Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH:Essential Atlas placements still valid until proven otherwise
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. Advanced Jedi Training Droid 6 (Talk to my master) 01:00, March 3, 2017 (UTC)
Someone asked Pablo 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? --Lelal Mekha 
(Audience Room) 22:29, December 23, 2016 (UTC)
- Thats how I interpreted it. Same could probably be said for the Online stuff. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 00:04, December 24, 2016 (UTC)
- Makes sense given that the FFG map is pretty much a complete match coordinate wise. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:53, December 24, 2016 (UTC)
- Should I start a CT? --Lelal Mekha
(Audience Room) 21:10, January 3, 2017 (UTC)
- That'd probably be the best course of action. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 02:35, January 6, 2017 (UTC)
- Just wanted to bump this, since it's important. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 20:36, January 19, 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, it definitely is important. However, we absolutely need to hear more opinions... By the way, grid coordinates have been mentioned in Rogue One Rebel Dossier. --Lelal Mekha
(Audience Room) 20:39, January 19, 2017 (UTC)
- The above interpretation seems reasonable to me. Those placements and coordinates would have to be carefully referenced, of course. Imperators II(Talk) 07:44, January 20, 2017 (UTC)
- I've been corresponding with Jason Fry recently, proving updates for some TCW-era stuff (i.e. the Kaliida Shoals systems isn't a thing) and informing him of some sector placements from FFG stuff. He said he eventually plans to update the OC with canon stuff. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 04:40, January 26, 2017 (UTC)
- A little off topic but he hasn't indicated anything about canonicity of FFG has he? Ayrehead02 (talk) 12:35, January 26, 2017 (UTC)
- I've been corresponding with Jason Fry recently, proving updates for some TCW-era stuff (i.e. the Kaliida Shoals systems isn't a thing) and informing him of some sector placements from FFG stuff. He said he eventually plans to update the OC with canon stuff. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 04:40, January 26, 2017 (UTC)
- I think we should definitely go through with it. -- Dr. Porter
(Talk|Contribs) 05:46, January 27, 2017 (UTC)
- Does this sort of thing need to go through the CT, or, since Pablo has essentially said the placements are still valid, go through with it? There are some inconsistencies (Legends puts Phindar in the Demetras sector, while canon puts it in the Mandalore sector, for example), though we could keep the Online Companion team appraised of these as we come across them using this email: essential.atlas@gmail.com - AV-6R7Crew Pit 05:55, January 27, 2017 (UTC)
- It seems like a pretty explicit statement so I can't think of anything that we aren't considering. However, I've often made bad decisions because I didn't ask others, so I wouldn't necessarily be against starting a CT. It will garner more participation, and if nothing else, act as a record. -- Dr. Porter (Talk|Contribs) 07:50, January 27, 2017 (UTC)
- It seems like a pretty explicit statement so I can't think of anything that we aren't considering. However, I've often made bad decisions because I didn't ask others, so I wouldn't necessarily be against starting a CT. It will garner more participation, and if nothing else, act as a record. -- Dr. Porter
- Does this sort of thing need to go through the CT, or, since Pablo has essentially said the placements are still valid, go through with it? There are some inconsistencies (Legends puts Phindar in the Demetras sector, while canon puts it in the Mandalore sector, for example), though we could keep the Online Companion team appraised of these as we come across them using this email: essential.atlas@gmail.com - AV-6R7Crew Pit 05:55, January 27, 2017 (UTC)
- The above interpretation seems reasonable to me. Those placements and coordinates would have to be carefully referenced, of course. Imperators II(Talk) 07:44, January 20, 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, it definitely is important. However, we absolutely need to hear more opinions... By the way, grid coordinates have been mentioned in Rogue One Rebel Dossier. --Lelal Mekha
- Just wanted to bump this, since it's important. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 20:36, January 19, 2017 (UTC)
- That'd probably be the best course of action. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 02:35, January 6, 2017 (UTC)
- Should I start a CT? --Lelal Mekha
- Makes sense given that the FFG map is pretty much a complete match coordinate wise. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:53, December 24, 2016 (UTC)
- This somewhat relates to this topic so I'll put this here: how should we treat StarWars.com articles like this (published today) and this placing the new worlds of Rogue One and The Force Awakens in the The Essential Atlas's map, as well as the sectors they're located in, information not given in the visual guides? Cevan (talk) 21:43, January 31, 2017 (UTC)
- A special thanks was given to Jason Fry in the credits for helping place them, so I'd say they're valid. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 21:52, January 31, 2017 (UTC)
- It's worth noting Fry isn't mentioned in the TFA article, however I think it's safe to treat the information there the same as the RO one. How should we treat the extra information presented in those articles, though? Should we just stick with things like the planet's sector and location in the galaxy and leave it at that? There's quite a bit mentioned there that has yet to be spoken of in a firmly canon source. Cevan (talk) 22:01, January 31, 2017 (UTC)
- The author has previously contributed to Star Wars: Build the Millennium Falcon; take that for what you will. I'd say that sector placement, trade route, etc. that the planets sit on are canon, but mentions of worlds like Kinyen appear to be for context only. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 22:22, January 31, 2017 (UTC)
- It's worth noting Fry isn't mentioned in the TFA article, however I think it's safe to treat the information there the same as the RO one. How should we treat the extra information presented in those articles, though? Should we just stick with things like the planet's sector and location in the galaxy and leave it at that? There's quite a bit mentioned there that has yet to be spoken of in a firmly canon source. Cevan
- A special thanks was given to Jason Fry in the credits for helping place them, so I'd say they're valid. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 21:52, January 31, 2017 (UTC)
- I think these articles further prove, even if we didn't have a confirmation from Pablo Hidalgo, that they use the same map. The time for consensus has come. Vote now (or, rather, when we have a CT)! - AV-6R7Crew Pit 22:58, January 31, 2017 (UTC)
- Here's the CT: Forum:CT:Essential Atlas placements still valid until proven otherwise. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 23:15, January 31, 2017 (UTC)
