Forum:CT:Legends names in Canon

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Legends names in Canon
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 Support proposal. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:15, March 24, 2018 (UTC)

Due to recent discussion on IRC and several current status article nominations, it has come to my attention that a basic assumption many editors including myself have been making when creating canon articles is not actually covered by any current policy. This assumption is that if a name from Legends is reintroduced in canon, then it applies to the same subjects, even if no canon source explicitly shows this to be the case.

The two nominations relevant to this are Tector-class Star Destroyer and Flatcake. In both cases it has been assumed that the film subjects that were identified by these names in Legends still possess those names, although no canon source specifically identifies these subjects by these names. There are many other articles that would be affected though, for example, Mosep Binneed appears in the novel Canto Bight, although the book does not explicitly show an image of the Nimbanel we see in ANH and ROTJ and label them as Binneed. As such without this policy with would have to treat those Nimbanel as separate unidentified Nimbanel until they are specifically identified as still being Binneed.

My argument for this to be made policy is that in my eyes it falls under a similar logic to the duck test, it is a safe assumption that if a name from Legends is reintroduced in canon then that name is still considered to apply to the characters it applied to in Legends by the Lucasfilm Story Group group and authors. There is no other reason they would reintroduce a name, and there have so far been no cases where a name has been reintroduced but shown to apply to a different or separate character.

As such I propose we add the following to our notability policy under the new canon subjects section: “New canon subjects that share a name with a Star Wars Legends counterpart may be assumed to be the same as that Legends counterpart, particularly if the canon subject is not visually identified in canon source material. For example: Mosep Binneed, who appears in the canon short story "The Ride" but is not pictured, may be assumed to be the same Mosep Binneed visually identified by Legends source material.”

To be perfectly clear, this policy would not re-implement any articles deleted under the social media purge, or make any other assumptions about material coming over from legends. For example, we cannot assume that Binneed is still Jabba's accountant as no canon source states this. We should not assume a character’s name or even parts of their name are the same as Legends until the name is used in a canon source, meaning if only a character's surname is reintroduced from Legends then we don't assume the first name is as well. This policy in fact should not really result in much change to existing articles or creation of any new articles at all, it is simply putting what we already do down in writing. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:19, March 17, 2018 (UTC)

Support

  1. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:19, March 17, 2018 (UTC)
  2. --Shannon, Jedi Knight (talk) 10:21, March 17, 2018 (UTC)
  3. Already discussed this with Ayrehead, and this is just codifying what we already do.—Tommy-Macaroni Imperial Emblem (TAKE A SEAT) 10:42, March 17, 2018 (UTC)
  4. I think this is a fair assumption to make. 1358 (Talk) 02:23, March 18, 2018 (UTC)
  5. --DarthRuiz30 (talk) 02:28, March 18, 2018 (UTC)
  6. AV-6R7Crew Pit 02:28, March 18, 2018 (UTC)
  7. --Lelal Mekha The Uprising crest (Audience Room) 08:42, March 18, 2018 (UTC)
  8. Andykatib 09:46, March 18, 2018 (UTC)
  9. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 12:32, March 18, 2018 (UTC)
  10. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 13:32, March 18, 2018 (UTC)
  11. Completely logical. Supreme Emperor (talk) 13:57, March 18, 2018 (UTC)
  12. Green Tentacle (Talk) 13:58, March 18, 2018 (UTC)
  13. Corellian PremierJedi symbolThe Force will be with you always 14:15, March 18, 2018 (UTC)
  14. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 16:57, March 18, 2018 (UTC)
  15. Yep. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 17:46, March 18, 2018 (UTC)
  16. --Lewisr (talk) 17:51, March 18, 2018 (UTC)
  17. Cwedin(talk) 07:34, March 24, 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

  • Just by scanning through the appearances section of each film, I've put together a by no means comprehensive list of characters from the original trilogy that are effected by this here. Keep in mind this is only characters and there are likely far more than this when you include weapons, ships, prequel characters etc. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:19, March 17, 2018 (UTC)
  • [Redacted by administration] -- Darth Culator (Talk) 12:32, March 18, 2018 (UTC)
  • If this passes, would this image be able to be attributed to a Victory-class Star Destroyer? And would this image allow us to assume that the MC30c frigate is canon? Matt Martin has the opinion that although he wasn't sure of the MC30c being canon, he wouldn't rule it out. Just some questions so I better understand the scope, but I support this CT either way.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 17:11, March 18, 2018 (UTC)
    • I'd say that using the images for the Victory-class would be fine, although I'd like to hear others weigh in since it isn't as cut and dry as the film characters. Unless a canon source has used the name MC30c frigate then we absolutely should not assume that that name is canon, and anything Matt Martin has said is probably not applicable through the social media policy. Ayrehead02 (talk) 17:22, March 18, 2018 (UTC)
  • If this passes, then I assume we'll be able to re-add the ROTJ appearance of the Tector-class Star Destroyer? --Lelal Mekha The Uprising crest (Audience Room) 17:44, March 18, 2018 (UTC)
  • still researching
Should i make a separate thread to request that Canon and Legends tabs ONLY be used when the articles are about different versions of the same person/place/thing? especially since holding the cursor over a tab SAYS "This article covers the Canon/Legends version of this subject." and there's no rule that requires same-names for tabbing: the Kyber crystal and lightsaber crystal are each other's Canon/Legends tabs despite having different names.
p.s. Would it be helpful/beneficial and/or amusing/trivia to add the Cobalt Squadrons to the Blue Squadron disambiguation page?
p.p.s. Why is my above response to Darth Culator double-spaced from the rest of the thread? --71.121.143.58 04:38, March 24, 2018 (UTC)
  • This is definitely a separate matter, although it doesn't need another thread since what you're stating is already policy, those Cobalt Squadron articles simply need fixing so they aren't tab linked. The double spacing is because you're using colons instead of asterisks to indent. Ayrehead02 (talk) 07:33, March 24, 2018 (UTC)
  • Just saw the part where Ayrehead02 said, "We should not assume a character’s name or even parts of their name are the same as Legends until the name is used in a canon source, meaning if only a character's surname is reintroduced from Legends then we don't assume the first name is as well." (i added the bold and italics.) i agree with the bolded part, but the italicized part... if only the surname is reintroduced, i'd wait for confirmation it's not a new character, like a parent, child, sibling, ancestor, descendant, or one of the other 582,797,753 Jax Pavans. ;-) See also: Kylo Ren, Kybo Ren, Rook Kast, Jodo Kast, Antilles, Bail Antilles (disambiguation)... --71.121.143.58 05:02, March 24, 2018 (UTC)
    • When it comes to surnames we'll obviously need to apply some common sense depending on the context. For example if someone called Sergeant Edian shows up in Cloud City in a novel we can assume its Isdam Edian (Although not assume he still has that first name). If a farmer on Corellia called Edian shows up in a canon novel we wouldn't assume they were the same. Ayrehead02 (talk) 07:33, March 24, 2018 (UTC)