Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/Interpreting The Essential Atlas
I think that quote is enough to justify inclusion of any info based on the maps alone. MauserComlink 03:34, December 26, 2009 (UTC)
No, Mauser. That quote refers to dozen or so connections referred to in the blog, not to anything other than that. Ie, Scarlucif is highlighted on the map on 161 to represent Doc's planet, but the Atlas doesn't specifically identify it as that. Using that quote for anything else related to the maps is taking it out of context. --Eyrezer 03:39, December 26, 2009 (UTC)
Alright, then how about that: Stating that the planet NoName was part of/conquered by the Great Gungan Empire simply because it's within its boundaries on the map is incorrect, because in GFFA too often planets tend to be simply overlooked by various governments due to their insignificance. However, if our NoName appears at the end of the line/arrow at map like Mandalorian Wars or Thrawn Campaign, is is safe to assume that a battle indeed took place on/over it. MauserComlink 03:48, December 26, 2009 (UTC)
My take would tend to be that if the planet appears on the map, it is safe to comment on it, but if it doesn't, then we shouldn't (unless of course some other source provides the info). --Eyrezer 03:53, December 26, 2009 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense too. MauserComlink 04:07, December 26, 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe in a case-by-case basis for determining whether planets fall into one field or the either or both. Thus continues the long process of determining what conflicts with each other. In regards to the Galactic Explorations map, it is only a 2D map. We have yet to see (other than the map given for Moddell sector) a map that covers the length of the galaxy on its side. Did we ever think that Tatooine and Geonosis were on the same level of galactic plane, even as they are separated by a parsec? Since that might be the case with any two planets in the galaxy, explorations of the galaxy would have to search high and low, not just what was right in front of them. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:39, December 26, 2009 (UTC)
  • I think Eyrezer has more or less answered his own question in how we should handle this. The key word in all of this is exactly how he described it: "extrapolation." If a planet isn't specifically mentioned as being part of some kind of galactic event, we should not infer it is just because the planet's region happens to fall into some colored portion of a map. A weaselly way to word this in an article would be to say something like, "Planet A's galactic region fell under Imperial control during the GCW," or what have you, but saying that planet actually did based on an unspecific map is just assumption. My take would tend to be that if the planet appears on the map, it is safe to comment on it, but if it doesn't, then we shouldn't (unless of course some other source provides the info). <-- Exactly. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:43, December 29, 2009 (UTC)
    • I mostly agree with Ey and Tope here, but I don't have a problem with the weaselly phrasing Tope mentions, either. If we know that the planet Booga-Booga fell into territory controlled by the Pentastar Alignment, that is significant to the Booga-Booga article whether Booga-Booga appears on any maps or not, in my opinion. It would be crossing the line to say that Booga-Booga's allegience was to the Pentastar Alignment in the infobox, but it would not violate NOR to simply say that it fell within Pentastar Alignment territory. In fact, I'd say that that information not being mentioned would make the article fall short of comprehensiveness.
    • It gets blurrier in species articles, since we have to decide if that same fact is as pertinent to the Booga-Booga Men as it is to their homeworld. Again, I'd err on the "yes" side, but I wouldn't cry if the species article didn't mention the territorial position as I would with the planet article. ~ SavageBob 06:09, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree that we can't assume that because a planet happens to be placed in the red area of the map that it belongs to the Red Empire (that the Red Empire conquered it, had a base on it, considered it part of their dominion, etc.) It is possible that this one planet was ignored, unexplored (perhaps the hyperlane to it was not yet discovered), unsettled (perhaps it had no resources vital to the Red Empire's plans), etc. Case in point: the country of Lesotho falls entirely within the boundaries of South Africa, but South Africa does not control it. Same with Vatican City and San Marino, how they fall within Italy but are different governments. Per previous people though, if the map makes it clear (ie with arrows, or special-identified-with-a-colored-dot) that something happened (ie Red Empire's crusade passed over the planet, per the arrow; Red Empire tested a weapon there, per the yellowish outline on the dot), then we assume that something of importance happened and move on. Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith -Just shy, not antisocial: You can talk to me!- 18:05, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.