This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. The result of the debate was No consensus. Exiled Jedi (talk) 04:04, February 17, 2017 (UTC)
As discussed here:
Someone askedPablo Hidalgo on Twitter "When will the galaxy map be updated for Canon as it is now? I have the old Stars Wars The Essential Atlas." His answer was: "Updated in what way? We use the same map" Jason Fry later retweeted this, commenting: "I cannot RT this enough. Most common StarWars question I get. We. Use. The. Same. Map." In light of this, shouldn't we regard the placements and coordinates given in The Essential Atlas as valid unless they're contradicted by a new canon source?
According to Pablo Hidalgo and Jason Fry, map placements provided by The Essential Atlas and its Online Companion are considered canon. For our purposes, however, this only applies to already canon locations (i.e. no article for Had Abbadon system/Canon should be created unless it is mentioned in a canon source or Had Abbadon itself becomes canon). In addition, when contradictions arise, the newest canon source shall take precedence over The Essential Atlas and its Online Companion until the matter can be clarified by an official source.
Update: Recently, Pablo Hidalgo said "We're not changing the map. So every dot in legends is pretty much there in canon (except maybe Zonoma Sekot)." In addition, earlier in the same thread, he said this in regards to the "Where in the Galaxy" articles: "our deluxe navicomputer known as @jasoncfry vouches for the maps, so I'll trust him." - AV-6R7Crew Pit 00:01, February 2, 2017 (UTC)
Pablo confirmed it again today: "We're not changing the map. So every dot in legends is pretty much there in canon (except maybe Zonoma Sekot)."--Lelal Mekha(Audience Room) 08:57, February 1, 2017 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of including information that could be contradicted one day. Pablo also doesn't like it when we take his tweets and try to make canon out of them. The way I see it, we don't get any value out of using The Essential Atlas maps to add grid coordinates and regional placements to canon articles. It's a well-intended idea, but to me it's an editor-centric desire to add as much info as possible and extrapolate canon out of tweets. There is no harm in waiting for canon sources to say where a planet is located. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 23:09, February 1, 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been thinking on this one for a while, and with recent comments made now by Brandon and AV-6R7, along with Pablo's tweets, I'm convinced that we're better off playing this one safe. I agree with Brandon that the idea behind this is really rooted in editor-centric obsessive compulsiveness, which isn't a good starting point for creating policy. The way I interpret these tweets from Pablo and Fry is that they're using the same map they created for the Atlas as a reference for new-canon material, just like anything else from the Expanded Universe, but that they have the authority to ignore it as they see fit – we already have at least two examples of this in Phindar and Lasat, as AV-6R7 notes below. Yes, they're using the same map, but that also comes with the unstated caveat that nothing is necessarily set in stone until it appears in new-canon material, such as the article "Where in the Galaxy Are the Worlds of Rogue One?" Pablo has said on multiple occasions not to use his tweets as canon, so why try to force this by extrapolating Atlas material to canon before the Story Group does officially? I'm much more comfortable with waiting for canon sources to be released. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 23:50, February 1, 2017 (UTC)
Could you please provide the wording for the rule you wish to add? Right now the vote has zero specifics, which makes the vote like signing a blank check.--Exiled Jedi (talk) 00:20, February 1, 2017 (UTC)
This should all be spelled out in the proposal above. Before the vote is started, a CT needs to have a clear proposal of the rule, where it needs to be added, and what articles it is going to affect. As a side note, when you make changes to a proposal you need to notify everyone who voted on it about the changes.--Exiled Jedi (talk) 00:37, February 1, 2017 (UTC)
I've added a more specific rule to the proposal, which can be changed as necessary. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 00:47, February 1, 2017 (UTC)
What policy are you proposing that this be added to, and where in that policy should it be added? - Brandon Rhea(talk) 00:55, February 1, 2017 (UTC)
I'd suggest that this be amended to Wookieepedia:Canon policy, specifically "What is considered official canon?" or "Are any elements of the Expanded Universe still canon?". - AV-6R7Crew Pit 00:59, February 1, 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Can you add that to the intro text too? - Brandon Rhea(talk) 01:03, February 1, 2017 (UTC)
I also wanted to add that I think this rule should work fine, it is very similar to what we are doing with Legends-turned-canon species, planets and ship models after Leland Chee's this tweetAnilSerifoglu (talk) 01:42, February 1, 2017 (UTC)
I believe this tweet from Pablo may be some use here --Lewisr (talk) 21:25, February 1, 2017 (UTC)
As I read through and consider this proposal, the wall of text and incorrect use of quotations has left me a little confused in trying to decipher everything that's being said here. So I've taken the liberty of formatting the original presentation to more clearly call out quoted passages and the actual policy clause being proposed. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:10, February 1, 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning that up; I'll work on integrating that Tweet, Lewisr. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 22:15, February 1, 2017 (UTC)
My issue with this proposal lies more in the practicality and presentation of this proposed policy clause being added to the Canon policy page than in its actual substance. As the original author of that Canon policy page, I can say that the bold portion of this proposal does not belong in the "What is considered official canon?" section as presented. That section is designed for short-example snippets that readers can quickly read, digest, and move on with. This paragraph that you've written is long, rambling, and ponderous. The better way to do this is to add a new bullet point to that Canon page section reading, "Map and grid coordinates provided by The Essential Atlas and its Online Companion. Please see below for further details." And then add a more detailed explanation of what this means in the "What about...?" section (possibly with a new subsection). I would only ask that this proposal leave leeway for the administration to revise the proposed policy clause in bold for readability and prose, without changing its meaning, as need be when implementing it to the Canon policy page.
That being said, the substantive portion of this proposed clause that I do find questionable is this last line, "In addition, when contradictions arise, the newest canon source shall take precedence over The Essential Atlas and its Online Companion until the matter can be clarified by an official source." Where are you taking this from? Is this indicative of how contradictions in new canon are handled overall by the Story Group? It concerns me that by implementing this single line we're effectively creating a precedent for how we handle potential new-canon contradictions, when I'm not sure this is the correct way to do this or if it's even supported officially by the Story Group. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:50, February 1, 2017 (UTC)
As I said, the legalese can be changed as necessary. If you believe that the Administration should revise the final version, then so be it. As for the section you take issue with, the only reason I included it was because contradictions have already arose between the Atlas and other canon sources. For example, Legends places Phindar in the Demetras sector, while canon places it in the Mandalore sector. Another example of this would be Lasan. I'm open to suggestions on how this could be revised, or whether or not it should be excised entirety. Also, what is you opinion on integrating the above Hidaglo quote? - AV-6R7Crew Pit 23:03, February 1, 2017 (UTC)
As far as implementing his latest Tweet, you could just throw it in at the bottom of the proposal and say. "Update: Pablo has recently said this...etc." Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 23:15, February 1, 2017 (UTC)
Leland's tweet (linked to above) says: "Fair to assume species names are the same unless you hear otherwise. Same goes for planets. And ship models." So the Story Group is essentially operating based on, "We're not changing these types of things from Legends unless we have a story reason to." So if this policy passes, we'd be following that line of thinking in saying that names are the same unless another, canonical source says otherwise.
But that, admittedly, is why I haven't been involved in this discussion. Is it safe to do this? Probably, but I'm also somewhat ehhh on the idea because it could be contradicted one day. If there was value in adding grid coordinates and placements to canon pages (like there's some value in using species names to create articles), then I'd be more on board. But the question I keep coming back to with this proposal and discussion is this: are we actually adding any value to the pages by using this information, or are we just satisfying an editor-centric desire to gobble up information and add as much of it as possible? I tend to think it's the latter tbh. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 22:58, February 1, 2017 (UTC)
I understand your line of thinking, but, in my opinion, this is a different beast. As well as Pablo confirming that most positions are identical, Jason has said the Online Companion will be updated with information on worlds from canon sources. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 23:06, February 1, 2017 (UTC)
I decided to oppose this proposal. In regards to Pablo's confirmation, note the second sentence of my vote as well. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 23:09, February 1, 2017 (UTC)
Jason Fry says that he will be updating the Online Companion; this, coupled with the facts that Pablo has said he trusts Jason's placements and that the maps are pretty much canon already, shows that the system established by The Essential Atlas is still being used internally. It's not as if this could be misconstrued as authorization to create anything that appears on said maps, only things that have been confirmed as canon in other sources. The Online Companion is a living resource that Lucasfilm intends to update with information from the new canon. Contradictions can be addressed; that's what the email's for. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 14:39, February 2, 2017 (UTC)