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 rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Redirect to User:Riffsyphon1024/Fan-created sectors. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:56, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Palador Sector
JustinGann asked "What is the source for this? THese planets don't belong in any Palador Sector. Is this fan-info?
As far as I can determine, this sector is a fan creation from http://www.lowlight.com/swmap/nqd27.html and the planet placements contradict canonically established cartography. This entry should be deleted." -- Azizlight
- I have an better idea though. Why not redirect to a List of fan-made sectors, to distinguish between canon and fanon easier? -- Riffsyphon1024 02:21, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if we want to recognize fanon that much. Supershadow is only here because of his notability. That's what "sources" and "fanon" tags are for. On the other hand, Supershadow's redirects are certainly useful for rooting out his stuff...
Anyways, Delete without source.-LtNOWIS 04:30, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)- I agree that it wouldn't belong here, but it wouldn't hurt to include a list of noncanon/fanon to root out incorrect sectors. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:28, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Considering the sheer size of Star Wars canon, it could be useful to have (a) list(s) of known fanon items. Otherwise, there's really no way of telling the difference between fanon and things that you simply haven't heard of (obviously there are some things that can be spotted easily, but it can sometimes be hard to tell). – Aidje talk 05:44, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- I have now completed a subpage at User:Riffsyphon1024/Fan-created sectors with all of his sectors, both fanon and canon, however it should be noted that not everything is in the right spot in those canon sectors. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:37, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Considering the sheer size of Star Wars canon, it could be useful to have (a) list(s) of known fanon items. Otherwise, there's really no way of telling the difference between fanon and things that you simply haven't heard of (obviously there are some things that can be spotted easily, but it can sometimes be hard to tell). – Aidje talk 05:44, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that it wouldn't belong here, but it wouldn't hurt to include a list of noncanon/fanon to root out incorrect sectors. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:28, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if we want to recognize fanon that much. Supershadow is only here because of his notability. That's what "sources" and "fanon" tags are for. On the other hand, Supershadow's redirects are certainly useful for rooting out his stuff...