Talk:Star Wars Galaxies: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→NexGen: new section |
|||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
With [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Wars_Galaxies&diff=164531337&oldid=163967772 one edit] and absolutely no comments, an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.13.215.154 anonymous IP] completely revised the entire article and introduced jebus knows how many errors and uncited information. I'm not saying the article doesn't need a major revision. It absolutely does. I'm saying let's implement the edits in a non-destructive, intelligent, and collaborative way. There's a lot of good stuff in there and it's very obviously a good faith edit, but the simple fact is that the amount of errors, broken links, uncited new information, and existing cites being completely destroyed ''(which actually upsets me because it took a long time to find and properly cite all of those sources I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Wars_Galaxies&diff=117581823&oldid=117400464 added])'' makes this a disadvantageous edit in my opinion and really pulls a lot of encyclopedic value from the article. This is why I've reverted the edit so all editors can chime in here. Thoughts? '''[[User:Roguegeek|Roguegeek]]''' <small>([[User talk:Roguegeek|talk]])</small> 04:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC) |
With [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Wars_Galaxies&diff=164531337&oldid=163967772 one edit] and absolutely no comments, an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.13.215.154 anonymous IP] completely revised the entire article and introduced jebus knows how many errors and uncited information. I'm not saying the article doesn't need a major revision. It absolutely does. I'm saying let's implement the edits in a non-destructive, intelligent, and collaborative way. There's a lot of good stuff in there and it's very obviously a good faith edit, but the simple fact is that the amount of errors, broken links, uncited new information, and existing cites being completely destroyed ''(which actually upsets me because it took a long time to find and properly cite all of those sources I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Wars_Galaxies&diff=117581823&oldid=117400464 added])'' makes this a disadvantageous edit in my opinion and really pulls a lot of encyclopedic value from the article. This is why I've reverted the edit so all editors can chime in here. Thoughts? '''[[User:Roguegeek|Roguegeek]]''' <small>([[User talk:Roguegeek|talk]])</small> 04:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
:Wow. It's difficult to tell quite how extensive the changes were, due to limitations in the Wiki engine's difference generator, but I think changes on that scale should probably be discussed. Now, granted, I didn't do so [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Wars_Galaxies&diff=54452762&oldid=54425224 back in May 2006], but my changes then were less extensive and easier to see in the diff. What I would suggest is informing the IP of the reversion, possibly userfying the IP's version, and encouraging the IP user to offer that version up for discussion here before making the changes. [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] <sup><small><small>[[User talk:LtPowers|T]]</small></small></sup> 18:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC) |
:Wow. It's difficult to tell quite how extensive the changes were, due to limitations in the Wiki engine's difference generator, but I think changes on that scale should probably be discussed. Now, granted, I didn't do so [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Wars_Galaxies&diff=54452762&oldid=54425224 back in May 2006], but my changes then were less extensive and easier to see in the diff. What I would suggest is informing the IP of the reversion, possibly userfying the IP's version, and encouraging the IP user to offer that version up for discussion here before making the changes. [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] <sup><small><small>[[User talk:LtPowers|T]]</small></small></sup> 18:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
== NexGen == |
|||
isnt there a nexgen console version coming soon. |
|||
Revision as of 04:18, 26 November 2007
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Star Wars Galaxies article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Star Wars Galaxies. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Star Wars Galaxies at the Reference desk. |
 | Star Wars B‑class | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
 Archives |
|---|
Smedley apologizes
In an interview with WarCry, John Smedley says: "With the NGE, I'm sorry about the mistake we made. ... We screwed up and didn't listen to the fans when we should have, and it's not a mistake we're going to make again."[1] Powers T 22:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Major revision
With one edit and absolutely no comments, an anonymous IP completely revised the entire article and introduced jebus knows how many errors and uncited information. I'm not saying the article doesn't need a major revision. It absolutely does. I'm saying let's implement the edits in a non-destructive, intelligent, and collaborative way. There's a lot of good stuff in there and it's very obviously a good faith edit, but the simple fact is that the amount of errors, broken links, uncited new information, and existing cites being completely destroyed (which actually upsets me because it took a long time to find and properly cite all of those sources I added) makes this a disadvantageous edit in my opinion and really pulls a lot of encyclopedic value from the article. This is why I've reverted the edit so all editors can chime in here. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Wow. It's difficult to tell quite how extensive the changes were, due to limitations in the Wiki engine's difference generator, but I think changes on that scale should probably be discussed. Now, granted, I didn't do so back in May 2006, but my changes then were less extensive and easier to see in the diff. What I would suggest is informing the IP of the reversion, possibly userfying the IP's version, and encouraging the IP user to offer that version up for discussion here before making the changes. Powers T 18:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
NexGen
isnt there a nexgen console version coming soon.