Forum:CT:Changing Conan Antonio Motti back to Motti

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Changing Conan Antonio Motti back to Motti


This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was confirmed as canon so vote's somewhat irrelevant. Green Tentacle (Talk) 00:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


This is an absolute load of bull crap. This is not canon. Just because George made an offhanded joking remark on a talk show does not make it canon. This should be reverted back to just plain Motti.

Vote

Change back to Motti

  1. JMAS 02:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Vader has no rank, Vader has no rank, high ho the derry oh, Vader has no rank. Thefourdotelipsis 02:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Down. With. George. "Evil". Lucas. Evir Daal 11:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Seems we should change it to Conan once that's confirmed to be right, as opposed to moving it until it's confirmed to be wrong. -- SM-716 talk? 21:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. George Lucas, while he gets credit for creating Star Wars, a debt of that which can never be repaid, simply has no idea what he is talking about much of the time. I mean, the Invisible Hand as a Star Destroyer? Chack Jadson 21:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. To summarize what I said on the talk page, you can't assume things Lucas has said outside of the context of Lucasfilm itself are canon. See what Leland Chee has to say here. jSarek 20:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. —Xwing328(Talk) 03:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Unless confirmed as canon. Green Tentacle (Talk) 13:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. Change back and wait for an answer by Chee. --Craven 17:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. CHEE! -- Riffsyphon1024 07:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Leave as Conan Antonio Motti

  1. See Havac's first comment on the issue at Talk:Conan Antonio Motti. Adamwankenobi 02:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Darth Culator (Talk) 02:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Ask Chee or Hidalgo and wait until they reply. Or wait for the Visual Guide to get to the conference room scene. Havac 02:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. No sillier than any other name....but we should probably confirm it, just to be safe. QuentinGeorge 03:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. The decider has decided the decision Enochf 03:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. At least ambig until confirmation. It's G-canon! Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 14:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Add a note after his name explaining the situation, then pester ask Chee about it or something. -- I need a name (Complain here) 20:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Per Enochf. --School of Thrawn 101 08:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. The name isn't that unbelievable. Keep it unless an official person/source directly contradicts it. --Azizlight 09:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 09:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. Muuuuuurgh 19:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  12. Unless confirmed as non-canon :-P KEJ 13:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  13. Ambig canon trumps no canon. CooperTFN 08:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  14. Unit 8311 12:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  15. At least until confirmation one way or another, and also see commentsKuralyov 15:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  16. Conan canon! Conan canon! ...At least until we hear otherwise. Tasty's comment does not make it clear one way or the other—does he consider Lucas' statements "canon unless joking" or "not canon unless clearly serious"? We don't know. So we might as well trust it for now. And frankly, Lucas' tone while saying it tells me that he really did give it some thought. I mean, where'd Antonio come from anyway? Gonk (Gonk!) 15:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  17. And it seems we were right.--Goodwood 00:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • Havac's right. Let's ask Chee or (since Chee seems to be MIA at the SW.com forums lately) wait for the official site's Visual Guides to address the issue. Adamwankenobi 02:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This probably be a vote on the talk page rather than a CT. -LtNOWIS 02:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Assuming it is Conan Antonio Motti, shouldn't it be moved to Conan Motti? We have precedent for leaving out middle names (Bail Organa and not Bail Prestor Organa). Kuralyov 15:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed. I moved it. Gonk (Gonk!) 16:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It is not canon, unless Wookieepedia now dictates canon. Based on the following text taken from the NBC blog, it was a joke, no to be taken seriously.:

See, the question that Jordan asked involved a character from the first film (the guy who gets strangled by Vader) whose full name was never mentioned in the actual movie. In fact, he's only referred to in the credits, where he is listed as "Admiral Motti". Jordan asked Lucas Admiral Motti's full name, to which Lucas replied (as a joke), "Conan Antonio Motti". No big deal, right?

Wrong.

See, because Lucas is the supreme creator of the Star Wars universe, when he says something it becomes real. Oh yeah. I think you hear what I'm saying, party people: There is now officially a Star Wars character named after Conan!! HOW AWECELLET IS THAT?! The Star Wars wiki Wookieepedia has already incorporated the change into the Star Wars Mythology! Man! This week couldn't get any better!

See the bolded text. It was a joke. Period. End of discussion. - JMAS 17:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • But they interpreted it as a joke. We don't really know it was a joke unless Lucas himself says it was a joke, as he did about his statement of Yoda's species being a frog. Adamwankenobi 17:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Correct. That was not a statement from Lucas - it was an interpretation from an NBC blogger. It's just as canon as Wookieepedia, which essentially means that it's not official, it has no bearing. Jorrel Fraajic 18:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Chee will be on the continuity panel at CIV. Someone who's going should ask about this there - at the very least it'd garner a good laugh. Coop 07:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh I'd love to try this one but I fear that someone else will beat us to it. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.