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. 
Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH:R7-TNO
In this source,
New Ahsoka Tano-Themed Droid R7-TN0 Figure Rolls Into Disneyland Resort on WDW News Today (backup link archived on May 30, 2022), it mistakenly refers R7-TNO as an R2 series astromech droid despite being modeled after an R7 Unit. But User:DFaceG keeps reverting my edits even though I point out this fact User:Elijah Palmer(User talk:Elijah Palmer) 21:33, 8 November 2023 (EST)
- As I had stated in one of my edit logs, there are numerous examples of astromech droids (or droids in general) with a model that does not match their name or appearance. Droids are able to be modified when it comes to their appearance, and the name is wholly irrelevant. There is no source confirming the website is mistaken so it should not be treated as such. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- Per Thannus. This is a common thing with droids in general. Their name does not always indicate their series. Bonzane10
(holonet) 03:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- https://youtube.com/watch?v=8F0p7x1TUjk&t=108s This video says otherwise. User:Elijah Palmer(User talk:Elijah Palmer) 12:38, 23 November 2023 (EST)
- That video is a fan-made review and not an official or primary source in any sense. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- But R7-TNO is already in the R7 Unit page and it has the same appearance as R7-FNG. Look, let's just leave it as an R7 Unit. Because all this for one droid seems really unnecessary and childish if you ask me. I don't want to drag this any longer. Let's just agree to disagree and say that R7-TNO was meant to be an R7 Unit but the WDW news article misidentified him as an R2 Unit. Besides, https://www.laughingplace.com/w/news/2022/05/27/star-wars-galaxys-edge-merch-reveal/ this article was published before the WDW news article and clearly shows both R7-TNO and R7-FNG as R7 Units.Elijah Palmer(talk) 12:37, 24 November 2023 (EST)
- Neither R7-FNG nor R7-TNO should be listed as R7 Units, as neither are stated to be R7 units. In R7-TNO's case it's explicitly false per official sources on the matter, and R7-FNG does not state what its model is whatsoever. Appearance and name are irrelevant, and once again, third-party articles unaffiliated in any way with Disney or Lucasfilm are not reliable sources. Please read the sourcing policy. It is not childish to make articles conform to policy but it is childish to continue reverting and re-adding this information when you've been told multilaterally that the information is either false or unverified. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Just got this off WDW news. "Information presented on WDWNT.com is intended for informational and entertainment purposes only. WDWNT, LLC is an unofficial site and is not in any way affiliated with The Walt Disney Company. The views expressed on this website are the personal opinions of the writers only and should not be construed as the official position of WDWNT, LLC. While all attempts are made to present accurate information, any information not confirmed by The Walt Disney Company or any of its subsidiaries should not be regarded as fact. Posted information may become outdated over time. Neither WDWNT, LLC nor its members make any representations as to the validity, accuracy, completeness, or suitability of any claims made here. Neither WDWNT, LLC nor its members assume any liability with regard to any actions you may or may not take based on the use of the information provided here. Furthermore, advertisers, commenters, and linked sites are solely responsible for their views and content, which do not necessarily represent the views of WDWNT, LLC or its members." So WDW is a third-party site. Don't believe me? https://wdwnt.com/disclosure/ Elijah Palmer(talk) 13:52, 24 November 2023 (EST)
- It was never in question whether or not WDW was unofficial. Our point is that the other sites are too. Neither WDW or the other sites you've mentioned should be provided as sources. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Then by that logic, R7-TNO shouldn't be an R2 unit then? Since WDW news is third-party and should not count as a source. You realize you're defending a third-party source?Elijah Palmer(talk) 14:02, 24 November 2023 (EST)
- You are absolutely right, as WDW is third party it should not be cited for R7-TN0 being an R2. The droid should not have any model listed at all. The website must unfortunately still be listed as it's the only source we have regarding the subject at the moment, but it being an R2-series is not from official promotional material or packaging and is thus extrapolation on WDW's part. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- But R7 is on R7-TNO and R7-FNG's packaging.Elijah Palmer(talk) 14:37, 24 November 2023 (EST)
- As part of their names, which we have already established is irrelevant. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- It has the same appearance as the R7 unit from the Pride playset. So that makes them R7 units. Besides R6-SNO is listed as an R6 astromech on it's page. Elijah Palmer(talk) 14:49, 24 November 2023 (EST)
- As I said to you elsewhere, don't take other pages as fact, you would be better served to actually check what is being cited. It seems like that R6 is just basing off the suffix, which as I've also mentioned to you here we no longer do Lewisr (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- We also already established that their appearance is irrelevant as droids can be modified. You've also been told that just because something is the case on another page does not mean it should be. Looking at the source, it should not have its model listed. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- I've removed the info from the page now for the record Lewisr (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- When was that decided? I'm confused.Elijah Palmer(talk) 15:11, 24 November 2023 (EST)
- I don't know when exactly, but it was a bit ago. What are you confused about? Lewisr (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Name and appearance are Irrelevant.Elijah Palmer(talk) 15:21, 24 November 2023 (EST)
- Because for example R1-J5 does not look anything like an R1-series astromech droid, so assuming based off the name is wrong Lewisr (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Lew elaborated on name, but appearance is irrelevant due to the fact that droids are modifiable, as mentioned earlier. There's still some manner of reasonable assumption (if a droid is shaped like R2-D2 we can assume it's an astromech droid unless they outright say "oh this is a protocol droid in an astromech shell") but we typically do not assume a droid's exact model based solely on their appearance. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Name and appearance are Irrelevant.Elijah Palmer(talk) 15:21, 24 November 2023 (EST)
- I don't know when exactly, but it was a bit ago. What are you confused about? Lewisr (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- When was that decided? I'm confused.Elijah Palmer(talk) 15:11, 24 November 2023 (EST)
- I've removed the info from the page now for the record Lewisr (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- It has the same appearance as the R7 unit from the Pride playset. So that makes them R7 units. Besides R6-SNO is listed as an R6 astromech on it's page. Elijah Palmer(talk) 14:49, 24 November 2023 (EST)
- As part of their names, which we have already established is irrelevant. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- But R7 is on R7-TNO and R7-FNG's packaging.Elijah Palmer(talk) 14:37, 24 November 2023 (EST)
- You are absolutely right, as WDW is third party it should not be cited for R7-TN0 being an R2. The droid should not have any model listed at all. The website must unfortunately still be listed as it's the only source we have regarding the subject at the moment, but it being an R2-series is not from official promotional material or packaging and is thus extrapolation on WDW's part. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Then by that logic, R7-TNO shouldn't be an R2 unit then? Since WDW news is third-party and should not count as a source. You realize you're defending a third-party source?Elijah Palmer(talk) 14:02, 24 November 2023 (EST)
- It was never in question whether or not WDW was unofficial. Our point is that the other sites are too. Neither WDW or the other sites you've mentioned should be provided as sources. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Just got this off WDW news. "Information presented on WDWNT.com is intended for informational and entertainment purposes only. WDWNT, LLC is an unofficial site and is not in any way affiliated with The Walt Disney Company. The views expressed on this website are the personal opinions of the writers only and should not be construed as the official position of WDWNT, LLC. While all attempts are made to present accurate information, any information not confirmed by The Walt Disney Company or any of its subsidiaries should not be regarded as fact. Posted information may become outdated over time. Neither WDWNT, LLC nor its members make any representations as to the validity, accuracy, completeness, or suitability of any claims made here. Neither WDWNT, LLC nor its members assume any liability with regard to any actions you may or may not take based on the use of the information provided here. Furthermore, advertisers, commenters, and linked sites are solely responsible for their views and content, which do not necessarily represent the views of WDWNT, LLC or its members." So WDW is a third-party site. Don't believe me? https://wdwnt.com/disclosure/ Elijah Palmer(talk) 13:52, 24 November 2023 (EST)
- Neither R7-FNG nor R7-TNO should be listed as R7 Units, as neither are stated to be R7 units. In R7-TNO's case it's explicitly false per official sources on the matter, and R7-FNG does not state what its model is whatsoever. Appearance and name are irrelevant, and once again, third-party articles unaffiliated in any way with Disney or Lucasfilm are not reliable sources. Please read the sourcing policy. It is not childish to make articles conform to policy but it is childish to continue reverting and re-adding this information when you've been told multilaterally that the information is either false or unverified. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- But R7-TNO is already in the R7 Unit page and it has the same appearance as R7-FNG. Look, let's just leave it as an R7 Unit. Because all this for one droid seems really unnecessary and childish if you ask me. I don't want to drag this any longer. Let's just agree to disagree and say that R7-TNO was meant to be an R7 Unit but the WDW news article misidentified him as an R2 Unit. Besides, https://www.laughingplace.com/w/news/2022/05/27/star-wars-galaxys-edge-merch-reveal/ this article was published before the WDW news article and clearly shows both R7-TNO and R7-FNG as R7 Units.Elijah Palmer(talk) 12:37, 24 November 2023 (EST)
- That video is a fan-made review and not an official or primary source in any sense. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- https://youtube.com/watch?v=8F0p7x1TUjk&t=108s This video says otherwise. User:Elijah Palmer(User talk:Elijah Palmer) 12:38, 23 November 2023 (EST)
- Per Thannus. This is a common thing with droids in general. Their name does not always indicate their series. Bonzane10
- Somewhat related question, but should we even be treating these Droid Factory figures as canon? R7-TNO isn't an issue, but there are droids like BB-Pr0ud or C1-MNST4 that are clearly just puns and would fit the "comic or obvious non-canon material" rule. Rsand 30 (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'd say it should be on a case by case basis, but yeah some are obviously comic/obvious non-canon. Doesn't make them non-notable and they would still be treated the same way, just different top page icons and a disclaimer at the top of the article. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 07:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
