Talk:Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy

Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 7, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
August 31, 2009	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Amusing

It's funny to see familiar names mentioned in the recent addition by Siegemaster, but I agree with it's removal. Quietmartialartist (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Combining two pictures

I was looking up Vienna when I came across some useful information on combining pictures into the same "box."

I'm not happy with the way it would look though, compared to the current layout. Does anyone know how to combine the two pictures and keep it on the right as it is currently? Quietmartialartist (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry.

It would seem I've included the current community that still plays JKA, all die-hards, and the more immature people seem to have taken to vandalizing the page. Is there anyway we can get this locked so that unregistered users cannot make edits?

As for the multi-player screenshot, sorry Diamondback, but the previous image displayed more game play elements and did not included modifications to the original game; i.e. Ninja model or whatever that is you're using. Quietmartialartist (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happened?? When I added the multi-player screenshot back in November, the page was looking great. Now it would seem it's been vandalized so many times that all quality has diminished. When I search back through page history it's like I can't find how it once was. Someone must have edited a page in the page's history. Where have you been, Una Laguna? Quietmartialartist (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair this page hasn't ever been particularly good... and I haven't been editing Wikipedia much for the past few months, either. I think I reverted one or two blatantly inappropriate edits when I've seen them, but I've been all-round quite slow with Wikipedia for the past few months, I'm afraid. Una Laguna^Talk 15:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, good, terrible, without a reference you can't compare. You can easily say, good as opposed to what? Would you agree that the quality has substantially diminished since, say, December?

References are gone a lot of text has been removed and the page's code has been altered so now it is somewhat glitched. For example: When I try to put the multi-player screenshot next to the multi-player text the picture over laps text. Quietmartialartist (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall the article appears to be slightly worse than before, yes. The issue with the image you've described would be solved if the article was longer. I'm currently tied up with loads of schoolwork and don't anticipate the load to get much lighter for the next couple of weeks. I'll try to help improve the article when I can, though; the main things which need doing are in the todo list at the top of the talk page. Una Laguna^Talk 18:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diamondback, please refrain from reverting the current multi-player picture. As I have already mentioned, the current image displays more game play elements and does not included modifications to the original game; i.e. the skin you're using. Furthermore, the current image has English text. If you would like to post a JKA multi-player screenshot with Polish, please do so on the Polish JKA page. Quietmartialartist (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Changes from Jedi Outcast to Jedi Academy"

This material is unsubstantiated gameguide trivia. I am deleting it, but it's in the history if anyone can find third-party sources to substantiate the claims. --EEMIV (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded - not only was it trivia, but it was also unsourced original research which had little relevance to the article. Una Laguna^Talk 06:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what you mean by "unsubstantiated game guide trivia"?

Would this count as a third-party source? They are an official distributor of the game. As I recall, most of the information in "Changes from Jedi Outcast to Jedi Academy" was on the main LucasArts webpage when I first saw it back in '03. But since LucasArts discontinued that page it can't be brought up and used as a reference. Quietmartialartist (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, instead of a list of features that are different from JK2, the article would have a development section with background behind the features and information on why/how they were developed. IGN looks like a good place to start to get information from as it has a few previews of the game. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Unsubstantiated" refers to the lack of citations for the section; "game guide" refers to the fact that it's less suited to a encyclopedia and more to a video game guide - see WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:NOT#FAQ; "trivia" refers to the unencyclopedic nature of the facts. I don't see any reason why we should re-insert the information in a section by itself. As Bill has said, if the differences were high-profile during development or a source of praise/criticism in reviews, then they should be mentioned in the relevant sections (indeed, I'm writing the Reception section myself here, and one of the things which keeps coming up in reviews is how the start of JA is much better than the start of JO).

Regarding using that Amazon page as a source - if there was any useful information in the Product Description it could be used; however, the user reviews are not a reliable source as anybody can submit a review which may have numerous incorrect facts in it. That makes the Product Description a fairly reliable source, but the user reviews are unreliable sources. I usually first conduct research at gaming sites such as IGN and GameSpot to get information and use more obscure sites if the information I want isn't easy to find. I have a list of potential sources for use on this page here, if you're interested. Una Laguna^Talk 15:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this message so I'll stop adding to the existing reception section while you're writing the new version. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) If you like we can split the work such that I write the Critical reception section (currently around 2/3 complete) and you write the Development section. I also have one or two paper-based sources which can be used to write a short "legacy" section describing the mod scene, thejediacademy.net and maybe one or two other things. The articles (in PC Gamer UK) are big enough to warrant inclusion of their subject matter in the article. Una Laguna^Talk 20:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good plan to me. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revised Single Player section

I just thought I'd preview this before making the edit to get some feedback. I think a lot of the features included in "Changes from Jedi Outcast to Jedi Academy" are, at least, potentially encyclopedic bits of information that should be included. Maybe not in the previous format, but the two new weapons (DL-44 Blaster Pistol and Stouker Concussion Rifle) should be mentioned, perhaps along with all of the other available weapons. The species you can choose from should be included and not worded in such a way that it sounds as if you can actually choose your species and gender, because, quite frankly, I was crushed when I found out I couldn't have a male Zabrak as my character. A description of force powers and a list of saber colors would be a nice addition as well.

How would I go about using the "sandbox" like you're doing, Una?

Single player The player initially chooses the character's species, which can be any of the following: Human (male or female), Kel Dor (male), Rodian (male), Twi'lek (female), or Zabrak (female). Numerous lightsaber hilts with five different colors are available to choose from: Blue, Green, Purple, Orange, Yellow and later on one of the three available fighting styles (fast, or strong with medium being your default style from the beginning). New Force powers in single player include Force Absorb (protects you from the force or otherwise weakens harmful effects), Force Protect (weakens the harmful effects of gunfire and explosions), Force Sense (allows the player to see enemies through walls), Force Drain (transfers health from an enemy to the player), and Force Rage (makes the player faster and temporarily invulnerable at the expense of force power and drainage of health points). The game also introduces player-controllable vehicles and vehicle-based levels. As players progress, they will be allowed the option of continuing to use a single saber with all three styles or opting for duel sabers, one in each hand, or a "staff" styled saber with a blade on each end of the hilt, identical to Darth Maul's.

Instead of moving linearly from one level to the next, the player chooses from a selection of different missions. Not all missions need to be completed to finish the game. Quietmartialartist (talk) 03:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To create your own sandbox, create User:Quietmartialartist/Sandbox and start using it for drafts and stuff. Simple as that. I used to just operate with one Sandbox page, but in order to keep my drafts of the two different articles I'm working on separate I split my Sandbox into User:UnaLaguna/Sandbox, User:UnaLaguna/Sandbox/Sandbox01 and User:UnaLaguna/Sandbox/Sandbox02. However, if you're only working on one article then there's little need for more than one Sandbox page.

Regarding the single player content, I think it's great start: it's good English, and definitely source-able. I would, however, say that there is little need to list each saber colour, Force power (I think the only stuff notable enough to mention is that there are some new ones in addition to the JO ones, and that players can choose them and upgrade them as they progress through the game) and race/gender (to get around your problem of not playing a male Zabrak, say that not all combinations of gender and race are possible). Likewise, it's a good idea to mention there are a couple of new weapons in addition to the original ones from JO, but to give all the details makes it quite difficult to read through for the non-player. In short, avoid inserting small details where possible.

On a side note, some people like to add citations in as they're going along, some when they've finished writing the main body of text. Whichever you do is completely up to you, but I'd suggest adding the citations before inserting it into the article. Regardless, keep up the good work! Una Laguna^Talk 10:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for sabers, I think it's worth mention because in JO you can only change your saber color with codes and many of these colors were not seen in the original movies. As for force powers, many of them were in JO, but just in multi-player. Without a description why list powers at all? How's a non-player supposed to know the difference between force absorb and force protect? I agree that your ability to upgrade them as you progress should be mentioned.

And when you say that not all combinations of gender and race are possible, for me, the first question that comes to mind is: Well then what options are alloted to you? I concede to your point that specifically stating two new weapons shouldn't be important overall and I agree that insignificant details should be avoided. Quietmartialartist (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to list Force powers, we don't need to list saber colours, we don't need to tell them which exact combinations of gender and player are available for the same reason we don't need to list the new guns available. These are relatively minor details in comparison to, say, how the levels of the game are structured. Say there's a choice of saber colours, say there's a load of Force powers which can be selected and upgraded throughout the game. Say those things here, but not what they specifically are (e.g. say "The player chooses their saber color" instead of "The player chooses a saber color from blue, green, yellow, orange or red"), and we've done our job writing an encyclopedia article. If the reader then decides he wants to know more about a certain subject (such as the different possible combinations of gender and race), then they can find out those extra details easily enough by Googling or looking on a game guide wiki. Una Laguna^Talk 21:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or we could simply make it easy for the reader and include the information here... And before you start quoting Wiki-policies (not-game guide, etc), let's take a look at a random popular game I thought to look up: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Mass_Effect

Examine the depth of detail it goes into. Substitute Force Powers for "Tech Abilities", and then compare those, weapons and character classes with what we've got on this article. A lot more detail and information than the six, give or take, available options I'm suggesting including. That article, may I point out, is rated B class. A notch above this one, so let's go by example, shall we? Quietmartialartist (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't look for precedents in anything except Good or Featured articles, even Good articles can have flaws. As the Mass Effect article is only rated B it means it could use some cleaning up. There's a guideline that specifically states it's not important to list every aspect of a game. If you'd like an example, take a look at BioShock, which I chose as an example because it is a Featured Article and also the game has a diverse quantity of weapons that can be customised. The article does not go into fine detail about every type of weapon and their customisation. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's better to have too much information than too little, yes? That way it can be slimmed down. As it is, I'm just trying to think of important info to add to the article. Quietmartialartist (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Development and Critical Reception

Great works on these sections, guys. The article is looking much better. Quietmartialartist (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) I think the Gameplay and Story sections need a bit of work, but this article is pretty close to getting upgraded to B-class. Una Laguna^Talk 20:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-Player Section

Should another slot be added so that the very eager Diamondback may have have a screenshot of his own in said section? Quietmartialartist (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only one multiplayer screenshot should be in the section, and it shouldn't have any mods or third party features/skins in it so to avoid any confusion. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then how do I go about locking it so that Diamondback can no longer revert the image? Clearly this is an ego thing on his part: first he switched my screenshot with about three different inappropriate versions (i.e. mods, foreign language, etc.), and now he's replacing my screenshot of SJ killing Diamondback with Diamondback killing SJ. It's not really a "better" image, just one where he is not shown dieing. Quietmartialartist (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the picture he is attempting to add now has a model with a modified skin. Quietmartialartist (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Diamond is being more disruptive than anything else. I left a message on their talk page asking him to come here and justify his edits. This whole "replacing X killing Y with Y killing X" business could be resolved by uploading an image of a multiplayer game with bots rather than one with real people. Una Laguna^Talk 06:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: looking at the edit history of the image, Diamond could be blocked for breaching WP:3RR. Una Laguna^Talk 06:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the picture to one with no names but still shows plenty of gameplay elements. Quietmartialartist (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that picture should be fine. Nice, clean and uncluttered. I've expanded the fair use rationale you put there. Una Laguna^Talk 17:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quake III Engine modifications

The present lede suggests that That game added third-person viewing to the Quake III engine, but this was in the original engine. Quake III's intro-demo shows in-game footage from a third person perspective. This can be enabled by setting the variable cg_thirdPerson [1].

Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting closer to GA

I've recently cleaned up the Single player, Plot and Multiplayer sections and added a bunch more citations. I think we're getting closer to GA quality and we just need a push to get it there. Are there any omissions or details that deserve to be covered in more detail? Any sentences that stand out as wrong or awkward? Anything that still needs a source? Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third party add ins

I removed a section about Movie Battles from the gameplay section (forgot to log in) This page is about Jedi Academy, mods and add ins can have their own pages. Lets not go back to the old page that had tens of mods listed under there.

There is a snowball effect here to watch out for: Who decides what "mod" can be added and what mod can't? If mod x can be included, why not map x? Model x?

And certainly not least, there is a high degree of immaturity among the Jedi Academy community, and placing mods in this page is a lightning rod for vandalism.

If there must be a section for third party entries, it should be a single section with no text that links to other wiki pages. Each modification has too many sides to be mentioned effectively in a small paragraph anyway, and will at least move a prime vandal target to a separate area that can be locked as needed.

I searched through the revision history and although the earlier "wall of mods" entries were lost, I see that there was a mod link section at one point. Any particular reason this was removed to return to the paragraph per mod?

Disclosure: This is my first "important" wiki update. I am a developer of a JKA game mod. My mod was added by another user, and constantly vandalised. Shortly after one of my repairs, all mod sections were removed citing reasons similar to what I have posted. I agreed with the removal.

RoboPhred (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't 100% agree with you on this. I won't revert your edit, because I'm not a fan of edit wars and I'd rather settle this on the talk page first.

First off I disagree with your use of the word "advertising". Read WP:ADVERT and you'll see that what you removed is not advertising. It merely presents facts - in no way does it try to sell Movie Battles.

Who decides what "mod" can be added and what mod can't? If mod x can be included, why not map x? Model x?

Check out WP:N. We can talk about Movie Battles because it's been referred to in multiple reliable sources. That makes Movie Battles worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia.

...placing mods in this page is a lightning rod for vandalism.

So you're saying we can't include certain content because it might be vandalised? Three points:

If vandalism was a problem we could get the page protected.
The Jedi Academy and Movie Battles pages have been on my watchlist for many months and I have seen no evidence to suggest these articles are subject to more vandalism than other articles.
If the article is vandalised, just revert it. Simple as that.

Each modification has too many sides to be mentioned effectively in a small paragraph anyway...

That's why a brief paragraph is used to summarise the mod, and a link provided to the main article on Movie Battles.

I searched through the revision history and although the earlier "wall of mods" entries were lost, I see that there was a mod link section at one point. Any particular reason this was removed to return to the paragraph per mod?

WP:N again. Most mods fail to pass Wikipedia's notability criteria. Movie Battles does pass.

I hope this clarifies things for you. Una Laguna^Talk 07:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree with the removal of the section. This is incorrect application of WP:ADVERT and the reasons are far from reasons we use to remove information (especially being a vandal target, otherwise we'd have no George W. Bush or Barack Obama). Besides, I've never seen any vandals specifically targetting the section or page. The modification has received coverage in the mainstream press and so that is why it is included. It is the inclusion criteria for this page and any mod that receives the same attention can be placed on this page. As you say you're also a mod developer, you have a conflict of interest in removing the other mod from a page. I suggest the section be put back in. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are we sure there were plenty of sources to verify the MB mod's notability? If we are, there shouldn't be a problem reverting the edit, but I don't recall that particular section being overly well sourced though. --PenguinCopter (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(old version) It was reasonably sourced for the amount of content in the section. The sources were a dedicated section on Gamesradar,[2] and the bulk of an article on Sky.com.[3] The media coverage of the mod, especially the Sky article which is a non-gaming website, makes it an aspect of Jedi Academy worth noting. When tidying up the article before the GA Review I did try to find sources for other mods, in particular the Jedi Academy: Dark Forces total conversion as that's popular. Unfortunately there's nothing out there that would qualify as a reliable source so it's not like we were singling out a single modification for a reason. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the section based on the assertions here that it is valid. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page really needs to mention the modifications that are available. For many the game doesn't start until they have modded the hell out of it. As no one seems to be able to decide how to talk about mods then how about this. Write about the different ways that the game can be modified. Have another page that has a list of the post popular mods. Sorted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.56.237 (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the last paragraph of the multiplayer section - Movie Battles has been mentioned as it is notable according to Wikipedia policy. There are no other mods which have received enough media coverage to make them notable for inclusion on Wikipedia.

Sorry, but a page dedicated to simply listing mods would not be appropriate: as I just mentioned, the vast majority of mods are not notable, and Wikipedia is not a game guide. If people want to find out which mods are worth having, they should look at a website dedicated to JA modding, not an encyclopedia article intended to give an overview of the subject matter. Una Laguna^Talk 10:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is the plot section too detailed?

It seems really extensive, at least in relation to other game, movie, TV, etc., articles. I feel bad asking if someone's hard work is to be edited down, but it doesn't seem in line with Wikipedia. Charlesmartin82 (talk) 08:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow somebody has already edited it down quite a lot, I've had an un-refreshed page open in my browser too long, sorry! Charlesmartin82 (talk) 08:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charlesmartin82, it could probably still do with some trimming. The recommended length for VG plots is 700 words. Personally, I find that a bit arbitrary, but it's a decent guide. This article is currently 900+, so it should be possible to tighten it. As for undoing or altering other people's work - that's the nature of Wikipedia. Remember, no one will find fault in someone being bold, so feel free to edit as you wish. Bertaut (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]