of their content, and actually specifically stated that they're willing to accept mods for KotOR II. From what you say, it's all legal. 65.100.147.48 04:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If you want proof of LucasArts' permission, go the FAQ in www.team-gizka.org and scroll down to "Won't LucasArts shut down your project faster than you can blink?" 65.100.147.48 04:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no stake in this, I like the game so I watched this article, you know for vandals and such, but I mean, just because something, such as modding, is illegal doesn't mean it cannot be talked about. A lot of things are illegal, it doesn't mean they don't exist. In this case wouldn't it be subjective to say information about modders or modding shoudn't be included. Does it really matter if those people are violating federal copyright laws? Not really. Wikipedia isn't. The modders are. And anyway, the interpretation of those laws has been quite broad in this area. However, that is really irrelevant to the discussion. I am not saying that there needs to be a ninety-six chapter section on modding of KOTOR II, but it should at least be mentioned. I, a casual player of the game, am aware of the mods and the fact they exist, most players are, to not include such basic primary information surrounding the game would be a disservice to the article and to Wikipedia's neutrality policy. In my humble opinion. A mcmurray 19:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: ^^^ Sounds like a biased opinion. No offence. ^^^ F.Y.I. - Modding is called Copy Left, and Lucas Arts has made it clear in the lisence agreement that they don't want it to happen. Talking about it is not illegal. I agree. Copy-Left is illegal in most states, but it is still heavily debated behind closed doors. MacCorp 17:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems as if you have managed to completely ignore all the discussion regarding this press release  and consequently this website  which both explicitly state that LucasArts embraces modding of their games, and is even willing to go through the trouble (and cost!) of providing a website for hosting these mods. If there ever is evidence of LucasArts reversing this policy, then discussion concerning the legality of these mods may be relevant, but as long as no such evidence exists, it is only reasonable to believe it when the company that owns the intellectual property itself officially states that it embraces and actively supports these mods. In my opinion, this discussion should already have been over ever since LucasArts gave that press release and opened lucasfiles.com.88.112.27.97 09:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MacCorp, did you even read what I wrote?  "They have even established a website to host such mods." Thanks to the IP user above for providing a link to settle the matter. As for the debate on mods, well, the plethora of mods for games like Oblivion, Morrowwind, Starcraft, Half Life, Quake, Unreal, etc, etc, etc. would say that a lot of companies permit modding and even encourage it. Why else would so many companies include modding tools bundled with their games? The only time modding is illegal these days is when the publisher forbids it (in legaleeze) in their Lisc. Agreements. In many cases, the only modding the bigger modable games will not permit is modding the hardcoded executables. In Lucasart's case, as the link above shows, they retroactively decided to allow modding.  In other words, Team Giska's mod IS NOT ILLEGAL. Incidentally, I am right it saying that the Restoration mod is highly anticipated.  Just go and patrol the message boards.  Besides, why else would it have gotten coverage in major print game magazines?  The mod is worthy of inclusion in this article. It is relevant to the subject and will be of interest to readers of the article. --Lendorien 21:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of modding sections 

message: I'd like to point out that Lucasarts permits modding of KOTOR and KOTOR2.  They have even established a website to host such mods. let me repeat, LUCASARTS PERMITS MODDING OF KOTOR & KOTOR 2.
Now, regarding modding being illegal... the user who stated that it was is in error. Modding is NOT illegal in the United States unless expressly forbidden by the publisher.  Many games have active modding communities that are strongly supported by the companies that created the games. In fact, by and large, most companies see modding as a positive thing, as the modding comminuty lengthens the lives of their products.  To say otherwise is simply a matter of ignorance of the facts.
Also, as a side note, just because an action may be illegal doesn't mean it is illegal to talk about.  If that were so, we'd have to remove every article in wikipedia about EVERY criminal action (of which there are literally thousands) and crime. That's just plain silly.  
Now let's quit the edit war here.  The KOTOR2 Restoration project is extremely relevant to KOTOR 2.  It aims to restore content originally cut by the developer to a game that many felt was chopped and badly damaged. It is one of the most anticipated mods out there for the game, is a matter that would be of great interest to many readers coming to the article, and it has direct relevance to the subject.  It's mention should remain.  --Lendorien 16:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ^^^ Sounds like a biased opinion. No offence. ^^^ F.Y.I. - Modding is called Copy Left, and Lucas Arts has made it clear in the lisence agreement that they don't want it to happen. Talking about it is not illegal. I agree. Copy-Left is illegal in most states, but it is still heavily debated behind closed doors. MacCorp 17:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems as if you have managed to completely ignore all the discussion regarding this press release  and consequently this website  which both explicitly state that LucasArts embraces modding of their games, and is even willing to go through the trouble (and cost!) of providing a website for hosting these mods. If there ever is evidence of LucasArts reversing this policy, then discussion concerning the legality of these mods may be relevant, but as long as no such evidence exists, it is only reasonable to believe it when the company that owns the intellectual property itself officially states that it embraces and actively supports these mods. In my opinion, this discussion should already have been over ever since LucasArts gave that press release and opened lucasfiles.com.88.112.27.97 09:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MacCorp, did you even read what I wrote?  "They have even established a website to host such mods." Thanks to the IP user above for providing a link to settle the matter. As for the debate on mods, well, the plethora of mods for games like Oblivion, Morrowwind, Starcraft, Half Life, Quake, Unreal, etc, etc, etc. would say that a lot of companies permit modding and even encourage it. Why else would so many companies include modding tools bundled with their games? The only time modding is illegal these days is when the publisher forbids it (in legaleeze) in their Lisc. Agreements. In many cases, the only modding the bigger modable games will not permit is modding the hardcoded executables. In Lucasart's case, as the link above shows, they retroactively decided to allow modding.  In other words, Team Giska's mod IS NOT ILLEGAL. Incidentally, I am right it saying that the Restoration mod is highly anticipated.  Just go and patrol the message boards.  Besides, why else would it have gotten coverage in major print game magazines?  The mod is worthy of inclusion in this article. It is relevant to the subject and will be of interest to readers of the article. --Lendorien 21:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lucasarts permits modding

message: The Citadel Station on Telos is the best mission ever. Morris Munroe 15:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't add stuff like this to the talk page of articles, they aren't forums. Thanks. Darthgriz98 15:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Telos Citadel Station 

message: There should be a section in this article about criticle reaction. This game was pie on the face for Lucasarts because of how the production time got shortened and the game got chopped. I think it's relevant to mention it.  --Lendorien 16:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of any coverage of critical reaction

message: Don't you think there is way too much deleted content? I only think that the really important stuff should be included. KdogDS 23:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it's excessive that every bit of information is there, Wikipedia is not a game guide. Darthgriz98 15:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted Content...Too much?

message: I removed what appeared as advertising for the patches, links to them do not belong on Wiki.  Neither does a description of every patch.  If you feel this was too  bold we can discuss it here and revert it. Darthgriz98 15:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Patches

message: A couple of external links to translation pages were recently removed (one by me). What are people's thoughts on whether these are appropriate for the article's external links section? I tend to think these links aren't appropriate on the English language Wikipedia, per current guidelines on foreign language sites, but I won't object if another editor wants to add them back. --Muchness 11:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Links to translation projects

message: I saw this in the manual, but i never got to choose my prestige class, can anyone help me? Also there should be a note about this on the Article page -Rovdyr 00:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prestige Classes

message: The Jedi Exile article is entirely a plot "summary" (well, plot-excruciating-and-unnecessary-detail) of the game itself. Both this and the Jedi Exile article need some trimming and reworking, but since the Jedi Exile's story is KOTOR2's story, it seems logical to have the former redirect to the latter, with integration of the real-world information posted toward the end of Jedi Exile. Thoughts? --EEMeltonIV 20:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many Star Wars fans will come here and revert your redirect. It happens quite often. How many times has Team Gizka been created, deleted, redirected during these months? — Texcarson | Talk 22:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And if you want to have an article about this game which isn't 90% original research/pop culture (therefore reducing it to 10% of its current size) you have to contact Chris Avellone and the other people at Obsidian Entertainment. — Texcarson | Talk 23:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Jedi Exile]] here 

message: It appears that recent iterations of the Story section is a copyvio from . I'm working now to re-write that section further, and will keep an eye out for similar violations. --EEMeltonIV 00:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, never mind(?) -- is wikia GFDL? --EEMeltonIV 00:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikia is GFDL. You can copy at will. — Texcarson | Talk 10:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio 

message: The writing about fiction guidelines pretty clearly state that fan mods are non-notable vanity. The Team Gizka article itself has twice been deleted as non-notable, and its inclusion here is similarly not significant. The text that an anon. editor keeps restoring lacks any citations to third-party sources, and requests for supposed links or specific citations to third-party coverage by a reliable source have gone unaddressed. Again, it's basically unsourced vanity for a non-notable fan project -- take it to a gamers wiki or some such. --EEMeltonIV 19:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus at the AFD discussion was to delete the content, not merge it here. All material in Wikipedia articles must be sourced to reliable, independent references, and until such references can be provided to substantiate this project's notability, it should be removed. --Muchness 23:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Why would we merge a mod that has no apparent notability, and especially when the merger was rejected by the deletion discussion on that article?  --Haemo 02:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got me -- but I wasn't advocating a merge, I was just saying that if there was a merge, it should be short.  -- ArglebargleIV 02:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gizka redux 

message: Can anyone off a substantive assertion of this group's notability -- per WP:FICT -- to warrant inclusion in this article? e.g. provide a link to significant third-party coverage? Otherwise, the Restoration Effort section should/will be deleted. --EEMeltonIV 12:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Team Gizka/Restoration Effort 

message: The same anonymous editor who repeatedly restored the Team Gizka material has also been restoring poorly-copyedited and repetitive general material on third-party mods. Several parts are essentially linkspam or simply trivial material (e.g. link to tools). I've tried to distill it to tight wording, with a token (and reluctant) mention of the otherwise non-notable Team Gizka. Most of what I've trimmed is, again, trivia, i.e. specific details on what these mods of questionable notability do. Anyhow, this anonymous did not discuss the Team Gizka stuff on this talk page, so I don't know if he/she will post anything now -- however, if anyone wants to restore what seems to be excessive, unnecessary and vanity material on the mods, please explain why and provide citations for, frankly, why anyone should care that a mod increases weapon damage or adds new clothes. --EEMeltonIV 22:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third-party mods section 

message: This is the "Team Gizka" stuff. The iteration that people keep adding is identical to a version previously AfDed and salted -- the vote was for deletion (without anyone even suggesting merging in the most recent one) under the argument that it is not a notable (it is a game mod., in the same category as vanity fan fiction) and uncited to a reliable source. --EEMeltonIV 02:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoration effort

message: Versions and update history?  when were 1.0, 1.0a, and 1.0b released?  What did they fix?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.220.163 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is not whether they exist; it's whether they are notable. A previous community discussion determined that they weren't notable enough for their own page; are they notable enough for this one? --Haemo 21:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: There's a more detailed copy of this article, which includes Team Gizka, here: KotOR II and Team Gizka. Feel free to register an account there and contribute. Darth Fork 23:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just One Opinion 

message: Mod sites are the gaming equivalent of vanity fan fic; it doesn't matter that they don't charge, linking to them is essentially just promoting the site. --EEMIV (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But who benefits? Clearly not just the site. It's a resource for people who want to expand the capabilities of the game. Alcarillo (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And that would be fine if this were some sort of game guide or gaming resources, but that's not the focus/point of this project. If there were some directory of KOTOR mods, that would probably work. --EEMIV (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linkspam 

message: :Image:KotorIIbox.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:KotorIIbox.jpg

message: Absolutely incredible the amount of pontification that's going into this discussion of whether or not mods should be included in this article. It's been going on for more than 6 months and includes an edit war. It's getting a little ridiculous. 
The Team Giska mod is notable. It's part of the "life" of the KOTOR2 product, has been covered in major print magazines and is a highly anticipated mod for the game by fans of the game. It's notable, of interest to those who might read the article, and nothing in wikipedia policy gives any reason why they should not be included. 
Add to that fact, Lucasarts actually has endorsed modding for this game.  That is, they say it is OK to do so! (see archived discussion where a link to their press release was even posted where it CLEARLY stated this. This has been repeatedly mentioned before to little effect apparently). Lastly, mods are covered in just about ever other major game franchise that is covered on Wikipedia.  
Just because the activity may be illigal or not moral, doesn't mean it's not something that exists or that it can't or shouldn't be covered.  We cover huge crimes like the holocost, genocides, murder, theft, etc.  Making note of it in an encyclopedia article is not an endorsement of it. It's a statement of fact.  
* Team Giska is doing a restoration mod based on cut content of the game.  FACT.  
* It's highly anticipated by fans of the game. FACT. 
* It's recieved notable coverage in both online and print game magazines in several countries. FACT.  
Marcus, I'm getting tired of this repetative and pointless discussion, and so, I expect are the other editors who have tried over and over again to reason with you about this.  Important mods WILL be included in articles about the games they were made for. It's time to let go of this. Seriously. --Lendorien 20:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you cite a reliable, third-party source that lends credence to the assertion of notability? --EEMeltonIV 21:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly can provide PC game magazine articles that do so. It'll take a bit to dig them up and I don't have time at the moment, but I will do so when I do. Rest assured, that yes, the project HAS been covered in several notable print pc game magazines as well as several notable online pc review sites. Of course, the above debate has NEVER been about notabiliy. It's been about the morality and legality to include the information in the article. It's a silly argument given the fact that just talking or presenting information about something isn't illegal, and Lucasarts doesn't even disapprove of the modding of this game anyway. --Lendorien 22:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Enough already!

message: Some editor moved this page without previous discussions or agreements. Please move it back to the original title. — Texcarson | Talk | 23:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, the paragraph related to the low quality of the music track is sourced with a post on obsidian's forum. I know it's a true fact (you can verify it as well if you own the game), but why did you delete the links i posted some time ago which were related to the gameplay section, since they're forum posts from that board? — Texcarson | Talk | 23:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Using self-published sources such as forum posts is not permitted under most circumstances per Wikipedia's policies regarding verification; see WP:SPS for further info. There is one probably acceptable use of a forum thread as a source in this article, where BioWare employees post to the KOTOR board in an official capacity to debunk a sequel rumor. The other forum posts, including the info on the music, are violations of Wikipedia's verification policies and ideally should be replaced by citations that meet Wikipedia's standard's for reliable sources. --Muchness (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Page moves

message: The latest round of sequel rumors was sparked by this post at Shacknews (posted Feb 13, 2008), which states in part, "During an analyst meeting, a slide presented by EA CEO John Riccitiello credited BioWare with the following projects: Mass Effect, Dragon Age, KOTOR, New MMO. Though Riccitiello did not specifically mention KOTOR in the audio portion of his presentation, it was suggested that all properties on that slide denoted new or upcoming releases." This is all fairly speculative, but a few news sources picked up the story and ran with it, using stronger and more definitive language (e.g., Stuff We Like, Joystiq). The story was debunked by BioWare employee Chris Priestly on 14 February 2008 (Priestly's post), so I don't think there's any need to mention it in the article. --Muchness (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New sequel rumors

message: Prompted by a request to add lightsaber combat trivia to the gameplay section, I'm asking that someone offer substantiation for the more significant gameplay changes or axe that section. The only claim that's cited is the resolution scaling. I'm sure there are reviews at gamespot and elsewhere that can bolster some of these claims. --EEMIV (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  gameplay 

message: Why need to be delete these headline as "gameguide trivia"?
There are lightsaber forms (Shii-Cho, Makashi, Soresu, Ataru, Shien, Niman, Juyo) with different strengths and weakness and Force Forms: Force Channel, Force Potency, Force Affinity, Force Mastery.Pyric.com KotOR2 Guide
Why isn't it as important as Influence, Item upgrade and creation and other gameplay elements ehhh?? --Beyond silence 15:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of that material should also be trimmed as game guide trivia. But "the article already has this trivia, why can't I add mine?" isn't exactly a compelling reason to include information. Our time would be better spent culling or substantiating the tripe in this article. --EEMIV (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Additionally, this material is "cited" to a fan site, which is not a reliable source. --EEMIV (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why trivia is it? There isn't very big changes in the game from kotor 1. May I can find other source but it is just so I don't know why. --Beyond silence 13:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lightsaber forms and force forms 

message: Why do so many things redirect to this page?  Many of them are simply referenced and/or involved in the plot.  Many of the things being redirected here already have information in a list somewhere (Malachor V, for example, actually has their own section on "list of star wars planets" article).  I can redirect links on each individual site that has "Malachor V" links going here, but it would be much easier if I could eliminate the thing sending those links here (i dont know what that is).  Because so many words get redirected here, I thought I should post this first, in case Im totally wrong and there is a valid reason behind it. Someone tell me what I should do.
Orcahuman (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Planets can probably go ahead and redirect to the planet lists. It looks like many of the others are alternative spellings/abbreviations for the game. A few are minor characters (e.g. beast rider) -- those might be appropriate for deletion as unlikely search terms. --EEMIV (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects 

message: :I know nothing about this topic, but this RfC has nothing to do with politics and thus should not be placed on the RFCpol list. I think this is the RFC template you want. You should probably refile this thing.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 06:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Give us a link to the "before and after" edit please. Ryan4314  (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd assume they mean this:; that's what I was looking at. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests for comment 

message: You said that there was no possibility of a sequel. Beg to differ! http://www.totalvideogames.com/news/Obsidian_On_Star_Wars_Knights_of_The_Old_Republic_3_9640_5665_0.htm--Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong! 

message: Might be worth mentioning the lack of compatability for Vista systems somewhere towards the bottom of the article perhaps?  I'll leave it up to someone more used to editing the wiki pages anyway because I don't want to mess it up. - Deathbycheesedrum  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathbycheesedrum (talk • contribs) 15:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vista incompatibility 

message: Shouldn't the game title be Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II - The Sith Lords? The current title is not grammatically correct. SharkD (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some research and according to the Obsidian Entertainment and Lucas Arts, the title is Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords. If the name is going to be changed, I think it should be changed to the official game title.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScorpSt (talk • contribs) 20:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game title 

message: Is this accurate? As far as I can tell from the official website and google, I can only find one. 1.0b, and using the program's own updating servie, it aborts and tells me to manually update. 67.48.246.153 (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three official patches? 

message: This article mentions TSL winning 35 "game of the year" awards.  Is there a source for that claim?  The linked source is the Obsidian web site which doesn't mention that bit of trivia anywhere that I can see.  To my knowledge, only the first KOTOR won any "game of the year" awards.  I'm going to edit it out and someone can put it back with a cited source if they want to. RS (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game of the Year 

message: I know this is not necessarily a summary page, but should not the plot be explained at least in a general form?  A large part of this game is the story which should be included.  Having just a brief description of characters is not a plot summary, at least last time I checked.  
Please respond with constructive comments.  Samuel.ordonia (talk) 31 January 2009 (UTC)
:The current story/characters section seems sufficient. --EEMIV (talk) 03:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot Expansion

message: The story section needs a spoiler tag, it spoils some very important character details. -Rixius Gmail  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.79.166.66 (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia doesn't use spoiler tags anymore. Sorry. Eik Corell (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler Tag 

message: It should be Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords, not Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II The Sith Lords. notice the colon after 'II' in the first one. 72.237.55.2 (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. There is a break in the title. I'm going to move it; if another user sees this notice and feels it should be moved back, please notify me and do so. -xwingsx- (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Name 

message: Hello there. I tried to add that information into the main article. Why is it not tolerated and why is it not a reliable source if also other websites tell that the main protagonist of this game is Meetra Surik? "Meetra Surik is only in SWTOR relevant." is also not a reliable source. That's like if you would remove Revan from the main article of the Knights of the Old Republic series. So why is it not accepted? Morgan Katarn (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In the story of Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II, the protagonist does not have this name, and no reliable source shows this.  In The Old Republic, the protagonist is given this name, but that's relevant to that game, but plays no part in the story of this game.  Therefore, it's inappropriate to place it here. - SudoGhost 13:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: But why is it written so in the main article of this game on starwars.wikia then? Morgan Katarn (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: For the same exact reason why that article is not a reliable sources, it is an open wiki, which anyone can edit.  I can edit that article and have it say anything I wished, that makes it an unreliable source for supporting information here. - SudoGhost 13:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Well, I don't think that you can write there anything you want. There are also admins who are controlling this site but maybe I could search that information on other websites than wiki. And wait what other users will say about my opinion. Morgan Katarn (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Admins are also "controlling" this site, but Wikipedia is not a reliable source either.  An open wiki has no editorial review, and is not a reliable source for exactly that reason.  This information is relevant to The Old Republic, not this article.  Nowhere in the story of this game is this name even alluded to in any form.  Therefore, it doesn't belong in a section about the story of this game. - SudoGhost 13:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Also WP:INUNIVERSE applies.  In the series' overarching storyline, the protaginist is later named this.  But that doesn't apply to this article, this article is not about the story from an "in-universe" perspective.  It's about the story of this game, not the story of the Star Wars universe.  In this game, this name is not mentioned in any way, shape, or form.  It is therefore inappropriate to have that content listed in this game's article. - SudoGhost 13:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Understood! But I'd like to hear other users' opinion too. Morgan Katarn (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I agree with SudoGhost. Since the character was never named in KOTOR 2 and no one involved with the game development has back-identified him from "The Old Republic" to KOTOR 2, it shouldn't be put into this page as it would basically amount to unreferenced OR. What Star Wars Wiki has also doesn't count per the reasons stated by SudoGhost. You are well intentioned, but it needs to stay out. Ckruschke (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meetra Surik on Kotor 2 

message: :Article states that there has been a content/gameplay patch (all though as far as i can tell there have been two), and a video and audio upgrade.  None of these are linked or referenced (but have references to forum's with people requesting them??).  Only the content/gameplay patches are available from Lucas Arts support page.  Can i suggest if anyone knows where the media patches are, they add it to this page. Isolater (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patches and Updates 

message: This game's common name is "Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords" (not "Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II – The Sith Lords"). An alternative is to just do Knights of the Old Republic II, as most sources abbreviate it as "KOTOR II" throughout the articles rather than as "Sith Lords" (subtitle naming conventions). Here how the reviews used within this article refer to the game:
* Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords: GameSpot, GameSpy, CVG, IGN, IGN
* Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: GamePro
* Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords: RPGamer
– czar 13:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title