This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Error?
"Several characters featured in the first game are also brought into this sequel, and a few can join the main character's party."
I'm not sure this is right- I played through and didn't see any hint whatsoever that 'a few' join the party, unless Canderous Ordo and Hk-47 alone count as a 'few'. -- Maru Dubshinki
T3-M4, HK-47, and Canderous --Rjo 18:12, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
Ah. Never mind then. (Though the origin of the Cut Ending still needs work.) -- Maru Dubshinki
You also have guest apperances from many of the characters
4:27, Jul 8 2006 UTC
Other comments
If you click the Article link Atris you will notice that it does not send to Wikipedia's article on Atris instead it links you to Star Wars Wiki's article on Atris.
I do not think this is right because of 2 reasons. 1. If other pages follow this example of linking Wikipedia's Star Wars related articles to Star Wars Wiki's articles then Wikipedia's Star Wars articles will remain unused and unread destroying their purpose.
2. Some of the work that people (and me) did for the Atris article on Wikipedia are on the Star Wars Wiki Atris article this is not right because the people (and me) who worked on the original article on Wikipedia are not receiving the credit for the article on Star Wars Wiki (I think this may conflict with the Wiki site rule of not posting copyrighted work).
Note they also have done this to the Handmaiden article I redirected the link back to Wikipedia's article. -- Psi edit
Of particular note regarding the game is the perceived problems with its third act, or the "endgame". The game's developer Obsidian, was forced by LucasArts to rush the game out for a holiday release. This production rush resulted in a sizable number of bugs, occasionally crippling gameplay. Also, content was removed from the game proper, although most of the content can be found inside the game files.
First: this doesn't read like text in a encyclopedic article.
Second: lets ferify the facts. Cutting and removing content and changing design is routine game design. I agree it's a fact that in KOTOR II some cuts were done badly enough to leave holes, cause confusion and diminish enjoyment of the game. However, if the reason is in the publisher, then the article should mention why so. For example "FOO decided that the game should be released earlier than planned" or "FOO cut the funding of the project" or something else. However, if publisher has not made such changes, then the cause would propably be in the developer for getting "to ambitious for given amount of time and funding" (developer and publisher propably have made agreements on these things) or "the developer mismanaged the project" or whatever. If there are verified facts, they should be noted in neutral tone of language and preferably the sources should be mentioned or linked right in the text in question. If there are no verified facts then no allegations should be made.
The point is the current text simply blames Lucas Arts on vague grounds. - The Merciful 19:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Either way, Wikipedia's aim is to be a unbaised and neutral encyclopedia, i respect your concern to the fact that the publisher shouldn't have pushed the devoloper to rush the game devolpment, but this isn't the place to voice your concerns. I recommend that the section gets edited to show a neutral point or that you host a petition on your argument. -Dynamo_ace
Dynamo, your comment seems to refer to mine, but that doesn't make any sence since you seem to accuse me of things that are directly opposite of what I actually wrote. Anyway, you state as a fact that LucasArts pushed the game to an early release. I don't recall this being the case, so is there a source? - The Merciful 16:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok i may have made mistakes, but try to keep the article on a neutral prespective, that is all. -Dynamo_ace
Errr... I'm the guy who added the NPOV notice in the first place. Are you trolling? - The Merciful 17:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I've reworded the paragraph in question for what I think is more NPOV, re: The Merciful's concerns above. (It's not perfect, but it's a start.) --C-squared 16:19, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Hello! I just wanted to ask what do you all think of posting the cut ending, extracted by Aurora and formatted by HighPriest, somewhere here? I think it'd be nice if someone looking for it didn't have to read the entire topic on the Obsidian forum (the thing is, there are unmasked spoilers on a few other games than KotOR2 there). Instead, one could just follow a Wiki link and read it all nice and formatted... What do you think?
PS: Oh, btw, Psi edit had the cut ending on his user page some time ago, but has removed them afterwards... May I ask, why? --Koveras 14:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
It was there at my request. I added what I felt appropriate and useful, and now that I no longer need it, he's cleaning house. --Maru 19:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I see. So, what do you think of putting the cut ending to a permanent article? I'm just asking because I do not exactly know whether such material is appropriate for Wikipedia or should be stored somewhere else - WikiSource, or whatever... --Koveras 21:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Err... I hate to be the one to tell you, but the whole reason Psi was keeping it in his personal name space was because the original article got deleted in a VfD. --Maru 21:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Damn, that sounds bad... What is VfD, btw? --Koveras 10:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
It is where someone sets up a "vfd" page, and lists reasons why he thinks that a certain article should not be on Wikipedia. Anyone interested votes yea or nay, giving reasons. Sometimes there is a vigorous debate. Eventually, consensus is reached, and the page is either deleted completely, merged with another page, improved, or left alone. "Cut Ending to KOTOR II" got deleted (with an unofficial merge by me). Here is one SW-related vfD for example: [1]--Maru 11:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Time Restraints has not been 100% proven. I would still mention the hacked up ending, but restructure the sentence to say something like: 'It has been rumored that the ending's condition was due to time retraints.' Since this particular subject matter is speculation, I would hold back on focusing in on one specific excuse why the ending is the way it is. --DarthMethos
Its not gone from my page. I made links to that revision. -- Psi edit
I wouldn't worry about it. I made a grammar change, and that was about it. I have also added the modding section back, but I manipulated the original grammar to ensure legality. I place a notation, so everything should be cool. --DarthMethos
The Restoration Project Disclaimer
The Restoration Project is not canon, and was deleted intentionaly. These people have no rights over Knights of The Old Republic II, and they could be sued for any claims they make. Lucas Arts and Obsidian Entertainment do not support these modders. Unless they obtain a written statement by Lucas Arts themselves, The Restoration Project can be sued for any public advertising under the Knights of The Old Republic License. --DeadManInc.
This is in the right postion. Try to not to do the incident again. --Dynamo_ace 17:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
User:Dynamo ace - Are you an admin or moderator? Your name doesn't show up anywhere in the important people sections. If you are not an admin or moderator, then you need to read this page: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_content
Did you guys to to the Restoration Project's Site and check out their FAQ ? They make a very strong case (and, in my opinion, a correct one) for saying that LucasArts not only donsn't mind their fans creating mods and additions to their fames, but they almost encourage it. See this press release . --Shatner 15:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
To prevent a editwar, Wikipedia is not a Forum, where mods and admins are the only users who can edit other users posts and enforce the rules. Here, any user can edit and most users will stick to the rules and try to keep wikipedia a neutral and balanced encyclopedia. Your anon vandalism was by removing all the sections relating to the Restoration Project, and then the article had to be reverted, you placed a contribation that belongs in the talk page and not in the main artcile,forcing it to be moved.
If you have something to suggest or comment about the artcle, do it in the respective talk page. If not, do not take it out on one bit of the article and degrade it in any form because unless proven or that it complies with the rules, will be considered vandlism.--Dynamo_ace 22:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
User:Dynamo ace - Therefore, we post by your rules? License rights are clearly stated in the readme content of Lucas Arts games, which is packaged with your game CDs. --DeadManInc.
No, you comply by Wikipedia's rules which fall under the GNU general licence. I am just enforcing it, not with any pride in doing so, but doing it for the good of this encylopedia. --Dynamo_ace 22:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
User:Dynamo ace - So, you are some type of enforcer without power? Are you a spokes person for this community? --DeadManInc.
Anon: he may not have the power. I do. --Maru(talk) 03:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
User:Marudubshinki - Who is Anon? In a minute I am going to edit our conversation, so we can restore the subject matter. I hope nobody minds if I do so? Does Anon have the power? Hehehe... --DeadManInc.
Truthfully, if you want to become a respectable source of information, I would edit out anything to do with the Restoration Projects. The files they are using belong to Lucas Arts and Obsidian. Since the liscense agreement is more of a lease, I would think that even mentioning the Restoration teams would destroy any ounce of integrity this site has. Since 'Wikipedie' is now in the news for being contraversal, I would start focusing on a more formal and functional aproach to the information found in these pages. --DarthMethos
The Restoration Project will be free once it comes out, why would Lucasarts shut them down? Lucasarts would only shut it down if they did not support mods. 67.39.22.235 20:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
You are correct. If there was one company that protects its licenses, it's Lucasarts. Both the Cut Content and Restoration projects are well known, and if there was a problem, they would have gotten a cease and desist order long ago. -Xeon25 17:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Possible sequel
Someone on this forum thread claims to be a Bioware representitive and knows info about the third game. I dont believe the info but I just wanted to show it. -- Psi edit
On the bioware boards bioware officials denied this claim. --Anon.
the developer of kotor is curently working on an unnanonced project for x box 360 and playstation 3
== Deleted Content: ==
What is intresting it that there is a debate about the "Cut Content'... I have to submit that games are considered C-Cannon... N-Connon covers game stats... Now, M4-78 is mentioned in a magazine. There is question about if it is cannon or not... After heavy debate, I can only say that it is inconclusive. However, it is very clear that the other 'Cut Content' is not cannon. Since the current state of the 'Cut Content' is on the cutting room floor, there can not be anything to support it as cannon. If the 'Cut Content' was built in game, and was apart of the final product, then it would be considered C-Cannon. Since this is not the case, the 'Cut Content' "can not" be considered cannon in it's current condition. In order for the 'Cut Content' to be considered cannon, it has to meet the following: "It must be a 'completed piece', which belongs to a type of media: Movies, Games, Books, etc. If the 'Cut Content' was apart of the game, and was not deleted, then it would be considered cannon. <MC>
== Restoration Team: ==
Since they are not employeed by George Lucas, and they do not hold a Lucas Licence, they should be removed from the KotOR II page.. I took steps to ensure that someone will take notice. As an artist myself, I would be very upset to see a non-licsenced group manipulating my work, and then being advertised all over the place. Modding is different.... When it comes to work that I personally deleted, I would be offended and insulted by another person being recognized under my license... <MC>
Your points about Deleted Content would be relevant if the events that were cut are being inserted into the articles on characters and such as canon. They aren't. That section is there because it is a major feature of quite a few people's (including my own) great disapointment with the game, its intrinsic interest and rarity, and because about the only activity or encyclopedic matter that took place after the games release relates to the deleted content viz. the mods.
As for for your Restoration Team arguments, that is strictly your point of view, that "omg! This modding stuff is morally wrong and illegal! We must not mention them or we will be contaminated by their poor ethics and questionable legality as well!" Attacking what they are doing will not suffice for reasons to remove information on them from Wikipedia. I doubt most people here would be sympathetic to your arguments- this is a Free encyclopedia, predicated on letting people do stuff with your contributions that you have not specifically licensed them to do. --maru(talk)Contribs 01:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
If the content in question has speculation, I would suggest removing the information. I would stick to conservative facts: What the game is, who made the game, game discription, pics, articles... However, I would not mention anything else, which would create confussion or contriversy. Since 'Wikipedia' have been in the news for its inaccurate nature, I would push towards a more conservative discription. Anything else would be extra. --DarthMethos
Unnecessary
"Fan unhappiness with the ending has led some to consider boycotting future LucasArts releases. Like other boycotts of this nature, however, it is expected that this action will be forgotten by the time the next game comes out. The same can be said for the online petitions which have sprung up, with one reaching only around 11 000 signatures."
This sounds arguementive, irrelevant, and unnecessary. Does it really need to be here? -Anon
Massive update
I just went through and updated the entire article. I reorganized a lot of the sections, and added two new sections under the new Game Features sections. I left the Copy-editing warning in place; I'll let someone else decide it's good enough to remove (I'm sure I missed some stuff).
After careful consideration (read: I got bored and re-read it), I've decided to take down the copy-editing warning; I'm pretty damn proud with the revised article, if I do say so myself... EVula 04:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Why won't anyone write in the story...? Not every detail of it, mind you, but just the general outline. I might sometime, when I get the chance, but PLEASE will somebody write in the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.236.209 (talk • contribs)
Suggestion: Register with Wikipedia and write it yourself. I didn't do it because I (a) didn't have the time necessary to write out everything, and (b) I haven't played it through all four ways it can be completed (male/female light/dark). EVula 07:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I've just made some changes in the CVG box info (added rating by PEGI, changed order of "System requirements" elements and so on) and I'm going to write the story as you've requested, but I'd like to ask whether you want it to be specific or general - I don't mind doing it specific, because I will play it and then write the plot, so it's up to you. ILorbb, 14:01, 28 May 2006 (CET)
It seems at least some of the content from the Jedi Exile article should appear here; for example, I found far more information about the plot of the game looking at that. Perhaps someone who's played the game (and has more Star Wars knowledge than I do =) could do this. Alphatango 01:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I will look into it soon. You'Re right that basic informationa about The Exile should be here, and if the reader wants more info, he/she can have it by going on a separate page. ILorbb, 11:30, 28 May 2006 (CET)
Only if it is mentioned in game. Everything else is just extra. I would stick to the game at hand, and what was mentioined during gameplay. -DarthMethos
Deleted Content
At the moment, I'm having issues with this paragraph:
While some gamers are quick to dismiss late-game plot holes on the rushed ending, many of them are beginning to discover that many of the "plot holes" are explained in sizable detail, if the player is willing to spend the time to accomplishing this task. For example, each party member has considerable backstory and plot revelation, which is only heard in-game if the party member likes the player character. Since many actions cause the gain or loss of influence with party members, it is not uncommon to find that a critic has never gotten acceptable influences with certain party members. The originally planned ending would have provided in-game fates - and in many cases, deaths - for all of the characters who travel with the main player character. In-game, the game ends with a Force User revealing the party member's futures. By explaining their futures, instead of showing the events leading up to the finale, it leaves just what happened to the designers of KOTOR III.
My main problems with it are actually the first and last sentences.
Starting at the end: The last sentence reads like a post-hoc rationalisation that a fan of the game came up with to defend why the ending that shipped is better than the deleted one. However, unless the developers have come out and said that that is why they used the ending they did, then it's merely speculation/opinion and likely doesn't belong.
The first, on the other hand, has a potential tone to it that I feel doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Too many weasel words ('some gamers are quick to dismiss plot holes, many of them are beginning to discover that many of the "plot holes"), and a general dsimissive tone of "Oh, all those complaints are obviously only coming from people who haven't played the game enough." That's not to say that there isn't a kernel of truth in it (in that explanations of some events that were considered to be plot holes are actually included in game), I just feel that the tone of the sentence doesn't work.
To be honest, though, I'm not certain that removing the paragraph entirely would cause any harm to the article. (It appears to have been added as a response to a paragraph that was in an earlier version of the article that made mention to widespread outrage, boycotts of any KotOR III, and all the usual Internet-based drama.) g026r 06:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I am going to go out on a limb here. I agree that the Deleted informaiton should be edited, but I would cut out any mention of modders and fan outrage. I am a modder myself, but I don't take what I do as a serious endevour. Since 'Wikipedi' is being critisised for its unreliability by MSNBC, I would start to approach this site more conservatively. Truthfully, I would edit out anything extra, and only mention the game itself: Game Discription, Story Run Down, Specs, etc... I would keep anything out that references irratated/enraged fans and modders. What does that have to do with the subject at hand. This is a page about KotOR II, and not about the contriversial side of the game. Something to think about. --DarthMethos
In a gesture to the fans, Obsidian Entertainment provided the PC version of the game with many resources meant to be used for the original ending, such as screen plays, voice-acting, and even another planet. Pressure from LucasArts to release the game in time for the Christmas season has forced Obsidian to abbreviate the ending and cut an entire planet (and corresponding missions) from the game.
This is unproven to be true. Obsidian left the information behind accidentaly. Their existence was an editting conundrum. Obsidian didn't clean up their work. --DarthMethos
If the point on unfixed bugs remains in this section, some examples or at least a citation would be nice. The whole section is harping on the game developer already and there isn't enough factual justification for that. In addition, I agree with DarthMethos above. It would be more balanced to say that a significant amount of content was shipped with the game, but not actually included in the game play. That the content was left out because of dead lines is speculation and should be expressed as such. --- Dana
The Engine
I thought the game used the update Aurora engine? I think its a mistake mabye someone could lookinto it for both games.
Patches
I added a section about the patches and some of the cut content they had restored, please don't deleted them since other pages like Morrowind,
Inclusion of modding sections
Since there has been some minor edit warring over the inclusion of this section on the two modding projects, I think there needs to be some discussion here about them. I see nothing wrong with these sections, could one of the editors who think these sections should go explain why you think this? BryanG(talk) 20:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
If you were to go into a library, chose an Encyclopedia, you will find information focued directly on the main subject. True, there maybe mention of a contriversial perspectives. As a college student, I would find the 'Modding Section' a conundrum to the article as a whole. Since every game liscense is a lease to the owner, this information would be a breach to the federal copywrite laws. To be very honest, this article should focus soley on KotOR II, and there should be no mention about game modders. If you want this article to withstand scruitany, I would remove these sections entirely. KotOR II was developed by Obsidian Ent and Published by Lucas Arts. There should be no mention of outsiders who are not covered by the Fedreal Copywtrite Laws. If this information remains, this will strike at the reliability of this article and Wikipedia. -- DarthMethos
On another note, did you happen to read the very top of this page? -- DarthMethos
This is not an issue about the scope of the article, and has absolutely nothing to do with copyright law, this is a WP:V issue. If the information can be sourced using reliable secondary sources (e.g. articles in gaming publications, etc), then it should stay. Otherwise it should go. Nifboy 21:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I am a law student. If this information stays, it will be a violation to the United States Federal Copywrite Law. Within the game CD, you will find a liscense agreement, which indicated that the provided content is a lease to the user. The sole owner of the content is Lucas Arts, and Obsidian is the only one, under permission, who can alter the game. Fines can be very hefty. If this site wishes to be a reliable source of information, I would not mention the modders. Do not draw attention to them, or they could end up in jail. The Unitted States government does not need Lucas Arts or Obsidian's permission to arrest or charge them. -- DarthMethos
I believe that we should concentrate on the application of Wikipedia's policy along with the scope of the article rather than issues of law. This article should be about representing a neutral point of view of relevent data on the subject at hand, and I believe that a brief line mentioning the existence of the restoration teams, along with the question of legality should be sufficient. I actually agree with some of your edit; it was neither certain nor cited that Obsidian left those files in there on purpose as a gift to the community, and I think that on the balance fleshing out the restoration teams to that extent isn't really necessary and directly linking to them is questionable - however removing any data about their existence isn't being neutral, and I don't agree with the way you have gone about constantly reverting the page. I placed a link on your talk page, however you should look over: Three-revert_rule -Bigthecat 21:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia could also be charged for advertising the violation. It would come off as if they sponsor material that violates the law. They can be fined $10,000,000+ for each piece of advertising, and could spend up to 20 years in jail. Charges could be even more extensive, and they depend on the state the original publisher resides. -- DarthMethos
Thankyou for the Law 101 tidbit; do you have anything relevent to the application of Wikipedia's policies in this particular article? -Bigthecat 22:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The law overrides Wikipedia's polocies. -- DarthMethos
That is an argument only for removing external links, not the wholesale deletion of the section. And last I checked we still had links to much more egregious offenders like Home of the Underdogs and even a template to make linking there easier. Don't forget articles like lolicon, either. Nifboy 22:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Deleting the section will ensure the integrity of this site. Since Obsidian Ent and Lucas Arts are the only ones legally covered, this information is irrelevent to the topic. KotOR II. -- DarthMethos
As I said before, mentioning the projects along with a question of their legality should be sufficient. The section before needed a bit of a cleanup anyway. -Bigthecat 22:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. However, the Restoration teams, both TSL Restoration and M4-78, cannot be conected to the cut content. Nor, should they receive any credit for its existence. I would remove their links from the bottom of the page as well. Give me a minute to reconstruct the paragraphs in a way to ensure legality. -- DarthMethos
I have re-edited the content under modding, and created a new sub heading called 'Modders & Gammers'. Let me know what you think. This will make it clear that they did not create the cut content, but they are restoring it into gameplay. They cannot get credit for the cut content's existence. -- DarthMethos
I cleaned up the section, there was a lot of redundancy in what was being said. This way modifications are explained, along with the reason and the legality question all in one paragraph instead of being repeated twice for each project. I removed the 'gamers' reference, I really don't see the harm in calling them modders since that's what they are by definition when they mod. I don't think that the article previously inferred that they were responsible for the content they are restoring; quite the opposite, but it's a moot point. As it is, I think the legal issue is clearly explained. -Bigthecat 01:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, I think we should just restore the old version - it had a lot more information about the mods; the only issue is putting in a legal disclaimer and perhaps removing the links which is all that should have been done in the first place instead of removing references to the mods. -Bigthecat 01:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted the old article and added in the legality question along with the reason Obsidian left the content in, I think this is all it really needed in the first place instead of butchering the information about the mods and removing citations. I'll leave it at that and see what you guys think. -Bigthecat 01:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks good to me, but then my main concern was avoiding a massive edit war over this issue anyway by discussing it here (of course, then I had to leave, but I see a discussion occurred anyway). BryanG(talk) 03:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Also looks good to me. Btw, I know nothing about these laws DarthMethos is talking about. Will someone here or DarthMethos himself preferably cite several links proving these laws exist and apply to the content here? It's the Wikipedian way. ;) Btw-- several Obsidian devs already know about the TSL restoration project and in fact it's been pointed out numerous times on the Obsidian forums and no alarms have gone off, so this seems to be a void issue. -- Solberg 10:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Solberg
Sure man. I was referencing from a law book source. I will try to find the online references first thing in the morning, and I will post some links up. Bigthecat, that will be fine. As long as their is a reference stating that their maybe a legality issue. When it comes to KotOR II rights, only Lucas Arts could give them permission. Besides that, I know what you mean. Obsidian hasn't said anything as of yet. -- DarthMethos
Considering that Wikipedia has an article on Pirate Bay and a link to it, I don't think they're concerned about copyright violations. Besides the fact that mods are not illegal (if they were, the makers of Hot Coffee would be in real deep trouble) and the fact that there are links to the Restoration Project and Project M4-78 on the Obsidian offical forums. Put it back in, and Darth Methos, as a Law student you should know that YOU can get in trouble once/if you pass the bar exam for making claims like you did. It's one thing to be a little concerned, but to go into an edit war over the issue when you're not even a registered user, nor are you a wiki mod (nevermind a member of their legal team) I have half a mind to put it back and get it protected, but I prefer to settle things over talk when possible. Leoroc 06:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
What little you know youngling. Modding is very illegal in the United States. Under United States law, the ownership of the game is still the publisher. Even though you purchased the game, you are only given a lease to utilize the product. This also covers developers. Developers have no legal hold on a publisher's product. The developer could also get into trouble for giving rights where they have no legal ground. Unless the developer is the publisher. Since Obsidian is only the developer, they could be brought up on charges. Yep. Modding is a massive violation of copyright law. -- DarthMethos
Plus, this article is about KotOR II. Modding has nothing to do with KotOR II. Personally, I would just drop the whole issue, and let things lay. -- DarthMethos
I'd like to point you to Mod (computer gaming) right here on Wikipedia which includes a section on Knights of the Old Republic 2. This really isn't an issue and you appear to be the only one who thinks it is. Leoroc 05:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't remove the content last time. A few others and I talked about the issue, and we reworded the article. Someone else must have taken action. The newer problem that I am having is: People are more interested in mentioning modding than getting the KotOR II discriptions correct. Truthfully, this article is based upon KotOR II, and its not about some modding team altering content.
What do you think: Is this article about KotOR II, or is this article about modding? -- DarthMethos
They really aren't "altering" anything. They're "restoring". Difference. All that they are "altering" is bugs, which are highly unwanted in the first place. And LucasArts (the publisher) has given permission to mod any of their content, and actually specifically stated that they're willing to accept mods for KotOR II. From what you say, it's all legal. 65.100.147.48 04:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
If you want proof of LucasArts' permission, go the FAQ in www.team-gizka.org and scroll down to "Won't LucasArts shut down your project faster than you can blink?" 65.100.147.48 04:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no stake in this, I like the game so I watched this article, you know for vandals and such, but I mean, just because something, such as modding, is illegal doesn't mean it cannot be talked about. A lot of things are illegal, it doesn't mean they don't exist. In this case wouldn't it be subjective to say information about modders or modding shoudn't be included. Does it really matter if those people are violating federal copyright laws? Not really. Wikipedia isn't. The modders are. And anyway, the interpretation of those laws has been quite broad in this area. However, that is really irrelevant to the discussion. I am not saying that there needs to be a ninety-six chapter section on modding of KOTOR II, but it should at least be mentioned. I, a casual player of the game, am aware of the mods and the fact they exist, most players are, to not include such basic primary information surrounding the game would be a disservice to the article and to Wikipedia's neutrality policy. In my humble opinion. A mcmurray 19:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Lucasarts permits modding
I'd like to point out that Lucasarts permits modding of KOTOR and KOTOR2. They have even established a website to host such mods. let me repeat, LUCASARTS PERMITS MODDING OF KOTOR & KOTOR 2.
Now, regarding modding being illegal... the user who stated that it was is in error. Modding is NOT illegal in the United States unless expressly forbidden by the publisher. Many games have active modding communities that are strongly supported by the companies that created the games. In fact, by and large, most companies see modding as a positive thing, as the modding comminuty lengthens the lives of their products. To say otherwise is simply a matter of ignorance of the facts.
Also, as a side note, just because an action may be illegal doesn't mean it is illegal to talk about. If that were so, we'd have to remove every article in wikipedia about EVERY criminal action (of which there are literally thousands) and crime. That's just plain silly.
Now let's quit the edit war here. The KOTOR2 Restoration project is extremely relevant to KOTOR 2. It aims to restore content originally cut by the developer to a game that many felt was chopped and badly damaged. It is one of the most anticipated mods out there for the game, is a matter that would be of great interest to many readers coming to the article, and it has direct relevance to the subject. It's mention should remain. --Lendorien 16:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
^^^ Sounds like a biased opinion. No offence. ^^^ F.Y.I. - Modding is called Copy Left, and Lucas Arts has made it clear in the lisence agreement that they don't want it to happen. Talking about it is not illegal. I agree. Copy-Left is illegal in most states, but it is still heavily debated behind closed doors. MacCorp 17:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems as if you have managed to completely ignore all the discussion regarding this press release [2] and consequently this website [3] which both explicitly state that LucasArts embraces modding of their games, and is even willing to go through the trouble (and cost!) of providing a website for hosting these mods. If there ever is evidence of LucasArts reversing this policy, then discussion concerning the legality of these mods may be relevant, but as long as no such evidence exists, it is only reasonable to believe it when the company that owns the intellectual property itself officially states that it embraces and actively supports these mods. In my opinion, this discussion should already have been over ever since LucasArts gave that press release and opened lucasfiles.com.88.112.27.97 09:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
MacCorp, did you even read what I wrote? "They have even established a website to host such mods." Thanks to the IP user above for providing a link to settle the matter. As for the debate on mods, well, the plethora of mods for games like Oblivion, Morrowwind, Starcraft, Half Life, Quake, Unreal, etc, etc, etc. would say that a lot of companies permit modding and even encourage it. Why else would so many companies include modding tools bundled with their games? The only time modding is illegal these days is when the publisher forbids it (in legaleeze) in their Lisc. Agreements. In many cases, the only modding the bigger modable games will not permit is modding the hardcoded executables. In Lucasart's case, as the link above shows, they retroactively decided to allow modding. In other words, Team Giska's mod IS NOT ILLEGAL. Incidentally, I am right it saying that the Restoration mod is highly anticipated. Just go and patrol the message boards. Besides, why else would it have gotten coverage in major print game magazines? The mod is worthy of inclusion in this article. It is relevant to the subject and will be of interest to readers of the article. --Lendorien 21:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Telos Citadel Station
The Citadel Station on Telos is the best mission ever. Morris Munroe 15:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Please don't add stuff like this to the talk page of articles, they aren't forums. Thanks. Darthgriz98 15:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Lack of any coverage of critical reaction
There should be a section in this article about criticle reaction. This game was pie on the face for Lucasarts because of how the production time got shortened and the game got chopped. I think it's relevant to mention it. --Lendorien 16:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Critical Reaction?? Could you clearify a little? Do you mean how the fans reacted, or how Lucas Arts reacted to the game's result? MacCorp 17:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to have a critical reaction section with reviews from critics much like how the Star Wars movie articles are being done. Darthgriz98 22:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Content...Too much?
Don't you think there is way too much deleted content? I only think that the really important stuff should be included. KdogDS 23:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it's excessive that every bit of information is there, Wikipedia is not a game guide. Darthgriz98 15:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Patches
I removed what appeared as advertising for the patches, links to them do not belong on Wiki. Neither does a description of every patch. If you feel this was too bold we can discuss it here and revert it. Darthgriz98 15:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Links to translation projects
A couple of external links to translation pages were recently removed (one by me). What are people's thoughts on whether these are appropriate for the article's external links section? I tend to think these links aren't appropriate on the English language Wikipedia, per current guidelines on foreign language sites, but I won't object if another editor wants to add them back. --Muchness 11:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Prestige Classes
I saw this in the manual, but i never got to choose my prestige class, can anyone help me? Also there should be a note about this on the Article page -Rovdyr 00:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Talk to Kreia at level 15. 220.255.152.48 16:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not for helping you with the game. Try GameFAQs. Zhinz 03:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The help art wasnt the important question, it was if it should be noted as one of the new features.. -Rovdyr
The Jedi Exile article is entirely a plot "summary" (well, plot-excruciating-and-unnecessary-detail) of the game itself. Both this and the Jedi Exile article need some trimming and reworking, but since the Jedi Exile's story is KOTOR2's story, it seems logical to have the former redirect to the latter, with integration of the real-world information posted toward the end of Jedi Exile. Thoughts? --EEMeltonIV 20:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Many Star Wars fans will come here and revert your redirect. It happens quite often. How many times has Team Gizka been created, deleted, redirected during these months? — Texcarson | Talk 22:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
And if you want to have an article about this game which isn't 90% original research/pop culture (therefore reducing it to 10% of its current size) you have to contact Chris Avellone and the other people at Obsidian Entertainment. — Texcarson | Talk 23:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Copyvio
It appears that recent iterations of the Story section is a copyvio from [4]. I'm working now to re-write that section further, and will keep an eye out for similar violations. --EEMeltonIV 00:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Wait, never mind(?) -- is wikia GFDL? --EEMeltonIV 00:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikia is GFDL. You can copy at will. — Texcarson | Talk 10:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Gizka redux
The writing about fiction guidelines pretty clearly state that fan mods are non-notable vanity. The Team Gizka article itself has twice been deleted as non-notable, and its inclusion here is similarly not significant. The text that an anon. editor keeps restoring lacks any citations to third-party sources, and requests for supposed links or specific citations to third-party coverage by a reliable source have gone unaddressed. Again, it's basically unsourced vanity for a non-notable fan project -- take it to a gamers wiki or some such. --EEMeltonIV 19:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems that there is two groups of people here some like me are trying to
merge Mod information to this page others are dead against it. Mods nowadays are encouraged by Official companies themselves. If a mod can add significant improvement to the game then i am all for it. Kotor 2 is widely accepted to be a rushed game with an uneven ending. So Team Gizka's effort lends the importance by itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.176.106.168 (talk) 21:54, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
Consensus at the AFD discussion was to delete the content, not merge it here. All material in Wikipedia articles must be sourced to reliable, independent references, and until such references can be provided to substantiate this project's notability, it should be removed. --Muchness 23:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
If the mod is to be merged into this article, the text has got to be shortened considerably. Development details, schedules, forum and bug listings, just aren't relevant to the article. Perhaps something like this?
====Restoration Effort====
A group of fans, known as "Team Gizka", are creating a freeware mod called "The Sith Lords Restoration Project", aiming to restore much of the cut content from KOTOR II. According to the Team's claim 90% of the their mod is already finished. It is believed that the mod will be released before the end of 2007.[citation needed]
Why would we merge a mod that has no apparent notability, and especially when the merger was rejected by the deletion discussion on that article? --Haemo 02:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Got me -- but I wasn't advocating a merge, I was just saying that if there was a merge, it should be short. -- ArglebargleIV 02:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Team Gizka/Restoration Effort
Can anyone off a substantive assertion of this group's notability -- per WP:FICT -- to warrant inclusion in this article? e.g. provide a link to significant third-party coverage? Otherwise, the Restoration Effort section should/will be deleted. --EEMeltonIV 12:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Lendorien is working on finding said articles about the restoration effort. It was covered on multiple gaming magazines, and he just didn't have the time to get to it.Dibol 03:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I've trimmed the section back and added an independent source, per the gist of comments on this page that at the very least the section should be shortened. I am personally not convinced that the project is sufficiently notable to warrant a mention at the moment (that will most likely change if/when the project releases its mod), but I welcome additional sources. --Muchness 04:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Third-party mods section
The same anonymous editor who repeatedly restored the Team Gizka material has also been restoring poorly-copyedited and repetitive general material on third-party mods. Several parts are essentially linkspam or simply trivial material (e.g. link to tools). I've tried to distill it to tight wording, with a token (and reluctant) mention of the otherwise non-notable Team Gizka. Most of what I've trimmed is, again, trivia, i.e. specific details on what these mods of questionable notability do. Anyhow, this anonymous did not discuss the Team Gizka stuff on this talk page, so I don't know if he/she will post anything now -- however, if anyone wants to restore what seems to be excessive, unnecessary and vanity material on the mods, please explain why and provide citations for, frankly, why anyone should care that a mod increases weapon damage or adds new clothes. --EEMeltonIV 22:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
"Team-Gizka" is a modding group, but they are not the only modders out there. If you add them to the third-party section, you would have to also mention about a million others. Inorder for this article to not be biased towards one modder group, I suggest that they should be removed -or- you should make a massive list of other large modding efforts. There are other KotOR II modding groups that have mods allready released, and they have done more extensive work than "Team-Gizka". These other modding groups have also been mentioned online at game forums and game boards. Let's be fair about this. If "Team-Gizka" gets added to the artcile, lets also add a million of the other KotOR II modder groups. And their links. There were other restoration modders, which have allready produced their version of 'cut-content'. Unlike "Team-Gizka", these other modding groups have mods online for downloading. "Team-Gizka" is not doing anything that hasn't allready been done, and they are not the first or last to do so. Just my two cents. 4.156.39.58 22:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Could you name some of these modding groups, and the extent of their work? I have not heard of any other major groups, at least not in the manner you describe.
Re. deleted material per page protection
Restoration effort
This is the "Team Gizka" stuff. The iteration that people keep adding is identical to a version previously AfDed and salted -- the vote was for deletion (without anyone even suggesting merging in the most recent one) under the argument that it is not a notable (it is a game mod., in the same category as vanity fan fiction) and uncited to a reliable source. --EEMeltonIV 02:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
There has to be a good handful of "KotOR II" Restoration groups. Several of them allready have mods online, and people have been downloading them for months. In some cases, there are more online articles about other groups than "Team-Gizka". Sorry for repeating myself, but... If we add "Team-Gizka" to this article, it would show some kind of biased towards the group. Since there are a million or more "KotOR II" modders, and some of them have done restoration mods, I don't think it would be fair to mention that one group. You would have to make an extensively long list of mods, which of whom have restored cut content. You would also have to mention all the modders that have edited KotOR II in some way. Just my two cents. 4.156.39.58 22:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted content
This list of cut material is not cited to any sort of source; it is a clump of WP:OR -- and even if it were cited, it's the kind of trivia that is more appropriate for a game guide than Wikipedia. --EEMeltonIV 02:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Wrong. If you have a copy of KOTOR 2 for the PC and actually played around with the sound files, you'd find your cited material.--Dibol
Yeah. That's original research; for it to be even worth considering including in an article, the assertion that it is "deleted content" needs to be verified and cited to a reliable, third-party source. How do you know it's deleted content cut due to time constraints, and not just temp. material put together by the developers? Or that the project actually had plenty of time to finish, but they just decided this material wasn't good enough or otherwise not worth including? Again, a third-party reliable source is required to back up this claim. And even with such a third-party source, this poorly-edit laundry list of (cut) plot detail is insignificant trivia. --EEMeltonIV 02:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
[[6]]: List of actual content found from in-game files
Note: These links are over three years old, and therefore not original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dibol (talk • contribs) 05:11, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
I'd be fine adding a sentence or two citing the interview transcript in the Development section asserting that some content was cut. However, the list of cut scenes is wholly unnecessary trivia. --EEMeltonIV 22:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
If the sources work, and it is to go in the article, it would be best if it were a one or two sentence summary + the reference links, instead of the multiple paragraph detailed listing. -- ArglebargleIV 05:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I've added a sentence citing the interview linked above about the producer wishing there'd been more time to work on the game. Used the second link to give ref to list of cut content; removed trivia list from the article itself. --EEMeltonIV 12:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Just One Opinion
Versions and update history? when were 1.0, 1.0a, and 1.0b released? What did they fix? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.220.163 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Just throwing in my two cents. As someone who wandered onto the page, I think a little outside opinion could be useful. I think that this 'Team Gizka' seems to, quite frankly, exist. It would make sense for them to have a spot on Wikipedia. However, the TSL page is not this place. What seems to make sense to me would be to have a Team Gizka page, with a link and a sentence on the TSL page (in 200X, Team Gizka released blah blah blah...). Teenage riot 21:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The question is not whether they exist; it's whether they are notable. A previous community discussion determined that they weren't notable enough for their own page; are they notable enough for this one? --Haemo 21:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, see, this is where being an outsider to this page hurts me. Given that result, I say yes, they should have a small part of this page. It'd be difficult, sure, because it's something that should be mentioned in passing more than anything, but I personally think that it should be recorded here somewhere. I had never heard of this beforehand, and what is Wikipedia but a means to expand knowledge? I say keep it brief, to the point, and on this page.
Teenage riot 22:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
There's a more detailed copy of this article, which includes Team Gizka, here: KotOR II and Team Gizka. Feel free to register an account there and contribute. Darth Fork 23:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Linkspam
Mod sites are the gaming equivalent of vanity fan fic; it doesn't matter that they don't charge, linking to them is essentially just promoting the site. --EEMIV (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
But who benefits? Clearly not just the site. It's a resource for people who want to expand the capabilities of the game. Alcarillo (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
And that would be fine if this were some sort of game guide or gaming resources, but that's not the focus/point of this project. If there were some directory of KOTOR mods, that would probably work. --EEMIV (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:KotorIIbox.jpg
Image:KotorIIbox.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
As a college student at a local University, Wikipedia has undergone deep critisism. I happen to agree with news reports and educational boards on Wikipedia's lack of reliability and non-bias. This article is about Knights of the Old Republic II, and not about a modding community. If Wikipedia considers itself a reliable source of information, based upon a non-biases and factual perspective, I suggest to not mention anything about modding. People have to remember that this article is about a Lucas Arts property. Yes, Lucas Arts does recognize the modding community, but the mods themselves do not represent the game. If this article were to be mentioned in a real encyclopedia, there would only be game background information. Everything is just plainly extra.
If I were to write this artcile as a real encyclopedia (with credibility), I would look at the following:
. General Game Information: Release Dates, Story Discriptions, Game Specs, Characters, Plots.
. Secondary Game Information: Cut Content from Publisher/Developer Notes, Other notations from publisher and developer notes.
. Links: Publisher & Developer Websites
. Pics: Production Sketches, Game Screenshots, Logos.
. Patches and Links to the patches.
. Historical Context in the Publisher's and Developer's company history.
. List of Awards
Stuff I would not include:
. Bias Opinions: Who likes the game - Who does not like the game.
. The mention of people who don't have a leagal connection with the Publisher or Developer.
. What people think about the cut content.
. Modding teams, for they are not the publisher or developer.
. Speculation on story, which is not mentioned in the game.
Darth Methos, whoops, I mean Marcus, I just don't understand your obsession with KOTOR2. The article on Half-Life 2 mentions mods. The article on Grand Theft Auto mentions mods. This is a normal part of Wikipedia. Besides, one of the guidelines on Wikipedia is "Be Bold!" WP:BOLD. If you think it shouldn't be there, then delete it. Just don't be surprised if someone else on here disagrees with you and reverts it back. -- Zhinz 03:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Team gizka is working on implementing what obsidian never had time to finish, since team gizka's main focus is on repairing the game's scrapped parts it becomes an important note about game --Ditre 04:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
After reading this, I can only conclude that you should NOT play video games. You are simply way too uptight. You wrote "'TSL Restoration Team (Team-Gizka' is taking someone's piece of artwork, and is turning it into something for fun and pleasure." ...Excuse me? Are you seriously mad because someone tried to turn a VIDEO GAME into something for "fun and pleasure?" But that's beside my point. My point is that I don't give a fuck whether or not you like Team Gizka or their mod. Wikipedia is not about you; it's not about what you like; it's not about what you hate. This article is supposed to be a source of information about this game. The Team Gizka mod should definitely be in this article, under simple logic. While the mod was not part of the game as released, the mod was created with the sole intent of adding on to the game. Since its only purpose is to add on to the game, why wouldn't it be included in the article. Or, look at it this way. If this mod were to be written about somewhere on Wikipedia, why wouldn't that info be in this article? It's obviously pertinent to the subject, so why would you exclude it from this article? So, the only logical reason for not having it in this article would be because it wasn't on Wikipedia at all. Are you suggesting that we just shouldn't write about the mod just because YOU don't like it? That's absolutely ridiculous.
Oh, and I've got two words for you: SPELL CHECK! --76.16.71.212 (talk) 04:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
A group of fans, known as "Team Gizka", are creating a modification called "The Sith Lords Restoration Project" (TSLRP), with the intent of restoring much of the cut content, including the restoration of side quests and portions of the cut ending. The project is currently in a post content-implementation phase where issues related to the restored content are being fixed and the implemented content is being tweaked. The rate of issues being solved (as observed from the issue tracker at http://www.team-gizka.org/wip.html) indicates a likely release during Q2 2007, although the team itself has been reluctant to speculate on a release date. The restored content will be available for the PC version of the game.
Another group, nicknamed "Team Bantha", began a sister project dedicated to the restoration of the Droid Planet M4-78, a planet with its own quest involving Lonna Vash, which was cut from the game at an early stage. The mod was intended to be released alongside TSLRP, but looks to have been discontinued.
Honestly I am at a toss up, while I am looking forward to the Team Gizka restoration mod, and I am very grateful for what they are trying to accomplish I can understand where Darth Methos is coming from (partially). While they are restoring the games content to a playable state, the purposeful exclusion of the content does technically separate it from the game. Much in the same way Rockstar defended (attempted to defend) themselves from the 'Hot Coffee' modifications, with it being a scrapped feature that wasn't accessible to players. The extra content being deleted (no matter how game crippling it may have been) would technically fall under this.
However, on the other hand, the purpose of an Encyclopedia (which is carried on pretty well to wikipedia) is to cover Human Knowledge, and provide as much information as possible regarding any particular topic (providing they fit the guidelines for inclusion) The Gizka Restoration project from what I have read (I will look into it more myself later) is hotly anticipated by many KoToR2 fans, and has also received Press Coverage from Published Magazines. I am not 100% sure (need to re-read guidelines and such) but I do believe that gives it some right for inclusion on the basis of notability. Regardless of how you look at it, a minor inclusion on this article, not as Team Gizka, but maybe something like Restoration Effort; It could go on to mention that the content was removed and people are trying to restore it possibly listing names, in a manner that isn't advertising. Anyway as I was saying, a minor inclusion here makes much more sense than Team Gizka having its own article (which kind of just sits there really, as the only way anyone would know it exists (outside of looking at modding communities) is through this article.
Regardless, Arguing the legality of it seems to be kind of a moot discussion. The General Banner of Law (more specifically the copyright) does establish the practice of modding to be illegal, regardless of how the widespread nature of modding in itself has created the 'if they don't say don't do it than we can' stigma. However, LucasArts has not only released Press Releases stating that they encourage player modding, but they also created a site for it. (In fact they have taken some great recent steps to help along the 'Open Source' movement if you want to call it that, but going in depth doesn't serve the point of this piece here). Like I was saying, press release and website, this could technically qualify as releasing some rights to their creation so that players can in turn increase the Shelf life, and ROI for their products. An action that, this far after the release doesn't produce many if not any negative consequences towards the company and/or the profit margin. I don't know what it would take to change the perception of modding of LucasArts works to be legal under the 'General Banner of Law' but I do know that it would probably have to come in the form of some official documentation being filed in relation to their Copyright. However as this product is already in its Late years as far as software goes, I doubt any costly legal moves such as that would be pulled as they wouldn't accomplish anything more than inspiring reform (at best).
Anyway, I say merge-- Noctrine 14:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Enough already!
Absolutely incredible the amount of pontification that's going into this discussion of whether or not mods should be included in this article. It's been going on for more than 6 months and includes an edit war. It's getting a little ridiculous.
The Team Giska mod is notable. It's part of the "life" of the KOTOR2 product, has been covered in major print magazines and is a highly anticipated mod for the game by fans of the game. It's notable, of interest to those who might read the article, and nothing in wikipedia policy gives any reason why they should not be included.
Add to that fact, Lucasarts actually has endorsed modding for this game. That is, they say it is OK to do so! (see archived discussion where a link to their press release was even posted where it CLEARLY stated this. This has been repeatedly mentioned before to little effect apparently). Lastly, mods are covered in just about ever other major game franchise that is covered on Wikipedia.
Just because the activity may be illigal or not moral, doesn't mean it's not something that exists or that it can't or shouldn't be covered. We cover huge crimes like the holocost, genocides, murder, theft, etc. Making note of it in an encyclopedia article is not an endorsement of it. It's a statement of fact.
Team Giska is doing a restoration mod based on cut content of the game. FACT.
It's highly anticipated by fans of the game. FACT.
It's recieved notable coverage in both online and print game magazines in several countries. FACT.
Marcus, I'm getting tired of this repetative and pointless discussion, and so, I expect are the other editors who have tried over and over again to reason with you about this. Important mods WILL be included in articles about the games they were made for. It's time to let go of this. Seriously. --Lendorien 20:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you cite a reliable, third-party source that lends credence to the assertion of notability? --EEMeltonIV 21:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I certainly can provide PC game magazine articles that do so. It'll take a bit to dig them up and I don't have time at the moment, but I will do so when I do. Rest assured, that yes, the project HAS been covered in several notable print pc game magazines as well as several notable online pc review sites. Of course, the above debate has NEVER been about notabiliy. It's been about the morality and legality to include the information in the article. It's a silly argument given the fact that just talking or presenting information about something isn't illegal, and Lucasarts doesn't even disapprove of the modding of this game anyway. --Lendorien 22:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I think we would all like to see these articles. If there are extensive articles about "Team-Gizka", not short mentionings, I would have no problem with making a small note on the page. As long as it is a series of full legnth articles, I will have no problems with a side note. There are millions of mods out there for KotOR II, and there are also a good handful of restoration mods. If we mention "Team-Gizka" in this article, I would also want to mention the other of million mods for KotOR II. If this article is biased towards one group of modders, I do not think it would be fair to the other modders. Restoration mods have allready surfaced online. "Team-Gizka" is not doing anything new. We should make a massive list of mods, or we should just let the whole idea fall through the floor. Just my two cents. 4.156.39.58 22:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Page moves
Some editor moved this page without previous discussions or agreements. Please move it back to the original title. — Texcarson | Talk | 23:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
In addition, the paragraph related to the low quality of the music track is sourced with a post on obsidian's forum. I know it's a true fact (you can verify it as well if you own the game), but why did you delete the links i posted some time ago which were related to the gameplay section, since they're forum posts from that board? — Texcarson | Talk | 23:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Using self-published sources such as forum posts is not permitted under most circumstances per Wikipedia's policies regarding verification; see WP:SPS for further info. There is one probably acceptable use of a forum thread as a source in this article, where BioWare employees post to the KOTOR board in an official capacity to debunk a sequel rumor. The other forum posts, including the info on the music, are violations of Wikipedia's verification policies and ideally should be replaced by citations that meet Wikipedia's standard's for reliable sources. --Muchness (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
New sequel rumors
The latest round of sequel rumors was sparked by this post at Shacknews (posted Feb 13, 2008), which states in part, "During an analyst meeting, a slide presented by EA CEO John Riccitiello credited BioWare with the following projects: Mass Effect, Dragon Age, KOTOR, New MMO. Though Riccitiello did not specifically mention KOTOR in the audio portion of his presentation, it was suggested that all properties on that slide denoted new or upcoming releases." This is all fairly speculative, but a few news sources picked up the story and ran with it, using stronger and more definitive language (e.g., Stuff We Like, Joystiq). The story was debunked by BioWare employee Chris Priestly on 14 February 2008 (Priestly's post), so I don't think there's any need to mention it in the article. --Muchness (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Sequel section...
Is this section really needed? The section doesn't really appear to be contributing to the article, to be honest, and doesn't include any information at all pertaining to a future "KotOR3" game, let alone anything verifiable.
I'm not sure if it's really necessary. The problem is that sequel rumors regularly emerge and get added to the article, and since some of these rumors are published in notable sources such as OXM and IGN, keeping a referenced section debunking the various rumors may be better (i.e., more informative and easier to maintain) than regularly reverting out the sequel rumors as they arise. --Muchness (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Joystiqreports that EA entrusted KotOR3 to BioWare. They are very careful about this statement, though. --Koveras☭ 21:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we could document this recent outbreak of rumors? I think Eurogamer has a full story on it and it can be considered a reliable source... --Koveras☭ 09:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
It appears the recent rumors are already listed under the KotOR3 heading in Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic (series), including reference to the debunking by BioWare, which makes me question even further why we'd need such a segment in this article, since even if we were to document said rumors they are far better documented on that page.
I'll try revising this article somewhat tomorrow, see if I can't clean it up and remove the sequel section while still acknowledging that the rumor mill exists. Will post the changes on here before adding to the article, for discussion. Kouen Akechi (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It may be interesting to check this out [[7]]. Just a thought205.250.72.13 (talk) 05:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
gameplay
Prompted by a request to add lightsaber combat trivia to the gameplay section, I'm asking that someone offer substantiation for the more significant gameplay changes or axe that section. The only claim that's cited is the resolution scaling. I'm sure there are reviews at gamespot and elsewhere that can bolster some of these claims. --EEMIV (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Lightsaber forms and force forms
Why need to be delete these headline as "gameguide trivia"?
There are lightsaber forms (Shii-Cho, Makashi, Soresu, Ataru, Shien, Niman, Juyo) with different strengths and weakness and Force Forms: Force Channel, Force Potency, Force Affinity, Force Mastery.[1]
Why isn't it as important as Influence, Item upgrade and creation and other gameplay elements ehhh?? --Beyond silence 15:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Most of that material should also be trimmed as game guide trivia. But "the article already has this trivia, why can't I add mine?" isn't exactly a compelling reason to include information. Our time would be better spent culling or substantiating the tripe in this article. --EEMIV (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, this material is "cited" to a fan site, which is not a reliable source. --EEMIV (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Why trivia is it? There isn't very big changes in the game from kotor 1. May I can find other source but it is just so I don't know why. --Beyond silence 13:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Why do so many things redirect to this page? Many of them are simply referenced and/or involved in the plot. Many of the things being redirected here already have information in a list somewhere (Malachor V, for example, actually has their own section on "list of star wars planets" article). I can redirect links on each individual site that has "Malachor V" links going here, but it would be much easier if I could eliminate the thing sending those links here (i dont know what that is). Because so many words get redirected here, I thought I should post this first, in case Im totally wrong and there is a valid reason behind it. Someone tell me what I should do.
Orcahuman (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Planets can probably go ahead and redirect to the planet lists. It looks like many of the others are alternative spellings/abbreviations for the game. A few are minor characters (e.g. beast rider) -- those might be appropriate for deletion as unlikely search terms. --EEMIV (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Requests for comment
I know nothing about this topic, but this RfC has nothing to do with politics and thus should not be placed on the RFCpol list. I think this is the RFC template you want. You should probably refile this thing.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Outside opinion- there wasn't much context in that section; it was linking to lightsaber combat, why not create a "See also" section and put it there. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Give us a link to the "before and after" edit please. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd assume they mean this:[8]; that's what I was looking at. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
That article is over two years old. 86.148.234.176 (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Vista incompatibility
Might be worth mentioning the lack of compatability for Vista systems somewhere towards the bottom of the article perhaps? I'll leave it up to someone more used to editing the wiki pages anyway because I don't want to mess it up. - Deathbycheesedrum —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathbycheesedrum (talk • contribs) 15:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
works fine with me on vista —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.93.101.101 (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Game title
Shouldn't the game title be Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II - The Sith Lords? The current title is not grammatically correct. SharkD (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I did some research and according to the Obsidian Entertainment[9] and Lucas Arts[10], the title is Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords. If the name is going to be changed, I think it should be changed to the official game title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScorpSt (talk • contribs) 20:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Three official patches?
Is this accurate? As far as I can tell from the official website and google, I can only find one. 1.0b, and using the program's own updating servie, it aborts and tells me to manually update. 67.48.246.153 (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Game of the Year
This article mentions TSL winning 35 "game of the year" awards. Is there a source for that claim? The linked source is the Obsidian web site which doesn't mention that bit of trivia anywhere that I can see. To my knowledge, only the first KOTOR won any "game of the year" awards. I'm going to edit it out and someone can put it back with a cited source if they want to. RS (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Plot Expansion
I know this is not necessarily a summary page, but should not the plot be explained at least in a general form? A large part of this game is the story which should be included. Having just a brief description of characters is not a plot summary, at least last time I checked.
Please respond with constructive comments. Samuel.ordonia (talk) 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The current story/characters section seems sufficient. --EEMIV (talk) 03:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Spoiler Tag
The story section needs a spoiler tag, it spoils some very important character details. -Rixius Gmail —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.79.166.66 (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't use spoiler tags anymore. Sorry. Eik Corell (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Article Name
It should be Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords, not Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II The Sith Lords. notice the colon after 'II' in the first one. 72.237.55.2 (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. There is a break in the title. I'm going to move it; if another user sees this notice and feels it should be moved back, please notify me and do so. -xwingsx- (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Move, add colon
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0(talk) 03:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Support: Logical and what most sources seem to use. –CWenger (^ • @) 00:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Meetra Surik on Kotor 2
Hello there. I tried to add that information into the main article. Why is it not tolerated and why is it not a reliable source if also other websites tell that the main protagonist of this game is Meetra Surik? "Meetra Surik is only in SWTOR relevant." is also not a reliable source. That's like if you would remove Revan from the main article of the Knights of the Old Republic series. So why is it not accepted? Morgan Katarn (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
In the story of Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II, the protagonist does not have this name, and no reliable source shows this. In The Old Republic, the protagonist is given this name, but that's relevant to that game, but plays no part in the story of this game. Therefore, it's inappropriate to place it here. - SudoGhost 13:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
But why is it written so in the main article of this game on starwars.wikia then? Morgan Katarn (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
For the same exact reason why that article is not a reliable sources, it is an open wiki, which anyone can edit. I can edit that article and have it say anything I wished, that makes it an unreliable source for supporting information here. - SudoGhost 13:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, I don't think that you can write there anything you want. There are also admins who are controlling this site but maybe I could search that information on other websites than wiki. And wait what other users will say about my opinion. Morgan Katarn (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Admins are also "controlling" this site, but Wikipedia is not a reliable source either. An open wiki has no editorial review, and is not a reliable source for exactly that reason. This information is relevant to The Old Republic, not this article. Nowhere in the story of this game is this name even alluded to in any form. Therefore, it doesn't belong in a section about the story of this game. - SudoGhost 13:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Also WP:INUNIVERSE applies. In the series' overarching storyline, the protaginist is later named this. But that doesn't apply to this article, this article is not about the story from an "in-universe" perspective. It's about the story of this game, not the story of the Star Wars universe. In this game, this name is not mentioned in any way, shape, or form. It is therefore inappropriate to have that content listed in this game's article. - SudoGhost 13:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Understood! But I'd like to hear other users' opinion too. Morgan Katarn (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but I agree with SudoGhost. Since the character was never named in KOTOR 2 and no one involved with the game development has back-identified him from "The Old Republic" to KOTOR 2, it shouldn't be put into this page as it would basically amount to unreferenced OR. What Star Wars Wiki has also doesn't count per the reasons stated by SudoGhost. You are well intentioned, but it needs to stay out. Ckruschke (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
Patches and Updates
Article states that there has been a content/gameplay patch (all though as far as i can tell there have been two), and a video and audio upgrade. None of these are linked or referenced (but have references to forum's with people requesting them??). Only the content/gameplay patches are available from Lucas Arts support page. Can i suggest if anyone knows where the media patches are, they add it to this page. Isolater (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the information about the TSL Restored Content Mod which is restoring all cut content should be included into article as well since the final version 1.8 was lately released through deadlystream.com/forum/ and moddbb and praised by Chris Avellone (Obsidian)?
Also, after all these years KOTOR was released on Steam with better Win7 compatibility. September 03, 2012 Dimmmkko — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.67.101.203 (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic and was released for Xbox on December 6, 2004 - The Xbox. You need a pronoun.
Like its predecessor, it is set in the Star Wars universe 4,000 years before the Star Wars films - Can it be more specific? Which Star Wars film?
follows the story of The Exile: a Jedi Knight who was exiled from the Jedi Order. - You should use a comma instead of a colon
which were noted to be more grey than in the original Knights of the Old Republic. - "in" is not necessary
However, the game received criticism for being too similar to the first game of the series in terms of graphics and gameplay systems - I don't think you really need to call the original Knights of the Old Republic as "the first game in the series". You can just call it "predecessor"
You can add more details about the game's development to the lead.
Body
It is a first-person game or a third-person game?
Combat and interactions with the environment and NPCs - Do not short form non-playable characters unless it was mentioned before. You can also wikilink it
The game starts with a character creation screen with several choices to make - Can briefly describe what choices you can make
Along with the Force powers from the first game of the series, there are 30 new ones in Knights of the Old Republic II - A very brief description of what "Force powers" are will be better. Does this sentence also means that the force powers from the original return here? If that is the case, it isn't represented clearly here.
The combat has been mostly unchanged from the original game of the series to Knights of the Old Republic II. - I prefer using "predecessor" to replace "the original game of the series". It is much simpler. Something like "The combat of Knights of the Old Republic II is identical to its predecessor"
Each of them is useful for a different situation - How are they useful in different situation?
The player can use a variety of melee and ranged weapons, including guns. - What melee weapons you can use then?
A new addition to the game are "prestige classes": these are extensions of the Jedi classes which were introduced in Knights of the Old Republic. - You can break them up into two different sentences
The game takes place five years after the events of Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic and 4,000 years before the Star Wars films - Same problem. You need to more specific about which films
non-player character companions - "Non-playable companions" sounds a bit better
The PC then travels to four worlds to find reclusive Jedi Masters and either begs their aid or kills them in revenge over their treatment, depending on player choice. - Refer him as "The Exile" instead of "PC"
When Obsidian were preparing to present Knights of the Old Republic II at E3 - which E3?
Knights of the Old Republic II 's lead artist was Aaron Myers - You need to fill his name in the artist field of the infobox.
he noted that all minigames should have been removed - You can mentioned these mini-games briefly in the gameplay section.
and also said that the game has the best story in a video game since Planescape: Torment (1999) - Year of release is not necessary
You should actually cite the name of the reviewers instead of their organizations. But it doesn't really matter
You did not use the CVG review in the reception section. You should remove it from Template:Video game reviews.
and reviewers also noticed other issues - Any examples?
Any sales figures for the game?
Not that I know of. --Markhoris (talk) 09:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Does the game received any awards or nominations?
Other than the one for Kreia, I don't think so. --Markhoris (talk) 09:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
However, there is some close paraphrasing. For example, from the GameSpot source: " The prestige classes are extensions of the three Jedi classes introduced in Knights of the Old Republic, allowing you to further specialize in lightsaber combat". Article: "A new addition to the game are "prestige classes": these are extensions of the Jedi classes which were introduced in Knights of the Old Republic. They allow the player character to specialize in lightsaber combat"
Besides that sentence, the only similarities I see between the article and sources are "Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords", "The Sith Lords", "the original", "Force powers" and "Knights of the Old Republic". These phrases can't be changed, so it should be fine.
Overall
Here is the review GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
Great article. However, the article is not specific enough sometimes. And besides that close paraphrasing, everything is fine. I am going to put it on hold for a week. AdrianGamer (talk) 06:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I believe I fixed the issues you've pointed out, let me know if I missed anything. Thanks for taking the time to review this so quickly. --Markhoris (talk) 09:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
This game's common name is "Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords" (not "Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II – The Sith Lords"). An alternative is to just do Knights of the Old Republic II, as most sources abbreviate it as "KOTOR II" throughout the articles rather than as "Sith Lords" (subtitle naming conventions). Here how the reviews used within this article refer to the game:
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II – The Sith Lords → Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords – My bold rename by the above rationale was reverted, so per BRD, I'm bringing it to discussion. I think I showed above that the proposed name is more common in the reliable sources (especially those used in the article) than the current unwieldy one with the en dash. Alternatively, I think Knights of the Old Republic II could suffice as the game's most common name, but that might be more controversial than as proposed. – czar 15:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Rename, as nominator. – czar 15:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment Thank you for bringing this to discussion. While I do know that no source has referred to it as Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II – The Sith Lords, I do think that Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords wouldn't be an appropriate name either because the lack of punctuation might confuse readers. Plus there's the fact the title for the first game is Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, so it would be inconsistent to have one with the colon and one without. I also think that the sources that write it as Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords do it informally and without much thought. I could settle for a rename to Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords (with two colons), but I think removing The Sith Lords part would make an incorrect title since those words are part of the cover art. Markhoris (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@Markhoris, Ferret, and FoCuSandLeArN, Wikipedia uses the name that the most prominent sources use. This is precisely to avoid these types of discussions about the box art or someone's personal preferences or, especially, that it might confuse readers. If IGN and other major sources used that phrasing, their editorial oversight (which is better than ours) already made the call that their title was stylistically appropriate and not confusing for readers. It is not "informal" or "without much thought". And consistency within the series is not an issue of ours. We use what the sources use—that's the WP policy. – czar 22:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I would like to direct you to these rules, namely:
Use the most commonly accepted English name first, if one exists. This is usually the official title in the initial English release, but not always. Subtitles and pre-titles are allowed if deemed appropriate but are not necessary and pre-titles should be replaced once an official title has been announced. (The subtitle has been used in all but one of the reviews sources, this falls under the official title guideline.)
When naming articles for specific games in a series it is best to be consistent throughout the entire series as much as possible. This includes the use of subtitles and numbering. Exceptions exist when two different games are released under two completely different titles (this is why there should be a colon after the Star Wars part in the title). Markhoris (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
How does a primary source such as the developer's site factor in, which uses the double colon form? Additionally, some of the sources you used in your first move use multiple forms in different articles. The GameSpot E3 coverage you linked is one way, while a different GameSpot E3 coverage article uses the double colon format. IGN has also used the double colon form. 1up used the double colon format, listed in the "Vitals" infobox and at the bottom, while abbreviating KOTOR in the title. GameSpy used the double colon format for the Steam release. Kotaku drops the subtitle here, but keeps the first colon. RockPaperScissors uses double colons. There seem to be plenty of prominent sources using the double colon format, and almost all of these are sources the article already uses. -- ferret (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd also add these: PC Gamer uses the colon after "Star Wars"; Game Informer refers to it as only "The Sith Lords"; in another article, Kotaku uses Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic 2 in the title and Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords in the body of the article; IGN referred to it as Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II, The Sith Lords in their PC review; RPGamer called it Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords. --Markhoris (talk) 11:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
@Ferret, you wouldn't consider that cherry picking? I have no personal preference here—I went through the refs in the article and found them predominantly without the SW/KOTOR colon. The official listings at IGN and GameSpy also drop the same colon despite, yes, inconsistently using the colon in some articles. Still, the sources largely omit that first colon (likely to avoid the awkward double colon)—or is that point contested? @Markhoris, I'm familiar with the naming conventions. They reaffirm that what matters most is how the sources present the name (not our interpretation of the box art), and I don't see the en dash or double colon title in wide circulation. Based on the sources, I think the names in widest circulation are my two suggestions (single colon or dropping the Star Wars prefix/Sith Lords subtitle altogether). For instance, ferret and I just referenced IGN and GameSpy. Theyuse a variety of names for the game, but most often used either single colon or just "KOTOR II". That would be its common name, though the full name still goes in the lede. – czar 04:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
You're completely ignoring the #2 rule I posted earlier about being as consistent as possible throughout the series. And I don't understand why you want to drop the Star Wars/The Sith Lords part when nearly all sources use both of them. Also, if you think that using a double colon is awkward, don't you think having no punctuation between "Star Wars" and "Knights of the Old Republic II", two parts of the title that are unrelated, would be even more awkward? --Markhoris (talk) 11:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't. Again, the sources do the work of deciding the best way to style the title for us. The sources would use the double colon if they felt it was more appropriate. The concern about series titling consistency takes a backseat to the primacy of the common name. – czar 17:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
According to the common name guideline you're linking to: "Ambiguous[6] or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." The version with the double colon is the accurate name for it according to Obsidian's website which ferret linked above. Anyway, I agree with what The Millionth One said below. --Markhoris (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I highly suggest reading the whole thing: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. But even the "official name" uses the single colon (see separate bullet below). – czar 19:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC) Also re: series consistency, there was a recent thread at WT:VG that concluded that series often do not use colons consistently across titles and do not need to be "standardized" to one form or another (e.g., between SW and KOTOR). – czar 05:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Support alternate I would support Markhoris alternative suggestion, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords, which keeps it in line with the related articles Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic and Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic (series). Minor note, the template already using a piped link with a colon before the subtitle. I would be curious if the Star Wars wikiproject might have guidelines concerning scenarios such as this though. -- ferret (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Support previous commenter. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment: I know you haven't actually suggested using it, but I'd dispute using KOTOR II. It's less a nickname and more a quick acronym. The most recognisable name, to people who don't regularly game and so on, would probably be the full title over it. On colons, this being a minor punctuation thing, probably both are used interchangeably enough that it doesn't really matter -- I'd look at official sources for the sake of accuracy, especially since most won't realize we're using a "common name" (or we have a lead that goes "Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic: The Sith Lords, also known as Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic: The Sith Lords..."). – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 11:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
The suggestion would have been to spell it out, of course (Knights of the Old Republic II), but for now we're on the long name for the lede/title. Also it wouldn't make sense to use an "also known as" parenthetical for the comma—the idea is to only have the long name once and that it should reflect the sources in not using the two colons. – czar 19:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah, right, the full Knights... suggestion makes a lot more sense, though I'm not sure I'd get behind it entirely. It's still, I think, mainly just a shortening of its "actual" known name. The full name would still be the most recognisable, I feel. Contrast, say, FIFA or Liberace, who would rarely ever be referred to in full (and not just because their names are a handful). I wouldn't overly object, though. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 02:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Re: the "official name", I'm looking at the PC manual and they use the single colon as proposed. (As does the Xbox manual, p. 3.) LucasArts apparently has no official website for the game, so this is as official as it gets. – czar 19:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
That being the case, and a lot of the other sources not really opposing it, I support the single-colon version, as inconsistent as it is with the rest of the series. Well, unless we find anything more to overturn that. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 02:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Since the manual uses the single colon, I now support the single colon version, Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords. Markhoris (User talk) (Special:Contributions) 13:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll go with the manual as well. -- ferret (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
AdrianGamer (talk) 06:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)