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) 07:00, November 22, 2016 (UTC)
I'll get straight to the point.
The supposed Galactic coordinates for the planet "Voss" (S-6) do not actually have the planet there, and is instead flooded by other planets, making the addition of Voss to the image basically impossible.
I propose that us, the community, retcon this and make Voss' new position S-7, which has a ton of open space and, honestly, I think it'd look pretty dope there.
Fiddlesticks25 (talk) 23:33, October 22, 2016 (UTC)Fiddlesticks25
Hey. Wookieepedia only documents licensed Star Wars information. It doesn't create it or change it. If the source says that Voss is in S-6, then that's what we need to go with. It's not up to us to decide a source is wrong or to change information to be more in line with our assumptions and preferences. I hope that clears things up. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 23:42, October 22, 2016 (UTC)
It's Fiddle again, and could anybody link me to any sources that ACTUALLY have any reliable info on Voss' position? Closest I can get is the in-game Galaxy map that puts Voss roughly in the ballpark of S-5-8, so, as far as I know, I have no clue why some weaboo decided that S-6 is where Voss is.
Find me some evidence and I'll drop it.
Fiddlesticks25 (talk) 00:47, October 23, 2016 (UTC)Fiddlesticks25
The source is Star Wars: The Essential Atlas Online Companion on StarWars.com, which is a fairly reliable source given that it's the official Star Wars website. Keep in mind, those map areas represent MASSIVE areas of space. Just because there are lots of other planets in it doesn't mean that Voss can't also be in it. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 00:55, October 23, 2016 (UTC)
As an addendum, it's specifically page 116 of the Atlas appendix that places Voss at S-6. Also, Fiddle, I would encourage you to use more respectful language here on our site. Derogatory terms like "weaboo"—regardless of whom they're used toward—can be constituted as personal attacks, which themselves are grounds for being blocked from editing. It's fine if you don't agree with what a licensed source says, but our site still needs to utilize correct and up-to-date information. Thank you for your cooperation. CC7567(talk) 00:58, October 23, 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Brandon! I've been looking for something like this, but I never actually found one! Thanks for telling me about the book.
Fiddlesticks25 (talk) 01:48, October 23, 2016 (UTC)Fiddlesticks25