Forum:CT Archive/Atlas and systems

This seem to be going nowhere on the SH, so I decided to start a proper CT thread to decide how we will threat the systems from the Awesome Appendix to The Essential Atlas. Hopefully a proper vote would clarify things.

When this awesome book was first released, it was generally assumed that the locations in the Index are proper systems, since that is the heading of the first column. Fellow users, myself included, started creating articles for them, which are already numbered in hundreds, even though we basically just started. It was also clarified by the authors of the book that some systems were listed in Appendix after the name of the most famous object in that system, thus we have what would look like Tatooine system instead of the proper Tatoo system. Note was taken and the work continued. This attracted the attention of TheForce.net community, and some people started questioning the validity of the "systems" named after space stations, nebulae and asteroids, most of which were result of my work. I started a debate which continued for some time until some user posted this:

Following this, all "systems" named after space stations and nebulae were deleted and links to them removed. All the rest, however, were left untouched. Now, if we trust this user's interpretation of Jason Fry's words, then all other "systems" we created were never canonically named either. It would seem like we would have to delete them, but there is another nuance. The authors have noted that each system only appears in the Index once and thus objects like Trandosha, Rori and Yavin station are not listed in the Index, because something else from that system already is. But this would mean that each object listed which is listed in the appendix, does belong to a separate system (nebulae and space stations aside). For us this would mean that while 23 Mere system might not be named this way in GFFA, the planet 23 Mere does indeed reside in a separate system.

If something exists on GFFA, we should have an article about it. Just because it didn't receive a proper name, it doesn't mean we can't keep the system article with a Conjecture template on top, we do it all the time for conjecturally named characters, vessels and events. However, on the SH thread for the same topic, mentioned Esfandia which, while listed in the Appendix, is free-floating and does not orbit a star. He said that "these "systems" should be kept with a conjecture tag if and only if we can verify through other canonical evidence that an actual system of planets orbiting at least one star exists" and that "any depiction of a planet anywhere in canon of having a sun or sunlight should be sufficient evidence". However, having processed hundreds of those systems already, I say that this criteria would be quite hard to fulfill. See, the vast majority of systems in the Appendix are from RPG sources and thus only a brief depiction of them exists. Only a small percentage of those planets can be seen orbiting a star, and those are usually placed in a system already. Wouldn't it be better to look for proof that a planet is located in the deep space instead, which would be a notable fact that will likely be mentioned in the source?

Might I also mention, that Esfandia looks like a notable exception to me. Planets with no stars may be quite common in GFFA, but only one example is depicted in Star Wars canon (correct me if I'm wrong). After all, both in the Atlas and the Online Appendix the column title says "System", not "the most known object at a related location". I say that if we assume that most of those planets are located in separate systems after all, we would be right in 99,9% of guesses. The remaining 0,1% would naturally produce some mistakes, but it would still be way better than if we pretend that those systems do not exist and leave this enormous area of info on Wookieepedia incomplete. People in the same TFN thread have already asked questions about certain new systems when they could not find it on the Wookieepedia: we're still missing thousands of them and we better catch up with the source soon.

So, finally we come to the vote:
 * Option 1: Keep and continue to create articles for systems, named conjecturally after the first column in the Atlas Appendix, with the exception of nebulae and space stations. Provide them with a Conjecture, until the system name actually appears in another source. Treat the objects confirmed to be located in deep space as notable exception.

 Mauser  Comlink 20:40, September 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * Option 2: Delete all hundreds of new system articles created after the Atlas' release. Also remove any redlinks leading to them in order to avoid recreation. From that point, only create conjecturally named article for system when the existence of such system has been confirmed directly, but no name was provided. Ignore the Appendix' first column which says "System" and trust the user of the TFN boards with his interpretation of Jason Fry's words.

Option 1

 * 1)  Mauser  Comlink 20:40, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
Any new voting options will not be included until absolutely necessary and only after a discussion here first. Otherwise people would start changing votes and we will have no consensus as all, I've seen it all before.  Mauser  Comlink 20:40, September 19, 2009 (UTC)