Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Hello everyone. This has been on my mind for a little while now, so I just wanted to collect some opinions on it. An old article of mine, Adjudicator, has recently undergone review. This is because, per the notability policy, this originally comics-only ship also appears in the original trilogy so needs updating. The current policy reads:
- 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. This does not apply to appearances of sectors or galactic regions such as the Outer Rim Territories.
Hence, because the Adjudicator shares its name with the Legends version of the vessel, which appeared in both ESB and RotJ, we can now say the canon ship appeared in those films. An issue with this approach has already made itself apparent. In Legends, the Adjudicator was one of the five ISDs of Death Squadron in ESB. However, in canon, all five of those ships have already been identified: Avenger, Conquest, Devastator, Stalker, and the Tyrant. ThrawnChiss7 has already detailed this issue in the article's BTS.
Furthermore, something about this practice just feels wrong to me. This is a completely valid system for visually unique subjects, like characters or unique vessels. That was the original intent for the policy. But this creates issues for visually identical vessels like Star Destroyers, which, besides the ISD I/II differences and the rare paint job, look the same. These identical ships are easily interchangeable and authors aren't afraid to switch the names of ships between continuities, as seen from the Adjudicator situation. Taking it into our own hands to retcon canon Star Destroyers into the movies just because their counterparts did in Legends does feel like overstepping the line between common sense and Fanon.
The intent of this policy was to enable "common sense" applications where a canon subject is obviously intended to be a subject appearing in a movie. However, this use of the policy doesn't feel like common sense to me, these ships look the same so what basis is there for carrying over their Legends appearances to canon just because they share a name between continuities? There's a big difference between the obvious intent for the Mosep Binneed mentioned in "The Ride" to be the same from Legends and, for example, what we are doing with Tyrant, which has been confirmed to appear in ESB but we are additionally claiming appears RotJ just because it did so in Legends.
This issue feels especially notably now given that this practice has been shown to be fallible from the Adjudicator ESB situation. This is even alluded to in the policy, which says "particularly if the canon subject is not visually identified in canon source material". These Star Destroyers have been visually identified already and yet we are using this policy to given them more appearances, which clearly wasn't the intent of this policy.
Given this, the following would be my suggestion on how to slightly limit the policy to avoid cases like this (though I appreciate I've been out of the game for a while so this may need tidying up). Obviously, Star Destroyers are the example I've given here, since I haven't encountered this for any similar situations, but this would apply to all visually indistinguishable subjects:
- … Mosep Binneed visually identified by Legends source material.
- This does not apply to:
- Visually indistinguishable subjects. For example: the Imperial-class Star Destroyer Adjudicator should not be assumed to appear in The Empire Strikes Back or Return of the Jedi in canon, despite the Legends Adjudicator appearing in these pieces of media.
- Appearances of sectors or galactic regions such as the Outer Rim Territories.
Hence, the use of this policy for Tector-class, for example, would remain valid, since the class itself is visually unique. This is intended for individuals ships within a class and the like. I just wanted to collect some opinions on this to see if it's worth a CT. I'm trying to view this as objectively as possible, this isn't because my article is being reviewed, more that the use of this policy to this end just doesn't feel like it's within our permit as an encyclopedia. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 14:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Discussion
- I'm inclined to agree with this. However; I still think it is worth noting in the BTS section something like "X appeared in film Y in Legends, but in the current canon continuity, no connection has been made", for visually indistinct subjects. (side note, there were six ISDs in canon, along with the Ultimatum). ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 15:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- However, for subjects that are already given to appear in media, I think it's fine to assume their Legends placement. IE in File:Death-Squadron-ISDs.png, I think its fair to assume that the Avenger is top left, given that in Legends that is the case per Behind the Magic. ThrawnChiss7 Assembly Cupola 15:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'd be ok with a BTS mention. I have no massive issue with the second suggestion, given that decreeing a ship appears in a film is more momentous than specifically where it appears in an already confirmed film appearance, although I'd be interested to get other users' opinions on this. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 15:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- However, for subjects that are already given to appear in media, I think it's fine to assume their Legends placement. IE in File:Death-Squadron-ISDs.png, I think its fair to assume that the Avenger is top left, given that in Legends that is the case per Behind the Magic. ThrawnChiss7
- I think the same logic applies for identical subjects as it does for more distinct ones and intended both types of subject to be covered when I originally proposed this policy. Given people like Leland Chee's comments about not changing backstories for characters and the trend for names to carry over from Legends for almost everything throughout canon so far, I think the intention is very much for someone like Hume Tarl to still be the same character they were in Legends rather then a totally separate person who just happens to have the same name. Where canon sources change that it should definetly take priority over whatever placement was given in Legends, but I'd say those are the exceptions rather then the rule. Ayrehead02 (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm, if it was your original intent for the policy that's fair enough, but I do remember us discussing this on IRC at the time and yeah, this really isn't how I envisioned it being used. Tarl raises an interesting point. I agree that Chee's comments really back up the policy for characters, but my above suggestion for wording does rule out cases like this which isn't my intention really. My concern is with ships primarily, since that feels to me like a step too far in the use of this policy, as ships aren't backed up as strongly by Chee's comments and that's where we've seen the overriding of Legends. Putting identical characters and the wording of my policy suggestion aside then, how do you feel about this practice for identical ships? Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 15:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- As long as we aren't changing it for characters then I don't have an issue with us making ships specifically an exception. Chee's statements have mostly been about characters and which ship is which seems to have carried over more loosley to canon given the confusion with Stalker and such. Ayrehead02 (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm, if it was your original intent for the policy that's fair enough, but I do remember us discussing this on IRC at the time and yeah, this really isn't how I envisioned it being used. Tarl raises an interesting point. I agree that Chee's comments really back up the policy for characters, but my above suggestion for wording does rule out cases like this which isn't my intention really. My concern is with ships primarily, since that feels to me like a step too far in the use of this policy, as ships aren't backed up as strongly by Chee's comments and that's where we've seen the overriding of Legends. Putting identical characters and the wording of my policy suggestion aside then, how do you feel about this practice for identical ships? Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 15:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Taking it into our own hands to retcon canon Star Destroyers into the movies just because their counterparts did in Legends does feel like overstepping the line between common sense and Fanon": This. Asithol (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Identical ships certainly seem like something that shouldn't be subject to the policy per the reasoning above; though per Ayre does make sense for characters and such.—spookywillowwtalk 23:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- This seems like a fair move to make Lewisr (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 08:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
