With the advent of official canon, the Mandalorians have changed quite a bit compared to their Legends counterparts. In Legends we know that Mandalorians are a series of different kinds of organizations wrapped within the same basic culture. It therefore has a page called Mandalorian. With official canon, however, the term Mandalorian now appears to refer to citizens of the planet Mandalore. There are many similarities between canon and Legends Mandalorians in that they have historically been a warrior culture, but canon ties them to a specific planet rather than being a group of nomadic warriors.
I'm posting this because there is one of two ways that we could document the Mandalorians in new canon. Those are:
- Create Mandalorian/Canon. Just like Legends, Mandalorians can have their own page outlining their history and their culture. Pretty straight-forward.
- Document everything, including culture, on Mandalore/Canon. Given that canon ties the Mandalorians to the planet Mandalore, this would add their culture to the planet page, rather than having it in a separate article. That is because the term Mandalorian now seems to apply to the people of that planet. Note: individual Mandalorian groups with known canon names, such as Death Watch and New Mandalorians, would still retain their own separate articles. There just wouldn't be a page called Mandalorian/Canon.
My preference would be #2. Going only by canon, having a page called Mandalorian/Canon would make as much sense as a page called Alderaanian/Canon, since pages like that are not created. So I'm looking for your thoughts—which of those two options would you go with, or do you have another idea? - Brandon Rhea(talk) 23:10, June 21, 2014 (UTC)
- Option 2 makes more sense to me, and is consistent with existing formatting. Besides that, the Mandalorian history of Disney canon is considerably simpler and more streamlined than it was in the EU. In the Disneyverse, it's pretty much just 'warrior culture in the nebulous unexplained past, New Mandalorians into the Clone Wars, then Maul + return of Death Watch.' That's all. No need to overcomplicate page creation just for that. — DigiFluid(Whine here) 00:58, June 22, 2014 (UTC)
- I too would agree with option 2. "Mandalorian", in the canon sense, is nothing more than a demonym, and we do not create articles for simple demonyms.
Master Jonathan Council Chambers 01:03 UTC Sun June 22, 2014 - Thanks for the feedback. I've removed all links to Mandalorian/Canon that I could find in articles, replacing most of them (where appropriate) with a link to Mandalore/Canon. It's somehow linked to on Mandalorian per Special:WhatLinksHere/Mandalorian/Canon but I don't know how (I'm assuming it has something to do with the eras template). Anyone think it would be worth creating Mandalorian/Canon as a redirect to Mandalore/Canon for if people link to it, and so they don't try to create it? - Brandon Rhea(talk) 21:16, June 22, 2014 (UTC)
- All Legends titles generate a link to [[{{PAGENAME}}/Canon]]. See for example Special:WhatLinksHere/Dardan/Canon. The cause is that {{Eras}} calls #ifexist on the /Canon subpage, and #ifexist generates a link in the link table. From my understanding, this is the intended behavior, so as to remind anyone trying to orphan that title that it is being referred to in the #ifexist function. As for creating a redirect, I'd lean toward simply locking the title from creation. That solves the second issue you mentioned, and makes the error of the first issue more obvious by showing an ugly redlink instead of a seemingly-correct-but-actually-incorrect blue link.
Master Jonathan Council Chambers 21:25 UTC Sun June 22, 2014
- All Legends titles generate a link to [[{{PAGENAME}}/Canon]]. See for example Special:WhatLinksHere/Dardan/Canon. The cause is that {{Eras}} calls #ifexist on the /Canon subpage, and #ifexist generates a link in the link table. From my understanding, this is the intended behavior, so as to remind anyone trying to orphan that title that it is being referred to in the #ifexist function. As for creating a redirect, I'd lean toward simply locking the title from creation. That solves the second issue you mentioned, and makes the error of the first issue more obvious by showing an ugly redlink instead of a seemingly-correct-but-actually-incorrect blue link.
- Thanks for the feedback. I've removed all links to Mandalorian/Canon that I could find in articles, replacing most of them (where appropriate) with a link to Mandalore/Canon. It's somehow linked to on Mandalorian per Special:WhatLinksHere/Mandalorian/Canon but I don't know how (I'm assuming it has something to do with the eras template). Anyone think it would be worth creating Mandalorian/Canon as a redirect to Mandalore/Canon for if people link to it, and so they don't try to create it? - Brandon Rhea(talk) 21:16, June 22, 2014 (UTC)
- What about the planets that host separate cultures? "The Naboo" are not all the sentient inhabitants of Naboo; that term designate a specific culture, which shares its planet with the Gungans—"You and the Naboo form a symbiont circle." However, the Gungans would still have their own article because they're a species, which mean we wouldn't describe them in great detail in their planet's article. Wouldn't that create an unfortunate dissymmetry? --Lelal Mekha (Audience Room) 21:32, July 10, 2014 (UTC)