Question of Canon Status
- Is there any evidence that this is canon; and if so, what is it? --McEwok 03:21, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- We may need to ask somebody who can give an official ruling on that, because I don't like the Star Trek references at all. —Darth Culator (talk) 03:51, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- I actually like the Trek references (or at least, find them amusing), but looking at the scans on the SWTC site leads me to suspect they're not official. I don't see a Lucasfilm copyright notice anywhere, the text refers to a General Motti rather than an Admiral Motti, and there's no mention of Empires other than the Cygnus Star Empire. On the other hand, Cygnus Star Empire does link to Cygnus B here, and that seems to be a well-sourced article. Maybe they weren't originally official, but they slowly became official somehow? — Silly Dan 05:02, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Answering my own question, I'm now strongly suspecting sure this is fanart. At around the time of Search for Spock, "Lawrence Miller Design" also produced a blueprint for the Klingon Bird of Prey, which I own a copy of: while I can't cite a reference for sure right now, I'm sure I remember confirming about a decade ago that this was fanart. Bizarrely, I looked at it just this afternoon for the first time in years, to see if it had any sort of parallel to the alleged LFL copyright notice on the Mandell Imperator plans over at wikipedia:Star_Destroyer; I'd never have remembered "copyright Lawrence Miller Design" otherwise.... A little Googling reveals more Trek fanart. --McEwok 05:50, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- It would be rather embarassing for SWTC if both the Imperator and the Lambda-class blueprints are fanart, as I'm now above 90% sure... and this on the day that it appears the lead ship of the Imperator-class is now apparently called Executrix. But unless the claimed publication date of 1984 is incorrect, it seems almost inevitable that the Cygnus Spaceworks reference got into canon from this source via the Johnson Tech Manual or the X-wing support material - although I'm not sure that Cygnus B has anything canonical to do with Cygnus Spaceworks, however... and the "Cygnus Star Empire" looks like it might be inspired by the "United Planets of 61 Cygni" and "Star Empire of Epsilon Indii", two UFP founder-states from the old Franz Joseph Star Trek Technical Manual. --McEwok 05:50, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should slap the same tag on this article, and on any systems and stars referenced only in the Imperial Shuttle Plans, that we've been putting on Shadis and early Polyhedron articles. — Silly Dan 16:18, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm. I think there's a difference, of sorts. The Polyhedron stuff is closely WEG-connected and referenced with some regularity in canon; the Shadis stuff is well-researched to fit canon, and published in official RPG journals. It is fundamentally canon-compliant. These, however, are just fan-art with little attempt to fit into continuity, apparently placing Star Wars in a post-Star-Trek future. I wonder if we could add a seperate category, or if we should lump all the stuff from here into a special section fanon creations? But then, I admit that I probably have a subjective bias here... ;-) --McEwok 19:29, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- It's not just Star Trek (cf. Skaro system), but it looks to me like more bits of this have been incorporated into other canon stuff than the Shadis articles (which reference Ferdinand Magellan for some reason). I wouldn't be surprised to find it really was licensed, just not particularly well researched. — Silly Dan 20:01, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- My doubts are based on the fact that "Lawrence Miller Design" only seems to exist otherwise as a fan-art blueprints producer. I have no problem with Magellan, any more than I do with ships called Aboukir or Jennie Lee, hot chocolate or ducks. It does at present seem possible that Cygnus Spaceworks did originate with these blueprints, but that's assuming that the copyright date is accurate - something I'm not 100% sure we can do. Am I too cynical to imagine that they could have potentially been created as immitation second-hand material some time after Cygnus was introduced into canon c. 1993? Some minor artefacts on the sketch (eg the aft gun) make me faintly suspicious that they could draw on the 1989 WEG blueprints, as they seem to on the plans in the RotJ Art of Star Wars book (were these already illustrated in the 1983 version?).... --McEwok 21:41, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC) 21:32, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Should have made this clear before: am I wrong, or is the name of Cygnus Spaceworks the only thing that may originate here and has found its way into later canon? --McEwok 23:28, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC) 23:27, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- The Altair system, the Cygnus system, and possibly the Beta 6 system may have appeared elsewhere. Anyway, they seem to have more recent sources than this (though the names may be coincidences). — Silly Dan 23:59, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Cygnus B is older than these plans, assuming CUSWE's source-listing is right to reference a 1977-9 magazine run. I'd like to tie down for sure proof that Cygnus B or the Cygnus system ever appears explicitly in any of the other sources listed on the Cygnus B page, though, rather than being inferred by fans. The Beta 6 system need have nothing to do with the Beta system or Beta Sector. And if Altair appears in The Cestus Deception, I suspect it's simply a coincidence. Contrary to what the Altair 9 page says, these plans reference only Altair. --McEwok 01:15, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC) 01:09, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- If we assume the Coridan system and Corridan system are the same (and I'm guessing you'll say that we can't), it may have made it into Before the Storm, although Coridan is a Trek planet. And Rigel 7 is in the same situation as Altair 9. — Silly Dan 02:12, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Nope, sorry. Corridan may be named for the Trek Coridan, but not, I think, for the one here. As to Rigel 7, "a high-gravity creature from Rigel VII" appears in Marvel #48 (1981), which incidentally also introduced Aargau, named after the real-life Aargau... --McEwok 02:47, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- By "same situation", I meant "is a canonical planet which may or may not be in the same solar system mentioned in an ambiguously canonical source." — Silly Dan 04:55, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- I think Rigel and Altair are special cases, as they're well-known real-world stars. Coridan, Ceti Alpha (as opposed to the real-life Alpha Ceti), Remus, and Sigma Iotia are 100% Star Trek, though, while Skaro and Delta Magna are from Dr. Who. I guess that's a big part of the reason why think a content warning stronger than {{Ambig}} is in order! --McEwok 10:12, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- By "same situation", I meant "is a canonical planet which may or may not be in the same solar system mentioned in an ambiguously canonical source." — Silly Dan 04:55, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Nope, sorry. Corridan may be named for the Trek Coridan, but not, I think, for the one here. As to Rigel 7, "a high-gravity creature from Rigel VII" appears in Marvel #48 (1981), which incidentally also introduced Aargau, named after the real-life Aargau... --McEwok 02:47, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- The Altair system, the Cygnus system, and possibly the Beta 6 system may have appeared elsewhere. Anyway, they seem to have more recent sources than this (though the names may be coincidences). — Silly Dan 23:59, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- It's not just Star Trek (cf. Skaro system), but it looks to me like more bits of this have been incorporated into other canon stuff than the Shadis articles (which reference Ferdinand Magellan for some reason). I wouldn't be surprised to find it really was licensed, just not particularly well researched. — Silly Dan 20:01, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm. I think there's a difference, of sorts. The Polyhedron stuff is closely WEG-connected and referenced with some regularity in canon; the Shadis stuff is well-researched to fit canon, and published in official RPG journals. It is fundamentally canon-compliant. These, however, are just fan-art with little attempt to fit into continuity, apparently placing Star Wars in a post-Star-Trek future. I wonder if we could add a seperate category, or if we should lump all the stuff from here into a special section fanon creations? But then, I admit that I probably have a subjective bias here... ;-) --McEwok 19:29, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should slap the same tag on this article, and on any systems and stars referenced only in the Imperial Shuttle Plans, that we've been putting on Shadis and early Polyhedron articles. — Silly Dan 16:18, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- I actually like the Trek references (or at least, find them amusing), but looking at the scans on the SWTC site leads me to suspect they're not official. I don't see a Lucasfilm copyright notice anywhere, the text refers to a General Motti rather than an Admiral Motti, and there's no mention of Empires other than the Cygnus Star Empire. On the other hand, Cygnus Star Empire does link to Cygnus B here, and that seems to be a well-sourced article. Maybe they weren't originally official, but they slowly became official somehow? — Silly Dan 05:02, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- We may need to ask somebody who can give an official ruling on that, because I don't like the Star Trek references at all. —Darth Culator (talk) 03:51, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)
{{Ambig}} or {{Fanon}}?
So, should the systems, Star Empires, Unification Wars, etc., mentioned in these blueprints be marked as {{Ambig}} or {{Fanon}}? I vote for "ambiguous" myself. — Silly Dan 01:49, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- I vote emphatically for {{Fanon}}. {{Ambig}} is for material that is of ambiguous status but may one day be incorporated into canon. While that does appear to have happened with "Cygnus Spaceworks" here the overal timbre of this source is IMHO such that there is no danger of that happening with the rest of the material. The Galactic Empire is not the Cygnus Star Empire, it does not exist in a Star Trek/Dr. Who crossover in the future of the Milky Way Galaxy, Motti is not a General, and none of the planets/systems listed appears in canon through anything more than coincidence. --McEwok 02:10, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- I say {{Ambig}}, because we just don't know its status. Sure some details are very suspect, but i think in most cases, publications are overall considered canon, and the suspect details are simply ignored. Let's make it {{ambig}} at least until we hear Lucas Licencing's official status on this one. --Azizlight 02:32, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm. I think there's a clear case to make that it's fanon (it's produced under a known fanart brand-name, and incorporates material from other franchises). Should I start a thread at the SW.com forums, then? --McEwok 02:47, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Good idea, hopefully it will attract the attention of Leland Chee there. --Azizlight 03:11, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe we should ask on TheForce.Net too? — Silly Dan 04:55, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you, Tasty Taste!! --McEwok 10:02, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, that's too bad. I was looking forward to seeing this as proof that the Lambda-shuttle was the only starship endorsed by Daleks, Sith Lords, and 1920s Chicago-style bootleggers. — Silly Dan 14:56, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Heh. My apologies. But I suspect the somewhat dry page I drafted would be improved if you added that in! --McEwok 15:13, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, that's too bad. I was looking forward to seeing this as proof that the Lambda-shuttle was the only starship endorsed by Daleks, Sith Lords, and 1920s Chicago-style bootleggers. — Silly Dan 14:56, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you, Tasty Taste!! --McEwok 10:02, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Rearranging stuff
If, as I'm by now pretty much convinced, this is fanon, then we should probably do something to make that clear. I've rewritten the page, but I suspect it can be improved by other people. --McEwok
I also rewrote the Ceti Alpha system as a model for how we might proceed, but perhaps we should convert all those pages into redirects back to here - except the ones where there's an overlap with canon, where a "Behind the Scenes" note would be appropriate. By my count, that means Rigel, Altair, Cygnus Spaceworks and Cygnus B, which last needs work and source-checking, as I'm not convinced there's anything more than extrapolation behind that page. --McEwok 11:43, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- And Coridan system, which I think is close enough to the canonical Corridan system that it could be a misspelling, intentional or otherwise, that Kube-McDowell meant to refer to the same Trek planet Miller was referencing. There's also the question of the Unification Wars, which should probably have the 21,183 BBY references removed, as that seems to be speculative. — Silly Dan 15:05, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed on Corridan. I assume that the name Unification Wars appears in the New Essential Chronology, but is there anything else in common except the (coincidental?) term? I'd suggest we pare back any reference to a brief Behind the Scenes comment over on the relevant page. Similarly, someone really needs to look at the sources given at the Cygnus_B page to establish if anything relevant is ever mentioned anywhere.... --McEwok 16:36, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Uncomprehensible sentence
- it appears that Lawrence Miller and Johnson, one of the first official authors to reference "Cygnus Spaceworks", have worked together on at least one project, and the canonization of the reference may have been a homage to a friend by Johnson.
What does that mean? Miller is the originator of the 'book'. Johnson is one of the first official authors. Have they worked together on a project? where Miller fits there? he is not authorized. And 'may have been a homage to a friend by Johnson.' refers to which friend? Miller was that friend? then the phrase should read 'a homage by Johnson to Miller' not 'a friend' (indefinite article 'a' hints that he was unrelated to them two and that he is not Miller). MoffRebus 09:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- It means that Johnson, one of the first official authors to reference Cygnus Spaceworks, has worked with Miller on at least one project, a Star Trek fan production entitled the U.S.S. Enterprise Officer's Manual - Revised. Johnson's use of Cygnus Spaceworks may have been a homage to Miller's work. —Silly Dan (talk) 12:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)