Forum:TC:Gen'Dai homeworld

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Gen'Dai homeworld

This page is an archive of the Trash compactor discussion about the future of Wookieepedia's coverage of the topic(s) listed below, including whether or not to delete or redirect the relevant page(s). This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the relevant talk pages or in the Senate Hall forum rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was No consensus. —spookywillowwtalk 01:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Gen'Dai homeworld (talk - history - links - logs - delete - protect)

It's only source is.....IGN. Unless someone finds another source, I'm not sure what else needs to be said.

Delete

  1. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 04:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
  2. Looks like interviewer fanon using the legends article. ThePedantry (talk) 06:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
  3. CometSmudge (talk) 06:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
  4. OOM 224 21:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
  5. The section where this is mentioned is very clearly part of the intro and not the interview. Everything said by Arazi and Homan is in quotes or is clearly stated to be. Even if it was a commissioned interview, it's still an article written by a journalist who inserts a lot of his own perspective, not a creator, so I don't think we can say everything the interviewer says is canon. Panther436 RedNihilEye (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Keep

  1. Well, it's an interview for Jedi: Survivor. If it were like a blog post then that would be suspect but this is an official interview. Rsand 30 (talk) 04:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
    • Correct me if I'm reading that article wrong but it doesn't look like the section about the home world is part of the interview. In fact it looks like something the interviewer added using the Legends article. ThePedantry (talk) 05:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
      • It is part of the interview. Bonzane10 Bonzane10-Sig 06:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
        • The part about their homeworld is not from the creator, but an intro paragraph from the IGN writer. "...but the reason why they’re intergalactic nomads is because their peaceful home planet was ravaged and destroyed hundreds of years ago." All we get from Arazi is vague references to "world," as in a "mindset" or "worldview." "What makes the Gen’dai so interesting, in my own opinion at least, is that in their own mind and their own world, they're very chivalrous." Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 06:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
          • Rereading it, you're right about it not being part of the interview. But given the nature of the article itself per my explanation below, it's also possible that the writer was briefed with information provided by Respawn. Kinda similar with our current treatment for {{OutlawsDate}} where the quote used in it is said by Patton Oswald, who was only a moderator for the panel. This is not a regular interview that IGN did, it's a marketing collaboration between them and Respawn. Bonzane10 Bonzane10-Sig 06:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
            • Per Bonzane, IGN has a bunch of exclusive reveals for Survivor from February 2023, it was an official collaboration. Rsand 30 (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
            • It's possible, but it feels unreasonable to make that assumption. We have no way of knowing if that's actually the case. CometSmudge (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
            • Per Comet. It seems a bit of a stretch to canonize a Legends planet based off the possibility that an IGN writer wrote an intro based off information they got from Respawn instead of just....searching it on Wookieepedia. We don't know where they got the information. We shouldn't assume. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 17:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
  2. Yeah I would assume an official interview is a valid source for this sort of thing, no? Fan26 (Talk) 05:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
  3. Unlike regular interviews, this one specifically was an exclusive first reveal interview purposefully set up by IGN and Respawn. To add more context, IGN was the news site that worked with Respawn for Survivor's many exclusive reveals and interviews leading up to the launch. Bonzane10 Bonzane10-Sig 06:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
  4. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 07:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
  5. Darth Soda CIS roundel (Talk) 08:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
  6. Yasen Nestorov (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
  7. StarWarsFan327 (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
  8. Hi, new to all this but given this quote by Jason Fry: "This was one of the first books written after the Legends announcement, and so when I found myself needing to identify an engine part for a TIE fighter I went to Story Group for advice. What they told me was reassuring: I was pretty safe using Legends locations, terms for engine parts, and the like, because why would they reinvent those things? This was an early lesson about the durability of what I’ve come to think of as the “infrastructure EU.”, the Gen'Dai homeworld (being a location) already exists in canon unless a later published source says otherwise, no? Labyrinthine G0B-L1N (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
    • That's not how our canon policy works, unfortunately. While authors are permitted to act under that assumption, we are not; just because a location existed in Legends does not guarantee that it exists in Canon. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 02:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
      • Regardless, my vote remains unchanged. The Gen'Dai have been canonized so given Story Group's stance, I still think we are well within reason to assume their homeworld identifier and location remain unchanged, though yet to be mentioned; same for Legends species, creatures, etc. but that's my personal opinion only. I'm certainly not implying that Legends events, etc. should be taken as automatic canon until overwritten. Labyrinthine G0B-L1N (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
        • Welcome to the forums! Just a heads up that that kind of assumption is expressly against our canon policy. Assuming homeworld's are the same is not a valid assumption under the policy per this line: "In the event an Expanded Universe subject is referenced in a new canon work, that subject becomes official canon once again. However, the subject's previous Expanded Universe history does not necessarily become canon." We never create canon articles for a species' homeworld unless it is confirmed by a canon source, regardless of Legends material. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 05:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
          • Just leaving this template here also which seems to be supporting some current CA article noms: Star Wars Galaxy Map poster. This assumes that the name "[[]]" applies to the canon hyperspace route depicted on the map that matches the depiction of the Star Wars Legends route with the same name in The Essential Atlas per BlueskyLogo Jason Fry (@jasoncfry.bsky.social.) on Bluesky (post on January 3, 2025): "They are indeed the same. Same galaxy, same map. In the rare event something needs to be changed, it will be discussed. (In response to: Hi @jasoncfry.bsky.social, was hoping you could confirm for Wookieepedia purposes that the hyperspace routes depicted on the Galaxy Map given out at Celebration are intended to be the same routes as in Legends. Sorry to bother, but would make our lives much easier to have it confirmed!)" (screenshot). It seems our policy when comparing the Legends map to the Canon map is all over the place. The OP even asked Jason directly to compare Legends to Canon. I think we need to readdress how we look at mapping as a whole as we seem to just be picking and choosing bits and pieces. Jason and Lucasfilm keep telling us over and over again that they're the same unless something changes but we're just not listening. Labyrinthine G0B-L1N (talk) 06:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
            • Just noting that this is veering a bit off-topic. If a subject is not featured in any way in a Canon source, it does not get a Canon article - it's as simple as that. And the discussions about the correspondence of the Legends and Canon galaxy maps therefore have no bearing on that. This TC thread is de facto really about whether or not the source in question is in fact to be considered a valid Canon source, so let's stick to that, please. Imperators II(Talk) 07:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
  9. Dr. Kermit(Complain.) 13:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
  10. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
  11. Mor9347 ForPipadaLogo-UserImage (Talk) 21:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Comments