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 use accurate fan maps, as on Kathol Sector. —Silly Dan _(talk) 21:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Springing primarily out of the 2/28/06 meeting, but having popped up several times in the past, is the debate over the use of fanmade or fan-altered images on the site. This track is intended to rule on the use of one image in particular: the galactic map(s) from Nav-computer.com (which were recently released for our use by their creator). Supporters say that maps don't fall under the jurisdiction of fan art, since they're merely compilations of official data, while opponents say that no image of any kind not obtained directly from an official source should be used.

While a decision on these images could affect similar debates over altered official images, and even pure fan art itself, please limit debate on this page solely to use of these maps. CooperTFN 04:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Fan-made MapsEdit

Use themEdit

1. CooperTFN 04:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
2. RMF 04:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Riffsyphon1024 04:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC) And after all the waiting we went through too.
4. Ozzel 04:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
5. —Darth Culator (talk) 04:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
6. Erl 13:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
7. Breathesgelatin 09:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Thanos6 21:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Adamwankenobi 22:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC) If they are ensured to have been made by reliable sources. The policy would have to be strict. Not just any old maps should be uploaded.
10. --Eyrezer 23:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Blue-one 11:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
12. I agree with Adamwankenobi. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
13. Use 'em. - Finlayson 18:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
14. Volemlock 19:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
15. SFH 00:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
16. BothanElitethe galactic map found in the New Essential Chronology is, wihle only contaning 150 some planets, is very accurate and official. It is made using previous maps and supposedly George Luca's consent on some areas. We could just scan that.
17. For the maps sake.Bonko 18:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
18. Per Adamwankenobi. —Mirlen 12:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
19. Same as above. -- Snoop 12:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
20. Kuralyov 17:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
21. They should be used so long as they are factual - TopAce 19:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't use themEdit

1. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 05:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Yrfeloran 06:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Kwenn 16:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
4. We should use the map from the New Essential Chronology, it was licenced by LFL, and thats as official as it gets. No fan maps. Timifer 00:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Don't use them, but there's nothing to prevent users from including the maps on their user pages. KEJ 12:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Don't see why maps should be exempt from our strict rules against using fanart. --Azizlight 13:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

• I've been debating this with Jay for the last two hours, so I'll try to make my point quickly. This entire site is fanon. No text article is 100% canon; there are always going to be little interpretations the author is forced to make that could be wrong, or ever actual canon information that is later contradicted. Our goal should simply be the highest degree of accuracy possible, and I believe that the maps in question, if you were to look at them in terms of mathematical accuracy, are at least as reliable as some of our larger articles. If an officially-produced map existed that was as comprehensive as the NC maps, we'd naturally use it instead, but it doesn't, so we should be using the best map available. Who actually did the grunt work is irrelevant. CooperTFN 04:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Maps, yes. Fan-edited images, sometimes. Original artwork, no. —Darth Culator (talk) 04:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I second this. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Right...explanation :) If the transciption of the meeting was up I wouldn't need to but here goes. Although we have very detailed fanart for a character, and a ship (past history had it with a picture), which does indeed conform perfectly to what it should look like canonically, it has not been allowed to be used. I don't see why this should be any different for maps, as the ones under discussion as just as much fanart. Although the information on them is very accurate, the images themselves are not canon in any way. I do believe, however, that we should have them as external links as I do very much like the maps myself. When the log gets put up my argument will make at least a little more sense, as this doesn't seem to be getting my point over properly. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 05:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I just think we should use them only if there are no canon maps available. Even if canon maps are incomplete, we should always use them preferentially. Yrfeloran 06:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Having been burned by fanon before, I'm somewhat leery of this. On the other hand, the fan made maps amount to little more than a compliation of the official Essential Guide and NJO maps, and so can be used.--Erl 00:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
      • With the Article Naming debate coming to a close, it'd be nice if we could get a few more votes on this and start wrapping it up as well. A nice example of the maps being incorporated into the site can already be seen here. CooperTFN 21:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I can only support this if none of the the maps' content is fanon.Sith Lord Remi 03:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• The fan made maps in use are not fanon, don't worry.--Erl 15:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Surely the only way to gauge if a map is fanon or not is if we have canon to compare it with. And if we have canon maps for comparison, they should be used instead. Otherwise, how could the creator plot an accurate map with no official source? - Kwenn 16:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Because of completion. Most official maps (deliberately?) omit large sections of the galaxy or individual planets. The fan compillations, especially those found at nav-computer.com, include all data found on any map ever--Erl 18:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• the galactic map found in the New Essential Chronology is, wihle only contaning 150 some planets, is very accurate and official. I would say it could be used to great use, as a page titled "general galactic info" sorta thing.
• Carty has made it his mission to be complete and accurate, even if it means him recreating existing maps dot for dot, which I have seen him do. Tapani is one good example, since using just data from novels would be extremely complicated to put together and a map would have to exist beforehand. Other maps that he might recreate might not be as available as his maps are and might have additional copyright issues (though that shouldn't be a problem), and removing his maps hurts the completeness and niceness (if that's a word) of the articles that we have now. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • However, he does explain explicitly on his site that he's just "made up" the location of some of the dots, and they're coloured differently to other, officially placed dots. Though this is clear on his own site, there is no mention of it at all on ours and so people may not know anything about it. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Should we add a disclaimer with that? I should note that nothing will be perfect but you could say they are within a 90 percent accuracy with those planets that he questions. It's always a work in progress that he will update and fix and we should follow suit whenever. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
      • There needs to be some type of disclaimer. Something like the non-canon title, canon material, i.e. {conjecture}. -Finlayson 00:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
        • It's conjectural what Carty does because he uses the sources for correct placement of those planets and sectors, however because the maps themselves were not licensed, its not completely canon either, but then they are the most detailed around, and thus this issue gets sticky again. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• To those saying we use the NEC map, it is already scanned (by me, btw), here -- Snoop 12:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Sometimes arguments about fanon images get strange. We accept screencaps from modified games that is imposible to get from the original, but we do not accept a graphical compilation of known facts? If I were to transcribe his map into a gigantic ASCII-art table, would that be acceptable, as it would be a written compilation of fact (what we do here) instead of a graphical "fanart"? Charlii 12:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a good point about graphical compilation of facts. Only thing is a graphical thing is not near as easy to edit and correct as text. - Finlayson 22:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)