Forum:TC:Sankara Stones

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. —spookywilloww^talk 21:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Sankara Stones (talk - history - links - logs - delete - protect)

The only reason this article is up is because of the ID given in 10 Easter Eggs We Found in Luthen’s Gallery on StarWars.com (backup link). However, that same article also mentioned Starkiller by name, so it's clear that the purpose of the article is more OOU than in-universe. It has no IU significance other than the fact that it's a nod to Indiana Jones. The object specifically is already listed under the easter egg article, so we should just redirect it to there instead. Bonzane10 08:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to Easter egg (virtual)

Reading the article itself is very clear that it's for the purpose of pointing out easter eggs than actually providing IU information. Bonzane10 08:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Imperators II^(Talk) 09:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Yasen Nestorov (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

1. Rsand 30 (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
   • Noting here that I am aware of the new options. But it's clearly not an IU name and personally I don't think it's notable for an "unidentified" page. Rsand 30 (talk) 04:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete

Keep

1. Oddly, I do think the "the Sankara stones can be found in the gallery's back room" are, kinda, actually meant to be IU items. Among others are a Kashyyyk clarions and others that Nick Tyrrell and the prop team worked on (which he talked about in his interview with Wook). With the BTS properly filled out, it'd be more clear that they were creating items that were essentially Easter Eggs, yes, but meant to fit within the confines of what Luthen might reasonably have in his shop as a collector. Several other ideas were tossed out for being too canonically out there, which means the ones that remain... must to some degree have been "approved" by the lore department.—spookywilloww^talk 14:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
   • tbf, they do need to explain where in the episode the stones are located. Also, as a whole, the sentence is very OOU imo, with it mentioning Indiana Jones just before. I don't understand the comparison of the clarion since that is something that already existed and canonically IDed prior. In general, yes, the stones are canon since it clearly appeared in Andor, but what significance does it has outside of it being a reference/nod to Indiana Jones? For all we know they are just some rocks with little to no meaning IU. Bonzane10 14:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
     • Have to agree with Bonzane that, given the context of the mention, I don't see that sentence as necessarily implying that the name is supposed to be canonical. Imperators II^(Talk) 14:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
     • I'd agree if it was just the SW.com article. Except for the BTS information for [all objects in Luthen's gallery] alluding to otherwise, due to the selection of what items were and weren't picked, some of which were declined based on not working canonically after suggested by Nick and the prop team with their extended backstories. The clarion just happens to be the only article on Wook atm that has this BTS interview linked atm because we're historically really bad about getting the information onto articles after recording an interview. Still exists though.—spookywilloww^talk 14:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
       • That still doesn't canonize the name, though. We have people on record talking about the Ark of the Covenant in Dok-Ondar's Den of Antiquities, but we don't have an article on it and wouldn't title it "Ark of the Covenant" if we did. Master Fredcerique(talk) (he/him) 16:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
         • Actually we do though it has other IU notability, Twi'lek Ark Lewisr (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
           • Hmm, I'm pretty sure there was discussion not to consider that an appearance of the Twi'lek Ark because it was never confirmed to be so by a source. Even we cast members were not taught it was the Twi'lek Ark. Master Fredcerique(talk) (he/him) 06:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
2. I see no reason the name "Sankara Stones" can't exist in the galaxy far, far away. Two SW.com sources directly calling them out too. We can be more informative keeping this article imo. NBDani (they/them)^{Yeager's Repairs} 18:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Crystal skull also exists for anyone wondering. I think I agree with most of Spooky and Dani's points. Wok142 (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
4. CometSmudge (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
5. SorcererSupreme21 (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
6. JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 06:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
7. If we have Twi'lek Ark then why not these? Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
8. Darth Soda ^(Talk) 03:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
9. This title is better than the abomination of turning every conjectural title into "Unidentified". "Luthen Rael's set of stones" is infinitely better than the option proposed below. Xd1358 ^(Talk) 12:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Keep and move to Unidentified set of stones

1. Introducing another option that I prefer to keeping at the current title, and also instead of just redirecting (open to a different name if something else comes up) Lewisr (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
2. OOM 224 18:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
3. We want to keep the article? Sure; after it all, it *is* something that exists in-universe. But I maintain that treating "Sankara Stones" as necessarily their in-universe name is a misreading of the situation given the context. Imperators II^(Talk) 19:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
   • Oh, and we pretend like all of those are necessarily plausible in-universe names presented as such... except that "Starkiller's Dark Lord Helmet" is also listed right there. Imperators II^(Talk) 19:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Yasen Nestorov (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
5. Master Fredcerique(talk) (he/him) 06:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
6. With Sankara Stones as a redirect ofc. Mor9347 ^(Talk) 10:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
7. Fan26 (Talk) 10:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
8. Bonzane10 08:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
9. Unless we have an actually in universe identification as "Sankara Stones" the article should be called something else. And include Sankara Stones name in the bts.- ThePedantry (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
10. per Mor9347's suggestion. Labyrinthine G0B-L1N (talk) 03:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
11. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 14:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Comments