Talk:Star Wars: The Old Republic/Archive 1

Archive 1

Name pronunciation

One thing not mentioned at the top of the article is that I've seen many videos where people have referred to the game in speech as "Swotor", even though the actual abbreviation of the game is SWTOR. There may well be people who will hear this name, and come looking for whatever "Swotor" is; should we refer to it? I was going to add it, but I'm struggling to find a decent citation and don't want to add something to the very first lines of an article without one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.163.154 (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

What I'd do would be to make a redirect page called Swotor. If no one objects to its creation then that'll fix the problem. He's Gone Mental 16:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Races and places

I have removed lists of playable races and locations from the article. The races was based on OR from a gameplay video, and the list of visitable-planets was in-universe trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

In particular, see WP:VGSCOPE #6. Lists of places, races, weapons, etc. "are considered inappropriate". If the information is worth including, integrate it elsewhere in the article, keeping in mind that articles about video games "should focus on the real-world elements of a topic, such as creation and reception". --EEMIV (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

These are valid points; however, you are a damnable liar for stating that either InaMaka or Colbert4JESUS are sockpuppets. You need to get a solid grip on reality. Just because two different editors disagree with you does NOT in anyway make us sockpuppets. Grab ahold of yourself. Focus on the article and DO NOT accuse me of being a sockpuppet because you are making a laughingstock of yourself. Good grief.--InaMaka (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't suggest one was a sock of the other, only that one seems to be an SPA. That Colbert4Jesus has only a few edits yet quickly found the "Undo" link and knows the "cite" templates suggests this is an alternate account for another user. You'd also be better served by not casting aspersions about "damnable liars" -- that you've appealed to vulgarity suggests instead you might want to "get a grip". Anyway, thank you for not again restoring the trivial material. --EEMIV (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You would be better served by not making false accusations. Oh by the way, I have a "grip" this is how I know that you don't. It is also hubris on your part to assume that you know that it is "an alternate account" merely because of the use of certain aspects of Wikipedia. You argument was so weak and your desire to control the article is so strong that you jumped to the sockpuppet claim right out of the gate. This is another sign that you lack a "grip". You would be better served focusing on the article.--InaMaka (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well look, I'm just trying to improve the article so that others may be informed about the upcoming game. According to the same article you quoted under the setting section it mentions that the setting should be described. I have taken the time to do this and find it inappropriate that it is being taken down without valid reasoning. If you would like to see what I am talking about just check the "for setting" section under the following link. WP:VGSCOPE#organization —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colbert4Jesus (talk • contribs) 17:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, none of the content you added meets any of the criteria in the VGSCOPE section you pointed toward. Wait a few weeks and maybe something other than brief gameplay videos and quick interviews will offer up the kind of information appropriate for the article. Placing the trivia/plot summary in the context of the game's development would be the most appropriate. See Star Wars: The Force Unleashed for an example of a good article that, in terms of structure and content, this article should emulate. --EEMIV (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the superfluous List of Planets section and incorporated mentions of/references to Tython and Korriban in an appropriate part of the article. Please be mindful of the structure and content articulated at WP:VGSCOPE when making future contributions; thank you, Colbert4Jesus, at least for citing your material. --EEMIV (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you at least disscuss removing content before actually doing it, this isnt your artical so you can spare the lectures and respect other peoples added content. Alexsau1991 (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've again excised the trivial list of planets. If there is an out-of-universe significance to their inclusion, cite and incorporate it in the Development section. But a separate section that offers just a bulleted list is insignificant trivia. See Halo 3 and Star Wars: The Force Unleashed for sample video game articles and the content/structure of those. --EEMIV (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I won't add it but Ziost (Sith Capital) will defiantly be the next introduced planet, considering that Coruscant was the last. 41.145.131.234 (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

kotor fans disappointment

i see no mention of the kotor fans initial disappointments! it was huge when they first announced it. and allot of people still are disappointed with it being an mmo. it looks more like an add than a piece with critical thinking. Markthemac (talk) 05:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless a reliable source states about fan disappointment we cannot include it, the use of forums is not really allowed. However if you do see an article on fan disappointment from a reliable source add it to the article. If you think you can improve the article in any way feel free to make changes so that it no longer looks like an ad. Dark verdant (talk) 07:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

bioware forum is more than enough in my opinion. Markthemac (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Not in the eyes of Wikipedia; see WP:RS & WP:SPS. --EEMIV (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, LucasArts really ruined things with MMO and Star Wars fans alike with Star Wars Galaxies. They couldn't leave things like how they were.And, with BioWare behind them, LucasArts will be able to make an excelent MMO comeback with the Star Wars franchise. And, its better that they make it all on an original and new storyline. Thats kind of what helped ruin Galaxies in the first place: stories from every Star Wars thing and no true time period! Plus, its going to be the first fully voiced over MMO! And its most likely that the action and combat will actually be realistic, like some new INTERACTIVE movie! This is necessary, so the KotOR's negative opinions don't matter. (And I'm a KotOR 2 fan!) Mr Kirby XIII (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Lack of Vehicles

Am I the only one that notices there are no vehicles, starships, or speeders of any kind? No mention whatsoever in any previews, documentaries, or press releases. They really should say something about this in a future press release or video, unless someone wants to comment on it. Goldwings (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

BioWare decided not to say anything about a part of the Game that is not yet finished. So vehicles are most likley not metioned because BioWare ist still working on them. 84.176.222.156 (talk) 10:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Good enough answer for me! Goldwings (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The newest trailer shows a sith warrior on a speeder bike, so we can be almost sure that vehicles will be in the game. But we do not jet know if you can drive them yourself or if they just bring you from a fixed point A to a fixed point B. 84.176.216.12 (talk) 09:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

there will be star ships, unknown about land vehicles. the offical site has inf about them and a video showing the 2 currentally realeased and some others. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Bioware has announced personal vehicles, everyone get's their own personal starship http://www.swtor.com/info/holonet/starships and their own mounts, which was confirmed at E3. EzzeJenkins (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Targeted release Spring 2011

Right now it says in this article that the release date is Spring 2011. Since they're only aiming for Spring 2011 and have not yet officially announced a release date, shouln't this be reverted to TBA? 194.78.37.122 (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the targeted release date is important information, but you're right that it shouldn't be listed as a matter of fact. I've prefixed it with "targeted for", since as you say this reflects much better what they actually wrote. Amalthea 11:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

According to the Amazon.co.uk product page the release date is 25 March 2011, despite the fact BioWare's FAQ indicates that they still have no release date. 88.107.146.145 (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As BioWare said, all release dates given by any shops should be considerd speculation or placeholders until an official release date is announced be BioWare, LucasArts or ElectronicArts. 84.176.251.46 (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. We must wait for an official announcement regarding the release date, so we will leave the release date as is until that happens. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that there are a lot of people like me, who, wondering just when the release date for The Old Republic is, about, they go online and search. So, when these people come to this page, they will read, very quickly oftentimes, that it is to be released in Q1/Q1 of 2011. That's fine, but it seems that people may not know what these words mean. They might, but wouldn't it just be easier to say something in the lede with the simple, "spring 2011", as on the community forum, "While we have not announced a specific date, we can confirm that we are targeting a spring 2011 release for Star Wars™: The Old Republic™." It's minor, but might help some people understand, I think. What do you guys think? makeswell (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If the quarter notation is confusing then it should be linked to e.g. Q1 (calendar year), where there's at least some explanation.
However, in this particular case, I agree that we should write "Spring": 1) The source says "Spring", and we dilute that piece of information by noting Q1/Q2 2) While industry standard may be to classify estimated release dates in quarters, it's not necessary or preferable to do so in a general purpose encyclopedia
Amalthea 15:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

MMORPG

To the anonymous editor with the misconception that this is BioWare's second MMORPG: it is not, and please stop editing as such. Neverwinter Nights was a standard RPG, not an MMO. Also, Warhammer Online was taken over by BioWare after development was completed, so that doesn't count either.199.64.0.252 (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Even if he was correct about NWK being a MMORPG capitalising your frustration on another editor reverting his edits by expressing so in capital letters in the article is a truly idiotic thing to do which is considered vandalism and could bring the anonymous closer to being blocked. Alexsau1991 (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the confusion is over the original NeverWinter Nights from AOL, which could be considered an MMO, but was SSI, not Bioware. This is in fact Bioware's first MMO as the article states. It is not the first Neverwinter Nights MMO, but is definitely the first one that Bioware has been involved in.Caidh (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Budget numbers

Whether or not the budget numbers are ridiculous, they source of those numbers does not count as a reliable source. It is an anonymous blogger with an obvious axe to grind and no evidence of these claims. Unless someone can give a compelling reason that the source is reliable as far as Wikipedia's guidelines are concerned, I will remove the budget statement (which was removed last week and re-added today). Caidh (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Release Date

At the minute the release could be anytime after Q2 in 2011, there been no information that it's limited to Q3/4. 82.29.4.50 (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I changed the release date to reflect what I found here http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=258996 Sublime8510 (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I've changed it to say Q2-Q4 to show the reader that it is expected to be released this year – "after March 31" sounded a bit open ended.
Cheers, Amalthea 21:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Very true. Having a brain fart day. Thanks Sublime8510 (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The gamestop comment on the November release date should be removed. It is common knowledge that retailers come up with a date on their own purely to satisfy the requirements of their point of sale system. it is not fact and could be misleading. - J - Sept 8 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.233.221 (talk) 05:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

This may sound stupid (and it will) but is there a way to lock the release date 'cuz that is the biggest magnetic change to this page- day in, day out. I've even done it from Amazon.com's initial date, my mistake, though I'd wage on it. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doyna Yar (talk • contribs) 03:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The release date has been announced: 20 Dec in the US, 22 DEC in the EU. http://www.swtor.com/news/news-article/20110924 194.78.37.122 (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Playable demo

Most recent playable demo part: Someone needs to change that to have it state that PAX EAST was the most recent playable demo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.96.132 (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

nothing about EA Louse

https://ealouse.wordpress.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.58.34.166 (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why there needs to be anything from him/her. A blog is not a reliable source and the soapbox of a former employee would not have anything to add to an encyclopedic article.Caidh (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources

"The title has already begun to receive a great deal of praise from various media outlets several months before its release. Pax East 2011 provided the public the most recent chance to go hands on with The Old Republic. Many gaming related news sources gave the project accolades for its showing at the convention. GameTrailers awarded the game both Best RPG and Best Online Game of E3 2010. IGN has also praised the story of the Jedi Consular, stating that it's easy to focus more on the story instead of the mission at hand."

Does anyone know where this is sourced from (specific web addresses)? Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

The section as it is currently written is not reliable, and gives too much weight to otherwise unsourced criticisms. The three sources in this section are all forum posts, and therefore are not reliable sources. The information inserted is obviously contentious, as it was introduced into the article yesterday, and was subsequently removed four times by three different editors (myself included) in less than twenty-four hours. Per WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN, I've removed the section. - SudoGhost 20:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Concur as when I deleted it without any sources at all on 9/20. Nothing to reference equals no section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doyna Yar (talk • contribs) 02:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

BioWare to create 200 additional jobs in Ireland for TOR launch

http://www.develop-online.net/news/38725/New-Bioware-facility-creates-200-jobs-in-Ireland

Don't know how notable this is. Maybe it can be used as a side note in a release/launch section or something, if you guys would like 50.43.32.31 (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from ShrikeArghast, 30 September 2011

Controversy:

At approximately 9:30 PM EST on September 29, 2011, Bioware released a pair of controversial emails that reached substantial number of subscribers to the SWTOR website. The first of these emails (apparently sent in error) requested that former beta testers preorder the game. The second email contained a link to a survey that ex beta testers could fill out describing their experiences in the game. Unfortunately, these emails were directed to the entire community, the majority of which had never beta tested The Old Republic. The resultant rush for information and angry spam of the forums caused the website to collapse, and then remain partially shut down by Bioware for several hours.

ShrikeArghast (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Needs a source--Jac16888 ^Talk 06:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

LucasArts Taking 35 Percent Cut of Old Republic – Report

"The revenue split is around 35 percent to LucasArts after EA earns back their investment. That means EA keeps most of the revenue from disc sales (they have marketing expenses and need to staff up the server farms), so they should earn a nice profit there. Keep in mind that EA expensed the development cost when incurred, so much of the disc sales revenue will be profit."

That is all after factoring in the projected 35 percent cut that LucasArts will take in for the project. With 1.5 million projected subscribers, that number is looking to be huge. Pachter believes that year one sales should easily hit $80 million in profits." LucasArts Taking 35 Percent Cut of Old Republic – Report industrygamers.com.91.39.93.181 (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Just expounding for a bit here: When costs are expensed when incurred, you are simply "in the hole" earlier than paying off expenses *after* generating revenue/income. Regardless, you're still in the hole for that project. Also, manufacturing and distribution costs are huge expense factors -- would be remiss to leave that out of a summary of costs.

--JRK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.112.33 (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Overuse of Quotes

I think several parts of this article suffer from citation overusage: WP:QUOTE#Overusing_quotations as well as exceeding WP:VGSCOPE#Inappropriate_content 5. & 6. in the gameplay section. For example the following sentence: "At a development cost rumored to be over $135 million, The Old Republic is one of the most expensive video games ever created." This sentence alone has 3 citations, while not even one really claims that it is "one of the most expensive video games ever created".

Especially the gameplay part has a huge amount of quotes. While I think it's fine to use different citations for different aspects of the gameplay, using a citation for every single planet that is included seems to be way too much, especially as the conformity of such content description with WP:VGSCOPE #5 & #6 is doubtful. Makrom (talk) 07:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I've removed a large portion of the gameplay references, most of which were primary sourced from swtor.com anyways. The other sentence you referenced was additionally cited after removal by another editor claiming there were no other sources and that the original was a "tabloid" and unreliable. I'll trim it to the WSJ citation, which should be reliable enough to avoid any removal. The sentence also originally read "may be one of" and someone changed it to "is one of" ferret (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Reception section

Ok, someone quoted a source which said "[the game] has hundreds of hours of content.", more or less in those words. Really, of ALL the quotes to source that's one of them we picked to showcase the game's positive reception? Most GOOD MMO's have hundreds of hrs of content (unless we're taking *fun* repetitiveness out of the equation?). So, if my hunch here is correct in any way, I'm pretty sure this is a misuse of a source (quoting a sample from a source to mislead readers or misrepresent the source itsel). Not really a big deal given the matter at hand, but we gotta nip buds as they appear. Elaboration is required (provide the quotation in broader context).

Anyway, there should be a criticism section here. Criticism will always come for something as large as SWTOR -- positively received or not. No one found any reviews complaining about the combat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.112.33 (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Reviews are still rolling in and this section will change many times over the coming weeks. Let's wait to nit-pick at quotes until we have more material to work with. Reception includes criticism unless there is enough of it that it would require a separate section. Austin de Rossi (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Criticism sections have mostly been eliminated on Wikipedia. Criticisms should not be a seperate section but simply a part of the reception, sourced just as any other information in that section. Also, you're welcome to help expand the section by adding more detailed information or critism from the reviews. In specific to your first post though, PC Gamer explicitly listed the hundreds of hours of LAUNCH content as a positive. Yes, "most" MMOs have hundreds of hours, but often that is due to expansions and patches, compared to their original launch content. Again, feel free to find some other reviews and expand the section, a review for a game of this magnitude tends to be very large and although I myself have read through two, I haven't had time to dig deep into any others. -- ferret (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The journalists have had access to betas and shippable builds quite long before launch, it is hard to keep tab on who has published what and when, so I'll have to keep looking at Metacritic, etc. to see how many full-fledged reviews are in. Also, WoW, GW stand as exceptions to the rules (I guess) when talking about launch content, so I guess we're all right to a degree here. (I'm the guy who made this section btw, no account yet). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.48.69 (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Pay to play?

I see know mention of how people are going to get their hands on this game. Is it pay to play, or.. what? --75.179.182.98 (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Based on previous offerings by the company, and the development cost, I am almost sure it will be pay to play (similar to EQ, WoW, etc.). I will see if I can find a specific reference where they talk about their plans, and will include it in the article if I can find it.Caidh (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it will be p2p I remember reading on the official site's FAQ about billing options and they said they are currently reviewing different billing options to best suit the player's needs (or something along those lines) so yes there will be a subscription fee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.183.81 (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

where ARE the faqs? i cant find them 86.136.216.175 (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

http://www.swtor.com/info/faq Caidh (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

thanks but it just says pricing will be announced at a later date 86.136.216.175 (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

They have not officially announced it. There is no way it will be anything other than a normal subscription model - but that's my own (pretty good) assumption. There shouldn't be anything in the article about monthly pricing or free-to-play or anything else yet. When official details are released, we'll know but I can't find any official word on it anywhere.

so thats why it isnt on the main page yet

alright thanks man 86.136.216.175 (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I created a section called "Marketing" where I clarified and explained game costs and the pay to play structure of the game. Rainroom (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

So there's no way to play offline then? Online multi-player with subscription or nothin'. Guess I'll skip this one. Doyna Yar (talk) 13:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No, this game is a MMORPG meaning all gameplay and interaction occurs online. Minimum is a 14.99 monthly payment. This game is easily one of the best MMORPG's which I have ever played, granted my opinion on the matter has no bearing on the article. But, worst case scenario, I would advise that before you snub it, spend the $60 and try it for 30 days. User:Aneah 14:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, $14.99/mo isn't really the minimum payment. If you buy a six months worth of time, it is the equivalent of $12.99/mo. Besides, if there was an offline mode, you wouldn't get to experience a lot of the game's content (Heroic quests, flashpoints, social system, etc.)

--Cavana60 (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Screenshot suggestions

I will happily take and upload a screenshot for this article, however, I would like to recieve suggestions on what the screenshot(s) (no more than 3 I feel) should be of. Sincerely, Akjar13 (He's Gone Mental) 08:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Two I'd like: One of a conversation in progress, with the choice wheel visible, perhaps even better if it shows light side/dark side choices. Also a shot of the character pane on the Ship tab, to help cover the ship section which has a Fact tag about upgradable components. Alternatively, just a shot of a space mission. Otherwise, a generic "gameplay" shot. Belsavis is pretty ;) -- ferret (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, tonight I'll nab the conversation one and a generic gameplay shot. When I get a ship I'll take one there and replace that image (or just add it if it flows). Sincerely, Akjar13 (He's Gone Mental) 14:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Screenshots added, enjoy. Sincerely, Akjar13 (He's Gone Mental) 12:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 January 2012

Game Spot 8/10 http://www.gamespot.com/star-wars-the-old-republic/reviews/star-wars-the-old-republic-review-6348266?tag=summary%3Bread-review Blackchaosmage19 (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Added, thanks for linking this. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Expansion Needed in reception

Is it time to remove "Expansion Needed" in the reception section yet? I'm fairly new to editing so I'm not entirely sure how much expansion is needed, but plenty of reviews have been added to the section recently. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done =) Austin de Rossi (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Abhijay's revert of my last edit

I'm curious as to why you've reverted my grammatical correction.

"Gamespot gave the game 8.0/10, saying "SWTOR isn't the next step in online role-playing games. Instead, it's a highly entertaining refinement of what has come before it." makes more sense than "Gamespot gave the game 8.0/10, calling it "SWTOR isn't the next step in online role-playing games. Instead, it's a highly entertaining refinement of what has come before it." unless I'm mistaken? Samwalton9 (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Samwalton about that particular revert. Someone else has [adjusted the sentence again] already though, and I'm happy with the current wording. -- ferret (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Major Patches section?

A recent edit added a 'Major Patches' section, which I don't feel is necessary in this article, but I thought I would get a consensus of other editors before removing it. Samwalton9 (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this might be a bit of a case of too soon. I'm on the fence a bit about this one. The WoW articles for example track the major patch/tier releases, but this wasn't so much a tier release as it was a late release of initial content. This is the same "tier" as the existing content, not a new tier. -- ferret (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I support removal. Some guy (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it might be reworked into a paragraph in the Development section, as part of covering the actions taken by Bioware in the first month of release. -- ferret (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It already is. The level of detail it uses there (not mentioning specific Flashpoints by name, nor levels required to do specific things) is more appropriate. Some guy (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

So it is. I support removal then. -- ferret (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Samwalton9 (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Soundtrack?

Is it notable enough to get its own section? 91.113.91.234 (talk) 07:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

classes

To avoid this looking WP:GAMEGUIDEish, I've removed the separate "classes" section. This article doesn't need a list of classes, esp. since the language/citations now boil down to, "here's one class, and we think there are others". If D-something or anyone else disagree, please articulate a rationale here. --EEMIV (talk) 06:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There is alot of stuff and movies out about what classes will be in the game Like the trooper: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-oU_pPOj_E

There is also a cinematic trailer out, but It got removed by a bot when I added it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BjJaAA5A7w —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.242.200.186 (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

-- I removed a section in the gameplay section about "all classes can fill all roles" as it does not seem in the source provided or in any other information from the game thus far that they are making any class fill any roll i think there is a level of customization available but each class and its advanced types will still be unique as in one interview that said for flash-points "a group of everyone of the same class will have a tougher time then a group with different classes" i just felt the section i removed before was a bit misleading and a tad confusing based on the information i have seen so far. i included this in the classes post as it pertains to classes (check the history and the edit that was made before mine to clarify) Evenios (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The classes are still WP:GAMEGUIDEish and cruft and not encyclopedically necessary. I skimmed a few other MMO articles, notably World of Warcraft, and they don't have bullet-pointed class lists. Some guy (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You are technically correct, they do not have bullet-pointed class lists, but they do have prose-listed class lists. -- ferret (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Again using WoW as the example, it only gives a few examples, not an exhaustive list. Some guy (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Direct quote from Gameplay of World of Warcraft: Currently available classes are Druids, Hunters, Mages, Paladins, Priests, Rogues, Shamans, Warlocks, Warriors, and Death Knights.

Looks pretty exhaustive to me. The only difference is that WoW's article is extensive to the point that a fork was required. -- ferret (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I am also confused by this change. How is listing the beginning classes "encyclopedic", but listing the advanced classes is "unencyclopedic"? I would propose that if this content is some how "unencyclopedic", then the entire "classes" section is "unencyclopedic". Austin de Rossi (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Ferret, I would agree with you except you've quoted from Gameplay of World of Warcraft and not World of Warcraft itself. From the original World of Warcraft article, this quote is applicable: "Players must also select the class for the character, with choices such as mages, warriors, and priests available." That's all it says about classes. How about we write something on the same lines for this article, but since it comes after the advanced classes line, perhaps the advance class names could be included there, since they do in effect become a separate class to the other advanced class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samwalton9 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The reason it's in a gameplay article is because the section outgrew the original WoW article and had to be forked. We're not at that point with SWTOR article where a section needs to be forked. The information is considered encyclopedic for gameplay, the only difference is the sheer amount of content covered by WoW's current articles and subarticles, versus the currently much smaller content of SWTOR's articles. If you visit the WoW article, you see the summary, then click to the subarticle for the more indepth information. SWTOR doesn't have that, so until we reach the forking point, the section should include relevant information. -- ferret (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Austin, there has to be a line somewhere, by your logic we either have to include every detail or scrap the whole article.
Personally, I'm happy with the current wording: The eight classes are mentioned in prose, and it says that each class has two advanced classes. Amalthea 10:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't realized there was a fork at WoW. I had found the line Samwalton quoted from the main article, which I think is more appropriate. I also missed the prose list of classes in this article as I was skimming and the bullet list stood out.

I don't think this information is encyclopedic. It's not any more valuable to the reader than "there are X classes available, and Y subclasses for each class", unless they are trying to learn gameplay specifics which are better left to reviews and game faqs. For example, as a person who hasn't played the game, I don't know what "gunslinger" and "scoundrel" classes are, so having them listed does me no more good than knowing there are two subclasses, and it takes up a lot more real estate. Listing each individual class is minutia.

Looking at the gamecruft/notguide pages, they mention "weight classes", which I had taken to mean "classes", as "weight classes" is confusing and overly specific (does it only apply to Mario Kart and fighting games?). Some guy (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Ferret now, I hadn't realised the gameplay article was originally part of the main article. If you look at even non-MMO RPGs, like Mass Effect, they at least have a short list of all classes. I think all classes should be in the section, but not in the bullet point list they were in before now. Samwalton9 (talk) 09:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I am typically not a fan of bullet lists either, but in this case I think it is the simplest way to present the information without becoming overly wordy. For now, I restored the list while we debate the formatting of the information. Austin de Rossi (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Is your plan to ignore me (and Amalthea)? I gave pretty clear reasons not to include the information, which you haven't addressed. From asking at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines, I got "As for an actual list of classes, unless their number is very limited, I would recommend mentioning a class system and giving examples, but not listing them all". A list of subclasses has no absolutely no value to the average reader, as the names of the classes have no meaning to them, and it would obviously be excessive to explain the details of each class. Some guy (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies. From reading this interaction I thought it was pretty clearly established that other similar articles are including this information on their pages. Perhaps the discussion about whether this is appropriate or not should be held at a larger level under overall gaming article guidelines and not within this individual article (which I see you have already done). Surely if it is decided that this information is not "encyclopedic" then there are many, many articles that will need to be updated, not just this one. I think we should wait to make any changes until a consensus is made there. Austin de Rossi (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Take note the WoW article lists ten classes, Mass Effect lists six, and this article lists twenty four, and because of the way the subclass list is formatted, it really lists all of the main classes twice. Some guy (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you got the number twenty-four from, there are 8 main classes, 4 for each side, though they are essentially the same classes renamed. Each of the 4(8) classes has two subclasses, so at most there are 16. I think that we should keep what we have now but change it to another format, perhaps pointing out that, for example, the Jedi Knight and Sith Warrior are the same class but renamed. It does come down to the overall guidelines though, as Austinrh said. Samwalton9 (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

8+16=24. Maybe it wasn't clear I counted the sub-classes separately, as they have distinct names. 24 class names are presented in the article. Still no comment on the fact that the class names have no value to someone who doesn't play the game? Some guy (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah ok, apologies, I just meant that you don't have to write 24 full classes, as shown by the current list. True about the class names, though if you look at, as mentioned, the Mass Effect article, it lists "Soldier, Engineer, Adept, Infiltrator, Sentinel, and Vanguard". I have no idea what makes a Vanguard any different from a Sentinel. (Not to say that article is flawless, just trying to keep in format with similar articles). Samwalton9 (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, we're looking at six vs. twenty-four (or twelve). While I think both are equally useless, listing just the primary classes isn't nearly as bad as listing the subclasses. How would you even present the information without listing all of both sides? You can't list just one side and say "there is an equivalent class for each of these on the other side", because that would be awkward and it would be arbitrary which side was given as the examples. If you say "there are 8 main classes and two advanced classes for each main class" and don't list any of them, that takes care of the problem, and I would conjecture no casual reader would come away from the article with any less useful knowledge about the game. Listing just the eight main classes and saying simply there are two subclasses for each (as what we had when I deleted the bullet list) is much closer to what we see in the other articles mentioned, and while I don't think it does much good, it doesn't do as much harm. Some guy (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Your arguments for removal of the advanced class list:

• In your opinion, the information is useless: Although you may be able to make an argument for this, we have established that this is clearly the norm for similar articles. Again, you should argue this point at a meta level, not here.
• In your opinion, there are too many: This cannot be argued here as it is completely your opinion. What would you says is the threshold? 8? 10? 15? But not 20? Having said that, I understand if there was a massive list, then I would agree with you. I don't feel (my opinion) that this qualifies as too many or makes the information any less relevant. Furthermore, it is not as though there are 24 separate bullets, the information is presented in only eight bullet points.
• It doesn't look good/takes up too much real estate: This point is moot. I agree that the formatting is not ideal, but this does not in any way change the relevancy of the information. Perhaps we should discuss a different way to present it, such as two columns or a simple table. We may also be able to do this in a way that shows the equivalency between the two factions.

I understand your position, I really do, and I have tried to be fair in approaching your arguments (let me know if there are others). Overall, I don't feel you make a compelling argument for the contents removal. Especially when we have established that this is the norm for similar articles. I don't feel your opinion outweighs the opinions of all those who have created past articles that included class lists. If you do, then argue it on the policies page. Austin de Rossi (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Two articles establishes a norm? We can certainly decide there are too many of something or that something takes up too much real estate. That's what the {{plot}} is for, for example. Again you're relying on very faulty logic - if "too many" is subjective and not a valid standard for trimming article content, why do we stop? Why is the article not an exhaustive list of every class, character, item, and power in the game? Again I cite WP:GAMECRUFT (see point 7) - there is a point where there is too much information. Trying to say that "too much" is just an opinion and we therefore can't trim cruft is a cheap trick and it's not going to work. I think listing more than four classes is too much, although I'd be willing to concede to leaving in the eight starting classes with the WoW article in mind, although WoW has been around a bit longer and has more notability. Listing the subclasses is ridiculous. You haven't ever presented a good reason for why the information should be included ("this information is useful because..."), but are relying on convoluted reasons on why it shouldn't be removed. Does having it in the article improve the reader's understanding of the game? No, it does not. Some guy (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

My final viewpoint is that the first paragraph of the Classes section is enough in terms of listing the classes, and that the bullet points listing the names of the sub classes are unnecessary. They mean nothing to someone who hasn't played the game, and don't expand on the content in a massive way. I think removing the bullet points and leaving the short list in the initial paragraph would be best. Samwalton9 (talk) 10:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

There should be thought put to the fact that in reality, there's only 4 base classes, and 8 actual advanced classes. The two factions are exact mirrors with different names and animations, but the actual classes themselves do not differ. Ultimately, there are 8 true classes. How to compactly convey this due to Bioware's decision to mirror/rename everything between the factions is a more appropriate discussion in my opinion. Simple removal is not the best answer. -- ferret (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with ferret. I have never argued in favor of how the information is currently presented... only that it should be. A discussion on how we should present this information would be a far better use of our time. If you still feel that the information should be removed entirely, then I think we will need to wait until some other editors share their thoughts... clearly we are not getting anywhere. Austin de Rossi (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ferret & Austirh here. The presentation of the information may need to be discussed (i.e. no bullet points) but I believe the classes should continue to be listed.Caidh (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ferret, 4 + 8 = 12. The fact still remains that neither Austin, Ferret, or now Caidh have given any reason why the information is valuable. Think of it from this perspective; if the information was not in the article, and someone was resisting having it added, what reason would you give for adding it, aside from "other game articles have classes listed"? Keep in mind reformatting the information will not make it valuable.

Since we are at an impasse, with three on each side of the subject of deleting the list of subclasses, I'm going to file an RfC, although I haven't decided whether to do so here or at the Wikiproject VG at the moment (I suspect Wikiproject VG is probably mostly dead, as that seems to be the trend with Wikiprojects I've looked at lately). If I file an RfC here, I plan to use the wording "Should the list of advanced character classes be included or removed? Does including this information contribute to the reader's understanding of the subject?" with a note that if the information is retained it will be reformatted. Sound acceptable? Some guy (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds acceptable to me. Samwalton9 (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

WPVG's talk page is active with at least 3 discussions currently taking place with multiple edits a day. I'd try there first, as the relevancy among video games is an important factor. -- ferret (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you for taking care of this Some guy.Austin de Rossi (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

At this point I think consensus is leaning towards removing the list of advanced classes. Some guy (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Not quite where you see that, with the RFC ending with 2 keeps and 2 removes. Concensus appears to lean towards a rewrite and change in presentation, without total removal. The game has 8 classes, they need some detail of explaination. The tricky part is Bioware's naming scheme that results in 16 classes, 24 including the base names. -- ferret (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Czarkoff's comment is clearly in favor of removing. There was also more support for removal than inclusion in this discussion, along with the user at Project CVG who's advice, while more generalized, is in favor of removal. I've said repeatedly I'll compromise on keeping the original eight class names, but there is no reason to list each advanced class, just say "there are two advanced classes for each primary class". Some guy (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed them, as there's a clear consensus for certain that no one believes the current list form is correct. I've spent some time trying to find a good way to describe how there are ultimately only 8 classes, with animation/naming difference between factions, but haven't been able to come up with anything I like yet. It can always be added back in later once I or someone else hits on the right wording. The list though is clearly not what we want. -- ferret (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for removing them. I think the wording it has now is fine. It conveys the import aspects of the class system sufficiently for an encyclopedic overview. Some guy (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Development Costs

Having just updated a citation for a new rumoured development cost, I had a search around the internet and couldn't find any reliable source for how much the game actually cost to develop, should we leave this line in here, or change it to be less specific? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samwalton9 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

From what I have read, I believe the statement accurately reflects the references I have found. Almost every news article about the game references and uses roughly this same figure (between $100-$130M) and is based on an independent estimate. If you have another wording, feel free to change it or propose it here, but I personally think it is fine.Austin de Rossi (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, after reviewing a few other sources I am inclined to agree. I am seeing figures from $80M up to $300M, which is quite a wide range. Thoughts from others? Austin de Rossi (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen the 300M figure from a reliable source. Everything I've seen (though I may have missed some) either uses or sources the EA Louse blog, which is not an RS. There are sources that refer to that as 'ridiculous' though. Other than discounting the 300M figure, EA has been closed mouthed about the costs and I'm not sure all the articles (which seem to always use the term rumored) mentioning smaller figures are sufficient. The only one I've seen which might be usable would be: http://www.industrygamers.com/news/star-wars-mmo-costs-an-estimated-80-million-to-develop/ which should still be used with caution (i.e. "analysts estimate that the investment exceeds $80 million").Caidh (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If we cannot establish a Reliable source for this, I propose taking the statement out. If nobody objects that is. Sincerely, Akjar13 (He's Gone Mental) 15:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I have seen from various references 80M, 100M, or 130M. So I propose we say "development costs are rumored to be between 80M - 130M...". I have seen development costs referenced is virtually every article I have read about the game, so I do feel it is relevant and should be in the article in some capacity. Until a decision is made, I changed the figure back to $130M, which is what it was before somebody changed it to $300. Austin de Rossi (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted to 300M, again. The current source lists 300M, and is from Joystiq, generally considered reliable in gaming articles. I'm not opposed to the figure changing, but it should match the source in use. If you want to change the figure, change the source. -- ferret (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I clarified the dev costs and updated the source to use the one cited by the Joystiq article. I also removed the 'most expensive game ever' claim as this was not included in either source. Austin de Rossi (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I've made one more change where I state the analyst & company who made the $300 million claim. Reuters made no estimates in the reference that I could find, they reported what one analyst estimated. Slight (possibly pedantic) difference, but in my opinion a notable one for accuracy.Caidh (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. Although that may be more detail than necessary. I edited it to "...an independent financial analyst firm..." to simplify the statement. I am open to another wording if we can come up with one. Austin de Rossi (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I did some additional research and found, what I believe to be, the most reliable article related to development costs: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/arts/video-games/star-wars-the-old-republic-vs-world-of-warcraft-online.html This article states that "industry executives and financial analysts" state the game likely cost $125-$200 million. This article also includes the claim that it is the most expensive video game ever made. I wanted to post it here to get consensus before I change it again. Thoughts? Austin de Rossi (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That looks like a great pick for the source. Unless any official word from the company comes as to specifics, that will probably be the best we'll get. Thanks for the effort in finding it Austinrh! Caidh (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done =) Austin de Rossi (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't there an news article recently that quoted somebody from EA or Bioware that said SWTOR costs EA 200 mil to make, and around 500mil if you include the cost of buying Bioware? 202.72.135.193 (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

List of character classes

Should the list of advanced character classes be included or removed? Does including this information contribute to the reader's understanding of the article's subject?

If the list is kept, it will be reformatted.

Some guy (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• RFC comment: I think the explanation of the classes mechanism would be enough. Listing the classes is too much of detail. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• Remove - If there is a lot of it, start a whole new article. If it can survive an AfD, then you are golden. If not, well, that pretty much defines the problem, right? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Remove - I did not get involved in the previous discussion about this since I wasn't able to make my mind up, however after some consideration, I feel that it doesn't contribute enough to the article. I also feel that, as of yet, there is no need to fork it into a new article. Sincerely, Akjar13 (He's Gone Mental) 09:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• The easy solution is to keep the section, but abbreviate the presentation a little. DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep with reformatting. SD (talk contribs) 00:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

How does the information contribute to the reader's understanding of the article's subject? Some guy (talk) 05:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Remove - Wikipedia is not a game guide, a brief description that there are four classes for each side and each class has two advanced classes is more than enough. And that info is already in the 'Classes' section. Plus, the way the 'Advanced Classes' section is currently written is really bad too. 202.72.135.193 (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Mac client

BioWare co-founders Ray Muzyka and Greg Zeschuk told Ben Gilbert via Massively that they are developing a Mac client with an unspecified release date.¹

1. Gilbert, Ben (2 January 2012). BioWare: Mac version of Star Wars: The Old Republic is something it's 'looking at next'. Massively.

81.132.64.67 (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 April 2012

Two items in the external links section, a link to Wookieepedia and a link to the Star Wars: The Old Republic Wikia should be removed. They both lead to sites that are part of the Wikia Network, which has been transformed over several years into a social networking site. The specific code to be removed is:

• Star Wars: The Old Republic on Wookieepedia, a Star Wars wiki
• Star Wars: The Old Republic Wiki at Wikia

Wikia has been identified as "the largest social network you've never heard of" in an interview with the company's current and former CEOs (TheNextWeb Insider.com). It boasts features designed to support a social network, including blogs, polls, forums, both Twitter and FaceBook feeds, and live chat.

Links to social networking sites are listed under point 10 of Wikipedia's external links normally to be avoided guidelines, and as a result these two links should be removed. -- KingDMS (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC) KingDMS (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Um... that's a rather bizarre approach to this situation. While Wikia might contain social networking features (none of which I'm familiar with), Wookiepedia is a wiki. If you actually look at the article on The Old Republic there, it is clearly a wiki article and not a social networking venue. I think you are very overly-broadly discriminating here. I think you'll find every major news source has blogs, polls, Twitter and Facebook feeds, and probably forums, but I hope you aren't suggesting we stop using the New York Times because it is a social network.

More relevantly - links to external fan wikis are generally discouraged on Wikipedia, and this is a policy I generally agree with; however, I've noticed links to Wookiepedia on quite a few Star Wars articles and I had gotten the impression there was an exception to the norm for Wookiepedia - it is generally much better written and sourced than most fan wikis. I am not familiar with any Wikipedia policy that specifically addresses Wookiepedia nor whether or not it is a forbidden external link; but this is probably not the right place to discuss a broad change to Star Wars articles. If anyone knows if there is an exception for Wookiepedia, a link to that policy would be great. Otherwise, we should research the matter and if there is no current policy, possibly start a discussion. Some guy (talk) 04:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong; I've got a lot of respect for the people at the Wook and their work. I use the project frequently, and have contributed to it myself on more than one occasion. That being said, the Wikia Network has actively sought and recently embraced their new identity as a social network site, which is something specifically identified in the links to be avoided guidelines. They're no longer just a resource that offers these features, their actively forwarding their role as a social network.

The problem isn't the Wook's content or standards, but that they have no control over the social network features of their project. Wikia can and has instigated changes across all projects on its network that benefit its commercial goals, without respecting the desires of its wiki communities. I would equate it to the American Cancer Society's FaceBook Page: as it's part of a social network the article on the organization should not contain a link to the page. That said, the FaceBook page contains content valid to the subject that might not be available anywhere else. A Wikia project is in the same situation.

I wouldn't call the NYT a social network, primarily because most of the features they boast, such as the blogs, are not actually offered to their users. In this instance blogs are not used as social network tools, but as authorized reporting tools. The NYT links you provided actually do a good job of demonstrating this issue, though. Most of them aren't the NYT website nor its offerings. Specifically, the Twitter Feed and the FaceBook page are good examples. They have active content, but that content is part of social network sites. They are both specifically cited as links to be avoided within the guidelines. The NYT isn't a social network, but in this situation the sites that host their content are. Wookieepedia's community itself isn't a social network, but the site their content is housed on is. -- KingDMS (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This edit request seems less about SW: TOR as an article and more about the usage of Wikia hosted content as a whole. This really isn't the venue to make this declaration, this needs a wider concensus outside of this single article. If you're reasoning for Wikia is correct, than the changes necessary are much more broad than simply removing two ELs from this article. I don't know the appropriate venue for discussing this, but I think it needs to go to a wider audience. Wikia is not blanketly blocked from being used, as evidenced by the standard templates that exist for it. Those templates weren't created for SWTOR, and are possibly where this discussion should occur? -- ferret (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably, but I've no idea where to discuss it either. I'm not a regular contributor here, but have an interest in the game. This came to my attention when a friend posted an external link to WikiSWTOR, a wiki for the game that is actively competing with the Wikia project listed currently, which was subsequently removed by a moderator. The link that was removed doesn't meet the requirements of the Links normally to be avoided guidelines, and I told him this; though WikiSWTOR meets the content and quality standards required, that community is comprised of only a small group of very dedicated contributors (3-5 in total) and is a fan site not authored by a notable authority.

I'll revise my edit request to just the removal of this line:

*Star Wars: The Old Republic Wiki at Wikia

The Wikia status should be explored in a wider and general scope, but in addition to those considerations this link leads to a fansite produced by individuals with no notable authority. I was one of them, and though I believe myself to by an authority on the topic I'd be hard-pressed to find individuals that would agree with me. :P -- KingDMS (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I still disagree, for the reason that considering Wikia to be a social network is absurd. While they do apparently offer blogs now, they are for the purpose of blogging about wikis. They have links to Facebook and Twitter pages, which is no different than the NYTimes site - and these Facebook/Twitter pages are about their respective wikis.

The article you mentioned above does not really support the claim you are trying to make. The simple fact that they used "social network" in the title is not the final word in this matter; the content of the article is not particularly focused on social networking aspects. Furthermore, your comment there reveals you have a significant grudge against Wikia, which means you are not representing a neutral perspective. Some guy (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think Wookiepedia falls under WP:ELNO, but appears to be exactly the kind of exception outlined in point #12 of WP:ELNO. WikiProject Star Wars apparently feels the same way, not only using it as an external link, but using it enough that they thought it important enough to create a template for it, featuring it on their list of templates seen directly on their WikiProject page. The talk page archives at that WikiProject are full of discussions about or mentioning Wookiepedia, I think it's fair to say that the editors there would disagree that Wookiepedia is an inappropriate external link. - SudoGhost 03:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I'll be thrilled if the Wook link can stay; as I said, they're good folks. They're also a recognized authority on the setting, as LucasArts links to their project. I only included them in this proposed edit because I believe Wikia is a social network. Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and all that.

I actually don't hold a grudge against Wikia. I will admit that while I was working on Wikia projects I found many of their practices to be aggravating, but ultimately I realized they are a business and free to do whatever they wish on their site. Ironically, it was only after I accepted this that I even considered leaving the Wikia Network. That being said, I find that a member of this community would accuse me of holding a grudge based on a few talk page edits, and present it as evidence to discredit my request, to be fairly surprising; Wikipedia embraces an "assume good faith" guideline. I have not committed vandalism, nor have I demonstrated malice. My past with Wikia does not mean that I am incapable of presenting a recommendation from a neutral point of view. I ask that you weigh my recommendations on their merit, not your perception of me.

What about the other link? It does lead to a non-authority fansite, and qualifies as a link to be avoided under point 11: "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." -- KingDMS (talk) 08:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I doubt anyone would argue that your disparaging comment on the Insider article demonstrates anything but distaste for Wikia. From my perspective, that post, in conjunction with the fact that you registered an account for the purpose of trying to delete a link to Wikia (on what I feel is rather shaky logic), calls your neutrality into question.

I have not accused you of vandalism, but addressed what I think is a very valid neutrality concern given the circumstances.

I do not feel there is a great need for the other Wikia site, as it leans more towards a game guide than a comprehensive encyclopedia. Some guy (talk) 09:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

With respect, is it common for Wikipedia to utilize the opinions and comments expressed elsewhere on the internet, specifically blog or article commentary, as a basis for judging someone's character? I posted several truly scathing remarks on an Obama reelection blog recently; does such action render me incapable of adding valid and neutral content to the article on the President?

My comment on the article in question has no bearing on my conduct here, nor does it demonstrate a grudge. I simply noted things that I, personally, had experienced during my time on the Wikia Network. It is an article commentary, honest in its content, in an environment that does not share Wikipedia's standards of quality or source; the website that hosts the article allows for primary source information, and I utilized my right to free speech in an appropriate venue. Also, for the sake of clarification, I was not claiming you had accused me of vandalism, but was simply noting that if I had committed vandalism it would have sufficiently demonstrated a lack of good faith. -- KingDMS (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

That link is not a fansite, it is a wikia site just like Wookiepedia, except that it is one that is specific to The Old Republic. Therefore WP:ELNO #11 would not apply, but #12 would. The question would then be does this site have "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors?" I think it's appropriate to the article, dealing with the subject directly, and WP:GAMEGUIDE applies to article content and prose, not external links. - SudoGhost 09:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

A wiki can also be a fansite, and most of Wikia's projects are. As defined here, a fansite is simply "... a website created and maintained by a fan or devotee interested in a celebrity, thing, or a particular cultural phenomenon," and there are certainly many wiki projects that would be considered fansites under this definition. Perhaps the links normally to be avoided guidelines should be modified to distinguish which of the two points takes precedence?

The site's stability is no more significant than the project that had its link removed, and though it may boast more editors among the community in general most only post in blog entries. The number of actual regular content contributors is comparable to WikiSWTOR as well. I do not know what Wikipedia's stance is on competing wiki projects when none have yet to distinguish themselves from one another. To be honest, I thought that's why a fansite had to be a "recognized authority"; there is unlikely to ever be two recognized wikis on a given subject. -- KingDMS (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

A wiki can indeed also be a fansite: when that is the purpose of the wiki (example). However, since that is not the purpose of the wiki in question, it is no more a fansite than it is a social media website. You appear to be the same editor that discussed the WikiSWTOR link on my talk page (the odd references to wikis being social media are somewhat telling), therefore it seems this isn't truly an issue with the links themselves, but rather that they are present in the article when WikiSWTOR is not. Either that, or it is an issue with Wikia in general being used as an external link, in which case this talk page is not the appropriate place to discuss that, that would be Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. - SudoGhost 14:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I am indeed. You cited a reason for the link's removal. As I stated, this was brought to my attention by a friend, the user who added the removed link. The foundation of this request is based on non-preferential treatment; if one external link is subject to the guidelines found within the links normally to be avoided document, then shouldn't all external links be? There is value to including a link to a game resource wiki, but none of those seeking to fulfill that role within the game's community have been able to differentiate themselves at this point as the authoritative source.

How is the purpose of a fansite defined? How does it factor into this identification of a fansite? Per the definition of the term on this project a wiki devoted to the documentation of a game is definitively a fansite: "A fansite, fan site, or fanpage is a website created and maintained by a fan or devotee interested in a celebrity, thing, or a particular cultural phenomenon. The phenomenon can be a book, television show, movie, comic, band, sports team, game ..." and "may offer specialized information on the subject (e.g., episode listings, biographies, storyline plots), pictures taken from various sources, the latest news related to their subject, media downloads, links to other, similar fansites and the chance to talk to other fans via discussion boards."

An individual or group does not have to self-identify as something in order to be that something. Whether a wiki devoted to a game's content identifies itself as a fansite is irrelevant. Based on what the term means, such wiki projects are fansites. -- KingDMS (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

A wiki being a fansite is your interpretation, personally I see that as being a bit of a stretch. Wikis are handled in WP:ELNO, self-identification is not a factor there, content is. If you think wikis should be treated as fansites, that's a broader issue, appropriate for Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard, not an individual article's talk page. - SudoGhost 14:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The content of the SWTOR Wikia serves to identify it as a fansite as well: the Wikipedia article on the subject states that a fansite "... may offer specialized information on [its] subject (e.g., episode listings, biographies, storyline plots)". This is precisely what the Wikia does.

additionally, the legal team for Star Wars: The Old Republic defines it as a fansite. The following is from their formal definition of a fan site, as part of the fansite agreement the Wikia SWTOR project agreed to: "The term “Fan Site” shall mean a personal, non-commercial web site, created by you, that is freely accessible to the public without charge and dedicated solely to promoting the Game." -- KingDMS (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems that you have agreed in a couple places that WikiSWTOR falls short of the criteria to be included as an external link. What you seem to be after now is that the similarly themed Wikia also be removed. You appear to have a conflict of interest in seeking this though. I currently agree with Sudo Ghost's earlier assessment concerning SWTOR Wikia, dated 09:12, 5 April 2012. -- ferret (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest as defined in the Wikipedia behavioral guideline indicate "... an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor." As the guidelines is defined, there is no conflict of interest. Requesting that two external links be reviewed under the same guidelines for inclusion is in keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view. I do agree that WikiSWTOR fails to meet standards for inclusion as outline under the links normally to be avoided guidelines. That said, these same guidelines should be applied to other projects. Without anything that substantively differentiates WikiSWTOR and the SWTOR Wikia, they should be treated equally: both retained, or both removed. To do otherwise would be to actively endorse one wiki project over the other, which does violate Wikipedia's neutrality standards, does it not? -- KingDMS (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Then your argument falls simply to, do the SWTOR Wikia falter under ELNO #11 (and possibly #12)? Sudo's position is that it doesn't, and I currently agree. You disagree. I recommend that we end this talk section and open a clean request for comment on the specific question of whether or not SWTOR Wikia fails ELNO #11 or #12. -- ferret (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. All I'm asking for is equal treatment under Wikipedia's own guidelines and policies. To be honest I personally would prefer the article contain links to both projects. Either let the game's community come to its own conclusions over time as to which is the authoritative source, or allow one of the two projects the time to differentiate itself on its own merits.

What do I need to do for this clean request? Define only one principle? Can I propose the WikiSWTOR link be added back OR the exiting link removed? Do I have to make separate proposals for ELNO 11 and 12? If it isn't obvious I'm new to Wikipedia's bureaucracy. -- KingDMS (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think "if my link can't be put up, I don't want any links up" is a very strong rationale for removing the links. I've been comparing the two TOR specific wikis, and the one currently present in the article seems to meet the definition of "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" more than the WikiSWTOR, which only seems to have 4-6 active editors. There does appear to be some level of a conflict of interest in this edit request. - SudoGhost 16:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You still seem to be arguing for an "all or none" policy here. Each of the two sites have to be evaluated separately. Two editors evaluate the Wikia site as valid to include, while at least three (yourself included), evaluate Wikiswtor as not valid for inclusion. As such, Wikiswtor should definitely not be included. If any other editors choose weigh in on the Wikia site, perhaps the consensus will shift, but currently it leans to "keep" -- ferret (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

That would be because Wikipedia's own guidelines support an "all or nothing approach" in this matter. The ELNO guidelines are not defined in a way that prescribes one link should to be added in place of another. They are defined, very simply, that a link to X should not be included at all, unless Y is met; as ELNO is presented currently, all links that qualify for X but not Y should be removed, and all links that qualify for both X and Y should be retained. Using comparisons and judgements to determine the inclusion of one link over another without justification for such action demonstrates bias as defined under [point of view].

SudoGhost claims one project meets the requirements presented under ELNO.12 while the other does not. What is this judgement based on? How does one project demonstrate "a substantial history of stability"? How does the other not demonstrate this? How many editors constitute a "substantial number of editors"? Are users that only make blog posts, and not content edits, counted for this purpose? Are all edits counted, or only those of a specific quality? Can a user that posts once be considered in this count, or do they have to make a certain number of contributions first?

I ask these things for two reasons: first, demonstration of the reasoning used to come to these conclusions could be used to demonstrate a neutral point of view. Additionally, knowledge of the requirements that are being ascribed to the situation would allow me to inform WikiSWTOR's community of the standards that must be achieved before they can be linked to by Wikipedia. -- KingDMS (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Clearly, there is a lack of consensus about removing those links. If you can reach a consensus, one of the other editors should be able to implement it for you. Thanks,Celestra (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request (typo)

On April 26, 2012, BioWare announced that the game was now avaiable in the Middle East and remaining European countries who were excluded from launch.[46]

should be

On April 26, 2012, BioWare announced that the game was now available in the Middle East and remaining European countries who were excluded from launch.[46]

ScrewTheRules (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. -- ferret (talk) 11:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

In search of consensus: fansite wiki project external links

• Concern External link to fansite wiki project WikiSWTOR removed.
• Concern External link to fansite wiki project Star Wars: The Old Republic Wikia retained.
• Concern Removal of one external link to fansite wiki project and not the other demonstrates bias that is not in keeping with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View.
• Concern Content of both fansite wiki projects details information that Wikipedia does not document locally but does view as relevent. If both links are removed connection to this information is lost.

• Current Proposal Being Discussed Retain external links to both fansite wiki projects until a time that one can be identified as a Recognized Authority, as described in Wikipedia Guidelines: External Links Normally to be Avoided (ELNO.11).

Since we've been reprimanded by Celestra, and now that I read through the article provided as part of that reprimand it was deserved, I figure we should restart from a common beginning. We've already established that a single website can be both a fansite and an open wiki. I'm going to continue upon the basis that this is the case for both projects. There is no dispute that both projects are open wikis, and both projects meet the definition of a fansite as described in the Wikipedia article on the topic; is is ideal to employ common sense in the process of reaching consensus through discussion as defined in the Wikipedia Consensus Policy, and to me common sense would indicate that if a website meets the definition of a fansite, it is in fact a fansite. If it is believed that this point still needs to be resolved then we will probably need to make a Request for Comment or possibly seek assistance from the Mediation Cabal.

I generally believe an external link to a fansite wiki project devoted to the documentation of the subject of a game article is warranted. Wikipedia does not make a practice of including content that is primarily of importance only to a small population of a game's fans, sometimes called Fancruft. This content is also usually obtained and written from Primary Sources, making it inappropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. That said, individuals looking for this information may visit Wikipedia as part of their search process and a link to a relevant fansite wiki project serves to direct these users in a proper direction. This concept is at least partially supported elsewhere on Wikipedia by the inclusion of external links of this nature within game articles.

Because the game is relatively new several fansite wiki projects are currently serving the community of Star Wars: The Old Republic (SWTOR). WikiSWTOR and Star Wars: The Old Republic Wikia are currently two fairly comprehensive and active examples of such sites, but neither project has yet distinguished itself as a Recognized Authority. This would normally be cause to remove links to both projects under ELNO.11. In light of a recognized need for this type of external link, however, I feel ELNO.11 should be suspended until such time that one of these project attains the status us a Recognized Authority.

Both of these projects are competing to become a Recognized Authority in the SWTOR community. Due to Wikipedia's role as a high-profile informational resource many individuals seeking SWTOR Fancruft are likely to visit this article as part of their search process. The inclusion of an external link to only one of these fansite wiki projects would serve to funnel these users to the specific listed resource. It would create the appearance that Wikipedia endorses that resource over its competition, and channeling users to one project but not the other would serve to activly support the linked project's efforts over the other project. This would indicate a bias on the part of Wikipedia that would constitute a violation of its Neutral Point of View.

With these factors in mind a propose that links to both fansite wiki projects be included in the article. This is the only way I can think of to facilitate users' access to SWTOR Fancruft without demonstrating bias. The decision can be reviewed should one of these two projects, or a separate and yet unnamed third fansite wiki project, attain the status of a Recognized Authority. -- KingDMS (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, your severe COI, which you did not make clear from the beginning, hampers your cause. You are here for the purpose of promoting WikiSWTOR, as made clear by your posts there, combined with the fact that you created a Wikipedia account solely for this request. That you were not open about your affiliation with WikiSWTOR does not lend you much credibility.

Despite the suggestions by others that this issue should be approached more broadly on a wiki-wide basis, you are only attempting to make a change to this specific article. While that initially seemed odd, it turns out it is because you are trying to promote a TOR website and thus have no interested in the rest of Wikipedia. This doesn't put you in a good position.

Personally, I am heavily inclined to disregard your request; that you keep backpedaling and changing your approach to this situation tells me that you are not actually interested in following Wikipedia policy or improving Wikipedia; you are interested only in the all or nothing approach of having your wiki treated the same as Wookiepedia, and you are willingly to interpret any policy in any way to accomplish that goal (which I think is somewhere between wikilawyering and wikilobbying).

Personally I think you should drop it, but others may disagree with my perspective on the situation. Some guy (talk) 01:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Opposed to Wikiswtor due to ELNO #4, #10, and #11. See prior arguments in preceding section. Also concur with User:Some guy. -- ferret (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I've no interest in credibility for myself, just that my concerns be addressed on the basis of their merit. Simply shutting me out because you feel I am incapable of offering anything on this topic from a neutral point of view will not lead to a consensus, Some guy, and is not in keeping with Wikipedia's principles. Your continued accusations are overly hostile, and you've drawn many conclusions about my character without merit. With respect, you have no idea what my motivations are; you seem to be ignoring my statements in favor of believing I bear some nefarious objective, but I assure you that's not the case. So please, can we shift the topic off of me and look at the concerns themselves, from the perspective of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? If we look at the situation objectively, the motivations for sparking this discussion should be irrelevant anyway.

This issue may need addressed on a Wiki-wide basis. I admit I don't know how many Wikipedia articles face this particular situation. I can't imagine there would be that many, but by all means take it up with the larger community if this perception is incorrect. My focus on this particular article is purely the result of a limited understanding of Wikipedia as a whole.

I can understand ELNO.4 and ELNO.11, Ferret, but these can just as easily apply to the Wikia project. In fact, I know ELNO.4 applies to both. I didn't add either of the links, but I know the individuals who did, and in each case spoke with them about it shortly after they made their respective edits. Both links were added in the hopes of an increased Google rating for the projects. Does this mean they should be removed? Perhaps; by a strict application of the External Links Normally to be Avoided guidelines they should be, but does the fact that they were added for the purpose of promotion negate the links' contributions to the article? What do you think?

I must admit, though, I'm surprised to see you mention ELNO.10. After the backlash to my initial edit request I didn't think anyone would support the idea that a wiki is also a social networking site. As I made clear in the previous section, I do believe the definition applies to a Wikia project, but I'm curious as to what grounds you apply it to WikiSWTOR? I'm not saying I disagree with the statement yet, but I am curious; WikiSWTOR lacks most of the features social networking sites boast. -- KingDMS (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Now this talk page section is shifting back to the "all" side of the "all or nothing" spectrum. WikiSWTOR fails WP:ELNO #12, as per my reasoning above. As for Some guy's comments, they have merit, since your account is only being used for this single purpose. Your edits demonstrate that you have a conflict of interest, where you are more interested in promoting WikiSWTOR than you are in advancing the aims of Wikipedia. Your comments have also shown that, failing that promotion of your website, you're aiming to remove any "competing" wikis from the article.

I'm skeptical of the fact that you somehow spoke with an IP editor back in April of 2010, somehow knew exactly who that editor was, knew their motivation behind the insertion of the external link, and yet didn't contest the insertion of the link for two years, until your own website's link was reverted, now suddenly there's an issue and you want it removed, unless the article can also include yours.

• WP:ELNO #10 & #11 do not apply to a wiki, which is the entire reason WP:ELNO #12 exists. If #10 & #11 applied to a wiki in this way, #12 would be repetitive and pointless. Calling a wiki a fansite based on the definition of fansite, and then concluding that all wikis therefore meets that definition is a stretch, one that doesn't appear to have any backing. If you disagree, then I'll point you yet again to Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard, where external links are discussed. This is the proper place to discuss if a wiki is, by definition, a fansite, and you can establish some consensus there to this effect. Otherwise, WP:ELNO #10 & 11 are not typically considered criteria for determining the use of wikis as external links, and there is no basis for using them as criteria here. - SudoGhost 08:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• It is completely possible to develop a consensus that your reasons for starting this request are flawed and the request therefore should not be considered, although I will not deign to speak for others.

Actually, it can be appropriate shut someone out when it is considered that that individual is not willing or capable to adhere to NPOV, particularly if this is due to a conflict of interest. Have you read WP:COI? As far as my accusations, I do not feel I have been overly hostile, and I feel they have significant merit. You are demonstrably a single-purpose account. We know you came here to add a link to your wiki as part of SEO, which is a form of marketing, or otherwise remove a link to a competing project. SPA editors with a COI are not meant to be treated the same as an editor who has joined with the intent of being a valuable contributor across the wiki but perhaps isn't familiar with how to do things. "The rules say to be nice so you shouldn't criticize anything I do" defense is used by marketers and wikilawyers as well as well-intentioned editors. Again, your actions demonstrate in my eyes that you are willing to interpret any policy any way in your favor, and change your stance to try to maintain footing, so I'm disinclined to take your claim that your motivations are any different than I think they are. The reason that you do not have an understanding of Wikipedia as a whole is that you are not interested in Wikipedia as a whole, you are interested in accomplishing this one thing. Do you honestly think there are not very many articles about Star Wars related subjects? There's an article on the Tantive IV, which is in one scene (two if you count ROTS I suppose).

Since my interpretation is that you will say or do anything to get your link, I feel that I am wasting my time talking to you, so I think I'll stop at this point, but I will stick firmly with my opinion that your request should be disregarded and the WikiSWTOR should not be linked to, while the Wookipedia link should remain as per widely established norm. Some guy (talk) 08:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a reason why I know the Wikia edit was motivated to increase that project's Google rating; I'm one of the Wikia project's Administrators, currently inactive but I was specifically the one that recommended the link be added in the first place. As I said, you don't know who I am. Don't make assumptions. BOTH of the projects under discussions are, as you have been saying repeatedly "my" projects.

I have read WP:COI, and would like to point out that WP:SPA is not a Wikipedia policy; have you read WP:AGF, WP:DONTBITE, WP:POINT, and WP:ETIQ? Further, where is it required that a user have an interest in "Wikipedia as a whole" to be given the benefit of the doubt? Ever since I opened this can of worms a handful of contributors have been jumping down my throat on a personal basis, laying accusations and making judgements of my character, and using these to dismiss my ideas rather than consider the merit of the ideas themselves. It's not the type of behavior Wikipedia is supposed to be supporting, by its own guidelines and policies. I still believe no conflict of interest exists, but even if there is one nothing in WP:COI states that if a conflict of interests exists then the ideas of that individual should be discarded. I don't care if you like me, all I ask is that you put that aside and consider the ideas as outlined by Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines.

SudoGhost, we're supposed to be using common sense in this discussion. A wiki can be a fansite, but doesn't have to be. In this case, though, they are; common sense would indicate that if something meets the definition of being a fansite, it is a fansite. Additionally, stating that ELNO.10 and ELNO.11 don't apply to wikis simply because ELNO.12 exists is not supported by the document or evidence of past decisions. If the document is to be a true guideline, all relevant conditions of that guideline need to be considered. Additionally, you are making unverified blanket statements, that have no merit in this sort of discussion: where, exactly, was it determined that ELNO.10 and ELNO.11 do not apply to wikis? If you're going to make such broad statements, provide some evidence of such as outlined in Wikipedia guidelines for finding consensus in a discussion.

Now I ask again, SudoGhost, what is the basis for stating that WikiSWTOR fails ELNO.12? Additionally, why does this not also apply to Star Wars: The Old Republic Wikia? You stated why above, but never gave your reasoning. -- KingDMS (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have a different definition of "common sense", take it to Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard, as has been suggested multiple times. I am quite aware of WP:BITE and the others, nothing I have said has been "biting", and I would remind you to assume the assumption of good-faith. WP:POINT and WP:ETIQ were especially pointless to bring up. Explaining why your link doesn't belong on the article violates none of these, neither does explaining why another editor commented on a conflict of interest. - SudoGhost 14:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Look, I'm done defending my personal position. If you want to discuss the ideas and concern on the basis of merit and as described in Wikipedia's guidelines, then I'm more than willing to do so.

I have a different definition of "common sense" than who? Or what? I've been applying it here as outlined and defined by Wikipedia's Concensus Policy; why would I need to take it to the Noticeboard when I agree with what the official policy defines? -- KingDMS (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Since according to you it's "common sense" that a wiki is by definition a fansite, you have a different definition of common sense than me. What you "agree" with is your interpretation of WP:ELNO, not WP:ELNO itself. Unless you can find something that backs up the assertion that a wiki is a fansite by its very definition, it's your opinion, not a fact. There is no consensus that a wiki is fanfiction, and as that clarification would affect every wiki, even the WP:ELNO guideline itself, Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard is the place to establish such a consensus. - SudoGhost 15:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not making a general statement; I'm not saying that it's common sense that a wiki is a fansite. I'm not trying to say that all wikis are fansites. I'm saying that it's common sense that any website that meets the definition of a fansite is, in fact, a fansite. Additionally, the definition of "fansite" does not claim that a fansite's content is necessarily comprised of fanfiction.

It does not meet the definition, that's what I'm trying to say. Otherwise any content about a subject would be considered a fansite. It is your interpretation of the definition, not a "common sense" fact. - SudoGhost 16:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

What definition are you using? The definition of "common sense" on Wikipedia references Merriam-Webster as "sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts."

Based on simple perceptions both projects in question meet the definition of a fansite, also as presented on Wikipedia: "A fansite, fan site, or fanpage is a website created and maintained by a fan or devotee interested in a celebrity, thing, or a particular cultural phenomenon." Are they websites? Are they maintained by fans or devotees interested in the subject? Both qualifiers apply to the two wiki projects. This can be determined through simple perception of the sites, and as such common sense dictates that they are fansites. A fansite is literally nothing more than a website run by fans of a topic. Yes, this means there are a lot of fansites on the internet. Is there something wrong with this? -- KingDMS (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This is fine as your opinion, and you're welcome to it, but it doesn't make it fact. You're giving an overly broad interpretation and presenting it as the obvious truth. Since we're speaking for common sense, common sense says that overly broad interpretations are faulty and useless when "following to the letter". Unless you establish some consensus that a wiki is a fansite, or provide some kind of reliable source to back this assertion up, then you can say it all you'd like, it's still your opinion, and nothing more. - SudoGhost 18:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

But I'm not making that assertion, though. -- KingDMS (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Now that is is clear that I am not making a general statement about wiki projects, is it sufficient to continue on the basis that these two projects, specifically, are both fansites and open wikis? -- KingDMS (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikia EL removed. Feel free to state your opposition to Wikia being removed. All involved have stated an agreement that Wikiswtor should not be listed, so that issue should be closed. -- ferret (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Most of you already understand this, but I want to make it very clear that I am just another editor here and I didn't "reprimand" anyone. I just closed the edit request for the obvious reason that it lacked consensus. Just my two cents...SudoGhost's suggestion to take this to the EL noticeboard is a good idea. They should be able to make an objective assessment of each link and say whether ELNO #12 applies. Celestra (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand; I recognize your edit was justified, and I found it welcome. Things were getting heated, the topic was not being addressed, and this atmosphere it took on the appearance of a reprimand. That said a reprimand, a reminder, was exactly what was needed.

Now I'm confused; I was under the impression that generalities about a particular policy or guideline should be discussed in an area relevant to that policy or guideline, but that discussions specific to a given article should be contained on that article's talk page. I'm not proposing a general change, as I don't feel there's a need for one. The ELNO guidelines seem very straightforward. I'm just trying to understand and reach a consensus as to how the guidelines should be applied in this instance. -- KingDMS (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

If you're suggesting that a wiki is by definition a fansite, and that WP:ELNO #11 applies to a wiki, then Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard is the place to clarify that, not here. - SudoGhost 18:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

swtor wikia external link

I reverted the removal of this link per WP:BRD until a consensus can be established one way or the other, because I'm not comfortable with removing the link on the basis that a SPA doesn't like that this link is included and their preferred link is not. Looking at the two links, they aren't comparable in terms of meeting the criteria of WP:ELNO #12. WikiSWTOR has four contributors that make any edits. This is not "a substantial number of editors", thus clearly failing WP:ELNO #12. Compare this to the wikia site, where I lose track very quickly.

If a consensus determines that the link doesn't belong, then I have no issue with that, but it should be on the merits of the link itself, not because someone that prefers a different link suddenly has an issue with the fact that their preferred site isn't in the article, and they want an "all or nothing" situation. Nobody in exactly two years had ever expressed any concern about this link, this was only brought up after WikiSWTOR's attempts to generate traffic for their website.

These talk page sections were created to address concerns over the how the external links "funnel these users to the specific listed resource." How external links benefit from being included in the article should not be how external links are considered, but what is in the best interest of this article and its readers, not what is in the best interest of an external link and its desire to generate traffic. WP:NPOV only comes into play if reliable sources cite one of these links, otherwise WP:NPOV has nothing to do with how external links are handled, and there is no "but it's fair" exception to WP:ELNO. - SudoGhost 02:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The number of actual editors to the Wikia project is very small. The majority that you lose track of are individuals who do not contribute to the wiki other than posting in blog entries, or make one or two small grammatical edits. Because you do not take the time needed to differentiate between users and editors, claiming that the Wikia project qualifies for inclusion under ELNO.12 is a groundless assertion. Wikipedia's consensus policy dictates that reasons be "based in policy, sources, and common sense"; what sources do you have that demonstrate the Wikia project meets the requirements prescribed by ELNO.12? What basis are you using to determine what constitutes a "substantial number of editors", and how are you determining that the Wikia project meets this requirement? I would also attest that ELNO.4 applies in this situation, and dictates the link's removal.

That "nobody in exactly two years had ever expressed any concern about this link" is irrelevant. This is an assertion based on longevity, which, unless I am mistaken, is not supported within Wikipedia's policies or practices; an improper link that goes unnoticed for years has no more validity than when it was initially added to an article.

Additionally, I would like an explanation of how you determine "what is in the best interest of this article and its readers". I would attest that as a resource WikiaSWTOR is just as viable as the Wikia project, if not more so. If you can illustrate how "best interest" is determined on Wikipedia, I can gather sources to support this assertion.

I would also assert that the inclusion of an external link to one competing project over another does constitute a violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view. The only basis used to demonstrate the Wikia project's validity for inclusion thus far is that the number of users on that project is enough that you "lose track very quickly." However, simply by including the Wikia external link and not the other, Wikipedia serves to drive additional traffic to the Wikia site; Wikipedia is directly promoting the Wikia project, and is actually taking part in bolstering the only parameter being used to validate the link's inclusion. As stated in Wikipedia's conflict of interests policy "Anything you say and do on Wikipedia can have real world consequences". In this instance, inclusion of one link over the other generates the basis used for including one link over the other. Utilizing a metric that Wikipedia plays a role in generating as the sole basis for a link's inclusion demonstrates bias. -- KingDMS (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You keep harking on this "blog entires" thing, but the link I gave above doesn't support what you're saying, about either the nature of the edits or the editors themselves. Second, your link not being on this article is not a violation of WP:NPOV. Wikipedia's policy on NPOV does not require that everyone that wants to improve their website's traffic gets to advertise their website on an article, disregarding WP:ELNO. - SudoGhost 17:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you going to address the challenge I made regarding your assessment that the Wikia project meets the standard stated under ELNO.12, or are you simply going to continue to dance around it? What basis are you using to determine what constitutes a "substantial number of editors", and how are you determining that the Wikia project meets this requirement? How you determine "what is in the best interest of this article and its readers"?

I would like to point out that WP:NPOV is an actual policy, while WP:ELNO is only a guideline. Generally, following what is outlined in a policy is of greater priority than what is included within a guideline. Additionally, the idea that the inclusion of one external link and not the other does not violate NPOV because the policy "... does not require that everyone that wants to improve their website's traffic gets to advertise their website on an article ..." is a faulty one. Does Wikipedia's NPOV allow one project that wants to improve its website's traffic to advertise their website on an article, but deny the same right to another project? This demonstrates decided bias within the article; you are providing the articles' readers with access to one resource on the game, without informing them that another resource with similar or even greater merit exists. How is that a neutral presentation? How does that serve the best interest of Wikipedia's users? -- KingDMS (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I've already addressed everything you've said above, about both WP:ELNO #12, and WP:NPOV. WP:NPOV is a policy, yes. However, it doesn't apply in this situation. Nowhere in WP:NPOV does it support your claim that your website should be listed because its "fair" to do so. What it does say is that if reliable sources cite an external link, then that can help give WP:WEIGHT for an article doing so as well, in proportion to their representation in reliable sources. - SudoGhost 01:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

No, you distinctly have not addressed everything. I believe that the Wikia project does not qualify for the exception outlined in ELNO.12. You believe it does. what are you basing the on? How are you defining a "substantial number of editors"? How are you determining that the Wikia project meets this requirement? Without knowing how you came to this conclusion I can niether agree nor disagree on any substantive basis.

Regarding NPOV, I would reference thepolicy in a nutshell: "Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." Applying the ELNO.12 exception to one external link, and not another that qualifies for that same exception, is an example of bias. Which goes back to my question: what basis are you using to determine that the Wikia link qualifies for the ELNO.12 exception? -- KingDMS (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Your interpretation of WP:NPOV isn't supported by WP:NPOV itself. Please read the section on WP:UNDUE: weight is determined by reliable sources. If there are no reliable sources, then there is no weight. If there is no weight, then the lack of the external link gives no detriment to the neutrality of an article. The mere existence of an external link does not mean that the link should be placed on an article, especially when Wikipedia guidelines say the link does not belong.

As for WP:ELNO #12, I've explained that above. There is a notable difference between 4 editors and 50+ (and that's just within the last 500 edits). Four is not a substantial number by any definition, therefore the WikiSWTOR link does not meet the exception noted on WP:ELNO #12, and does not belong on the article. I believe the number of editors on the wikia link are much more substantial, therefore I am of the opinion that this site does meet this criteria. I assessed each link separately, according to the criteria set forth, and your accusations of bias are ones without merit. - SudoGhost 15:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to mention that if anyone is adding links in hope of 'an increased Google rating', that they are mistaken. All external links on Wikipedia are marked nofollow so they will not influence search engine rankings. - MrOllie (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Origin

May want to mention that EA's controversial Origin system is required for digital versions of SWTOR. Crzyclarks (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that confirms this? Because I own the digital version of the game, and I do not even have Origin installed on my computer. - SudoGhost 02:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I realise you just need to go through the Origin store to purchase it, not install Origin itself. Crzyclarks (talk) 05:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Story Section may be necessary

I feel that there should be a section not only on the characters and the gameplay but the main missions and their stories. There is the Jedi Knight story, which closely involves the Emperor and his plot to destroy the galaxy to attain godly power (plus the interesting Lord Scourge, who allies with the Jedi to defeat his own emperor). There is a Jedi Sage story, with a battle against the mysterious Sons of the Emperor. There is also a Bounty Hunter story about one hunter's quest to clear his name of atrocious and false charges, not to mention missions that involve Soldiers of the war and a few others I haven't heard of yet. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Trying to document all the storylines in an MMO is an exercise in futility at best, but much more likely to become a bloated nightmare of fancruft. AFAIK there is no story section for World of Warcraft. It probably wouldn't hurt to expand the existing plot section slightly, but I don't think we should detail character-specific story arcs. Some guy (talk) 01:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Secret Companions

The article itself mentions 2 secret companions. That I feel is in error, or at best misleading. The Republic faction does get a sixth companion, the protocol droid C2-N2, but that companion is hardly secret, he is the companion that is unlocked when one earns one ship. The Empire faction also gets a ship droid (the name escapes me, I only play one Empire faction character on a semi-regular basis) but again he's far from secret, he's just unlocked when one earns a starship.

Now there is a companion that can be gotten via a quest, but he has yet to be patched into the game, the droid HK-51. Apparently he'll be in game soon, but best of my knowledge as of the date of my post no ETA has been mentioned. But again this is common knowledge, this is hardly a secret. The only "secret" might be specifics as to how to get this companion.

Anyway, I'm not a wikipedia member, otherwise I'd edit the statement myself. 76.178.190.166 (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Weekend Pass Free Trial is no longer available.

http://www.swtor.com/weekendpass states that the weekend pass free trial is no longer available, so the article should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.64.6.41 (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done - I've updated the article to make note of the weekend pass no longer being in effect.Caidh (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Star Wars: The Old Republic video game players slump

Might be worth mentioning this ? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19077238 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.68.81 (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I came here to say something similar. Right now, the article has a very "positive" vibe to it, as if TOR is one of the most successful video games ever. That may be, and I'm not the one to judge, but a number of articles and blog posts I've seen seem to say otherwise. The sources for any such claims need to be credible, but with the BBC source above and the following article by vg247, I think it is time to add some lines about the perception that TOS has underperformed compared to the expecatations EA had for the game. Here's a link the vg247 article. Two of the most relevant lines, in my opinion:

CEO John Riccitiello called the “sales of SWTOR disappointing”,

Star Wars: The Old Republic has less than a million subscribers, at present, and the firm said 40% of players claimed they didn’t like paying a subscription, and many said they would come back if it went F2P.

Any suggestions on how to phrase it, and in which section this should go? -- Minvogt (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Oct 2012 Lead Designer Daniel Erickson leaves Bioware

• Daniel Erickson leaves BioWare. 87.164.120.101 (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

reviews

With the relaunch of this game to f2p a lot of review sites downgraded their reviews to become quite critical. Should they be appended to the reviews section? A second table for the f2p version maybe? Eurogamer still is on here giving it 8/10 when they changed it to a 4/10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.247.250 (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

How big is it?

All this info and yet no clue as to the installed size of it? It's bad enough that EA/Bioware don't provide this info, I was hoping wikipedia would have basic info. 115.188.135.11 (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Sept. 2012 Greg Zeschuk and Ray Muzyka, the last of the founders are leaving

• Greg Zeschuk, Ray Muzyka Are Leaving BioWare - The co-founders of BioWare, the faces of the studio, are on their way out.. 87.164.120.101 (talk) 08:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

F2P

Don't have time to edit the article right now, but the F2P model has been announced for this fall: http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/07/31/star-wars-the-old-republic-going-free-to-play -- ferret (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC) The FTP option will be added to the game on November 15, 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaac149 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

SWTOR Free-to-Play restrictive features (Dec 2012)

Someone should update this article linking to the extremely resticted SWTOR 'free-to-play' features (http://www.swtor.com/free/features) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.23.249.61 (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Misleading article

I am not too well versed on SWTOR, but this article is misleading about how/why it went free-to-play. It current says:

After launch, the game's subscribers rose to 1.7 million by February 2012.[39] By May 2012, those numbers fell to 1.3 million.[40] By July 2012, the subscriber base fell below 1 million, prompting EA to convert the game to free to play. EA stated that 500,000 subscribers were needed to make the game profitable saying that they were "well above" that number.[41] On November 15, 2012, the free-to-play option went live on all servers.

From this PCGamer article "the number of subscriptions has stabilized at just under half a million."

And this Joystiq interview indicating many mistakes and miscalculations made, the Wikipedia article instead seems to paint a positive light on the reason for going F2P.

I think this should be changed and the wiki page updated to reflect as such. If I had more knowledge of SWTOR, I'd do it myself.

--Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 16:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see the difference in what is currently in the article and what is in the two ref's you supply. We have a ref from EA stating they are "well above" that number - should we disregard that ref simply because it comes from the company itself? I'm sorry, but I'm not following your logic - the sentence from the current page is neither positive or negative - its simply a statement (as well it should be in order to be NPOV). The Joystiq article you source doesn't seem to disagree with the text it just casts it in a different light. Since I actually play the game, I can lend that knowledge and I'd be happy to make a change, but I don't see you suggesting an alternative. Please let me know. Thanks - Ckruschke (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Several of the citations in this article are from fansites

And as such, really shouldn't be considered reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.164.191 (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Plot synopsis

Does anyone have any official word on how to the single player plots interact? From playing through 4 of the single player campaigns, I haven't seen any reason the plots can't run concurrently. All of the major events happen at roughly the same time, and the various plots all seem to be tied together at the end of the overall game. Brinlong (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Revan controversy and Subscribers number

it's no secret that a large part of the community of TOR hated what Bioware did to Revan,myself included it can be mentioned? or mentioning the fall of subscribtion barely after six months going from 1.7 million subscribers to 600 K Subscribers btw,EAware using panderism to attract customers is really a treacherous move DarthLeven (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

"Writer" in Infobox

Note the documentation at Template:Infobox video game. If he's not listed in the game's credit in an appropriate manner as the documentation describes, then his personal webpage isn't going to override that. -- ferret (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

As I understand it, SWTOR has various aspects and stories in it written by many different writers. I know the Eurogamer source states that he's working on SWTOR again in some capacity, but unless he's now the lead writer I don't know how noteworthy that is for the infobox. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 21:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)