Forum:TC:Super Star Destroyer (Death Star)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or, if the page was deleted, in the Senate Hall rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was no consensus. Default to keep. Grunny ^(Talk) 23:26, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Super Star Destroyer (Death Star) (talk - history - links - logs)

According to Leeland Chee, "the Celestia Galactica Photografica exists as works of art within continuity". Thus, the painting Death Star Drydock exists in GFFA, but this ship does not - it may be an artistic rendition of another vessel, a scene that never took place or something else or something entirely different. If something doesn't exist in GFFA, there should be no article. Mauser^Comlink 17:56, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

Delete

1. Mauser^Comlink 17:56, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
2. More VT-fanon. —Master Jonathan^{(Jedi Council Chambers)} 17:59, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
3. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 21:27, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

   Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 21:29, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

   Jonjedigrandmaster ^{(Jedi Beacon)} 22:08, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

4. Xd1358 _Talk 14:09, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
5. The Celestia Galactica Photografica is in-universe works of art. There's no evidence that this SSD - or the drydock it's in, for that matter - is any more real in-universe than dogs that can play poker are real in our universe. jSarek 00:58, January 15, 2010 (UTC)
6. All we need are the articles for the works of art, not the subjects in them. We don't have articles for these individuals, and I hope we won't be getting them. There's no indication that this stuff ever actually existed in-universe outside of the painting itself. It's an assumption to say that there is. Darth Trayus^{(Trayus Academy)} 01:29, January 15, 2010 (UTC)
   • Errm. Those Neimoidians do have articles, but only because the Episode Guide specifically referred them as "Past Neimoidians", meaning they are historical figures. Mauser^Comlink 01:45, January 15, 2010 (UTC)
     • Ah. Well there you go, they have a cannonical source confirming that they were actual individuals who existed in-universe. Celestia Galactica Photographica does not. Darth Trayus^{(Trayus Academy)} 22:29, January 16, 2010 (UTC)
7. Per Jackson's comment below. Darth Karika^{Please leave a message after the beep. *boom*} 19:22, January 16, 2010 (UTC)
8. Per Mauser, jSarek and Trayus above and MJ below. QuiGonJinn ^(Talk) 17:01, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
9. After much consideration. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 17:27, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

Keep

1. Eh. I've thought about this one, and actually read through some of the Visionaries cover and preface text ("The gifted minds [of Lucasfilm and ILM] come together to tell their own Star Wars tales in this compilation of short stories"), and I would be ok with having articles for these three subjects based on this. Every "chapter" or section within Visionaries is considered IU, as explained in that SW.com post, and everything within the book except for the obvious OOU concept art, which Celestia is not, is intended to be an IU "story" in its own unique way. There's really nothing to suggest that these depicted scenes in these IU artistic works are not meant to depict some kind of actual canonical scenes, and everything to suggest that they do. More than one of these artistic works are clearly intended to show canonical scenes, or other "happenings" that we know to have occurred in canon. Mygeeto Burns depicts the Battle of Mygeeto, Utapau Surrenders depicts the Subjugation of Utapau, and Bridgeworld Lost evidently depicts the Republic capturing of Cato Neimoidia, to name the most obvious. Others are not so clear as to what is happening, perhaps, which is more of a gray area, but these three specific articles are fair game, in my opinion. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:47, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
2. I completely agree with Toprawa. There is nothing that says that the IU art was not created based on a actual IU scene. — Fiolli ^{{Alpheridies University ComNet}} 01:34, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
   • Just as there is nothing to say it was... Mauser^Comlink 01:37, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
3. Per Toprawa, despite the fact that the article is filled with VT-fanon. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 21:18, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
4. Eh, per Tran. Jonjedigrandmaster ^{(Jedi Beacon)} 21:29, January 14, 2010 (UTC)
5. JangFett ^(Talk) 01:51, January 15, 2010 (UTC)
6. JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 19:30, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
7. Barely, as I feel the "scene" is "real", I'm just not sure if that isn't a separate SSD (maybe one that got blown up with the DS) or just Executor or some other SSD we already have an article for. Dangerdan97 06:07, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Please no new vote options until a proper discussion. Thank you. Mauser^Comlink 17:56, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

• I presume you'll be creating TCs for Ring World and Battle of Ring World, then. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:48, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • Maybe after this one is closed, they can be deleted by a simple precedent? Mauser^Comlink 13:29, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm still undecided on how to vote in this one, but I'm curious about Ring World. Is that nickname taken directly from the book or something that we gave to it? If the nickname is mentioned, along with the reasoning behind it, then I'd have thought it's more likely to be a "real" planet. If it's something we made up then the article is incredibly misleading the way it's worded. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 17:02, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure how entirely reliable this is, but some background on this concept development, including some others found in Celestia, can be found here, which apparently is where someone found this name? Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:07, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
        • It looks like this nickname from IMDB is given simply to identify the planets the casual viewer would not know by the name. There is no mention of the Ring World in the book - there is a painting labeled Executor Executes and that's it. Mauser^Comlink 17:10, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
          • Well, the point behind Celestia is, these were all original concept drawings for Episode III that never made it into the movie, which the designers and LFL decided to turn into canon rather than let them go to waste. "Ring World" and "Bridge world," which actually is used canonically in that one artistic work, and the others were evidently the concept artists' working names for these planets. "Ring World" may not be an official canon name, but I feel the intent behind the canonicity of this planet and this artistically-depicted world is clear enough. Others will have to interpret this for themselves, however. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:16, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
            • Regardless of whether the world is canon, any working name that isn't referenced shouldn't be taken as official. I don't mind the article being left at Ring World if it's kept, but it needs rewriting and any explanation of the name moved to BTS. Likewise, the SSD one has some amazing waffle aimed at it being a new class of ship, which I'd like to see die even if the article is kept. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 17:19, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
              • The articles were written by VT-16, after all. Keep that in mind. :P Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:30, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Let me quote the full question and answer here:

As I understand it here, mavrick889 is asking whether these stories are canon, and Chee effectively said that "all of the stories are canon except for this one that isn't, these three that we don't know about, and this one that's actually IU artwork." The fact that he set the "Celestia Galactica Photografica" apart from the others by specifying it as IU artwork instead of treating it as IU events (canon or not) like the rest of the stories in "Visionaries" seems to indicate to me that the pieces of artwork aren't intended to depict actual events. Unless someone can produce a convincing argument to the contrary, my vote will stay at delete. —Master Jonathan^{(Jedi Council Chambers)} 17:49, January 15, 2010 (UTC)