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. Graestan(Talk) 21:57, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
I think we need to reach some community consensus around how to interpret The Essential Atlas.
The planet Aaron illustrates some of the ambiguity the Atlas has created. It appeared in one source prior to its inclusion in the Atlas appendix, which was set during the period of the Galactic Civil War. When I originally wrote the article, I included information on where it was located - based on the Atlas - but not on the 'history' prior to this. Other users have now information on when it was discovered, its allegiance in the New Sith Wars, Clone Wars, and Galactic Civil War, all based on interpretations of Atlas maps. Is this legitimiate? (I'm using it because it is a GAN I wrote, but I don't want to fault the users who added the extra info.)
My position is that we should not extrapolate backwards, before their first appearance in canon, but that it is more legitimate to extrapolate forward. In other words, we only know the Aaron was inhabited around the GCW but not how far before this. Therefore, none of this earlier info should be added. I anticipate this will mostly affect planet articles (in particular minor worlds only in the Appendix), and potentially species articles (where it is there homeworld concerned), but not necessarily sector articles, as the more general information is more specific to their subject matter.
How to interpret the Galactic Explorations map?
How to interpret the Galactic Population map? (Some few planets are specifically marked, most are not)
How to interpret other historical maps for worlds not marked on the maps?
Does it differ for information historically "before" the worlds other appearance or information historically "after" their appearance??
I guess it comes down to specific mentions, in particular concerning the third issue you raise. Many historical maps have borders between empires, territories, and such, but unless a planet is directly mentioned inside those territories it shouldn't be mentioned as "belonging" to such territories, because there is no specific information like "this planet was part of the Sith Empire and CIS". Riileb is the only planet that is mentioned that wasn't part of the government/faction/whatever that controls the territory it was in (in this case Hutt Space), but (speculation!) there could be more, specially on the larger maps... as I said this is only speculation, but in its scope the Atlas cannot possibly mark specific planets belonging to specific factions (beyond the Infinite Empire), and as such marks whole regions as part of them... this of course is besides the specific politics of each planet, for example Loyalist and Separatist Jabiimi, and the historical stuff (like planets that were discovered after regional governments ruled the area). The Galactic Explorations and Galactic Population are too vage for the majority of planets to be of use beyond "the territory where ___ was located was explored between this year and this year". As for Aaron, if the Atlas shows that it was part of some territory/government before the Civil War, I guess that is enough canon to put it in the article, even only on the "affiliation" field.--Jedabak 00:23, December 26, 2009 (UTC)
"Star Wars: The Essential Atlas tells some stories through maps, but that means some connections aren't entirely clear. Here's a list of continuity bits that weren't formally stated in the text.
Because all of these have been run by the folks at Lucasfilm, they can be considered part of official continuity!"
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)