FANDOM


Wiki-shrinkable

This is the talk page for the article "Mandalore/Legends."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for a discussion about the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit the Knowledge Bank. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.

SectorEdit

There are two sectors listed here: Mandalore Sector and Dryden Sector. Which is correct? -- Riffsyphon1024 20:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Dryden Sector. The Mandalore Sector was suggested by JSarek, but further investigation proved Dryden to be correct. Imperialles 20:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Do you have a source for the Dryden sector; because the Mandalore sector is canon, from Star Wars Insider #80. JSarek 20:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • http://www.lowlight.com/swmap/wqd21.html states it found the information in #68 and 69 of some Star Wars magazine, though it is not stated which one. Perhaps the Mandalore Sector should be kept up until better proof of Dryden is found? Imperialles 20:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • It is said in the Marvel star wars comic issues 68 and 69. Imperialles 21:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I think that's the source for the planet, not for the sector; I think he placed the planets in sectors arbitrarily, given that Leria Kersil (a Core World) is supposedly in the same sector as Mandalore (an Outer Rim world). A quick Google for "Dryden sector" only points to his site in the context of Star Wars. JSarek 21:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Where is most of this information from anyway? My sources tell me that Mandalore was named after the mercenary who conquered it, around 4,000 BBY, this would be Mandalore the Indomitable, I guess. Source is Star Wars Encyclopedia.--Beeurd 21:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm getting my information from Star Wars Insider #80, in the article "The History of the Mandalorians" by Abel G. Pena. According to the article, the Mandalore that conquered Mandalore was Mandalore the First, though IIRC there was some debate on the theforce.net boards that this was an error and it SHOULD be The Indomitable. JSarek 21:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Fine, fine. I'll investigate the Marvel comics. How canon are they considered to be? Imperialles 21:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
    • The Marvels are canon where they don't conflict with other sources. JSarek 21:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • From the synopsises at TheForce.net, I can't find any mention of a Dryden Sector. Kedalbe, however, is confirmed. Imperialles 21:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I have the Insider Issue 80 in front of me right now, and it does say "Mandalore sector", so that is what we go by since Star Wars Insider cites EU sources that are canon. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Planet Mandalore Edit

Sorry to the person who wrote that fine history of the Mandalorians, but since this was an article about the PLANET of Mandalore, I felt most of that wasn't needed. Not to mention most of it's written on other articles anyway. So I tried to make it more on the subject of the Planet of Mandalore.

I also must note that the Tales story where Solo fights Boba's Mando's isn't offical continuity.--Darth Nuke 16:19, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • I moved Shriek-hawk and Mythosaur to a fauna section; the inhabitant section is just for sapient species.
    • The implication is that the Mythosaurs were sentinent, isn't it? QuentinGeorge 06:02, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • Uhm...that's 1 scary thought Quentin. I'll ask Abel and Dan.JustinGann 06:53, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
        • Abel said they aren't sentient:)JustinGann 00:11, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

There simply is no environmental data on the planet Mandalore in the article. Epic Fail.--Bosda Di'Chi 12:19, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

  • Add it then. This is not a completely comprehensive encyclopedia. No need to call the lack of information "epic fail". 1358 (Talk) 14:29, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

Canderous' return Edit

"Following a brief Sith Civil War 3,951 BBY, the Mandalorians (reformed by Canderous Ordo) returned from their temporary home on Dxun to Mandalore." - FANON ALERT! - Sikon [Talk] 07:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Contrdiction. Edit

" Darth Sidious assigned them to capture Senator Amidala on Norval II, but as Palpatine arranged for them to be ambushed by the Jedi." HUH? Sidious and Palpatine are the same person! Varas Halcyon 15:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I think that's supposed to be taken as that, under the guise of Sidious he hired the Mandalorians for a specific job but as Palpatine he worked with the Jedi to have them ambush the Mandalorians, effectively playing both sides against the middle as is in his nature. -Jadden Sinn

image Edit

Any image of Mandalore? SkywalkerPL 19:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Nothing canon on the web. Snoop 19:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • We'll have one when Forces of Corruption comes out. -LtNOWIS 05:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What kind of planet is Mandalore anyway? I mean is it Earth-like with many different areas (like jungle and desert) or more like the typical Star Wars planets? (like all jungle or all desert) --Pi314 14:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

  • To answer my own question: Mandalore is a forest, jungle and desert planet.--Pi314 08:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Mandalorian Clan LeaderEdit

Just a note, the Mandalorian clan leader isn't the Mandalore. In Sacrifice and Revelations it is clearly written that the Mandalore is the leader of the clans, all the clans, but each clan has it's own chief. So the Mandalorian clan leader in question isn't Mandalore, so it shouldn't link to Mandalore. During the time of the game, Fenn Shysa is Mandalore, and there's only one of them at a time. Gratulor - User Page 00:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

NameEdit

Shouldn't we rename this article Mando'yaim since that's the planet's name in the native language? The same was done for Mon Calamari being renamed Dac, so there is precedent here. 181stAce 16:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree, this should be at Manda'yaim (proper spelling). Moon Demon 02:38, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
  • I concur as well. The article should be renamed to Manda'yaim. I wondered why it wasn't that way after viewing the articles on Mandalorian songs (Vode An, Dha Werda Verda) and even Mando'a. Te Mirdala Mand'alor 02:55, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
    • The article should remain at "Mandalore" per the Naming Policy as it is the English name and is the more frequently used. NayayenTALK 22:26, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
    • Per Nayayen.--Jedi Kasra (comlink) 22:28, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

Post apocaliptic? Edit

I heard something about the status of mandalore being a hellish war-wracked planet in the 3d(Presumably) cartoon on a french site with Google translateSargeLIVES 03:43, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

  • When we have the information, the article will be updated. That's how wikis work - we update as information is available. If it isn't, then we have no grounds to base off. Gratulor - User Page 23:10, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
  • In the episode the planet looks like a war-wracked planet. Is it possible that the "Mandalore" of the episode might be the planet Kalavela, because of the contradiction in The Art of The Clone Wars or another book. Darkvador250495 13:02, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
    • It may also be possible that Mandalore remains a planet with wide range of climates, so this might be another area of the planet. Since it wasn't declared in the episode that the entire planet was the same, I'd say it would be appropriate to keep the Atlas' description of it with the information found in the episode. The Atlas mentiones that it has deserts, so I don't see a conflict really. Gratulor - User Page 06:33, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

A planet with a wide range of environments . . . blasphemy, yah i watched the episodes and my first thought was "good we are seeing parts of the planet that we havent seen before" its not that big of a deal to have a diverse environment. Look at earth we got deserts, post apocolyptic towns (one with rotting garbage on fire underneath making the whole place uninhabitable) arctic. Planets are supposed to be diverse. ralok 17:49, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Change of captial? Edit

The Art of Star Wars: The Clone Wars states Sundari as the capital of Mandolore. Before the series, Keldabe was known to be the capital of this planet. So, is there any word, if the capital has been changed from Sundari to Keldabe some time in Mandalores history (i.e. some time after the Clone Wars)? --Chimealheltei 10:48, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

  • It's entirely likely the New Mandalorians were the only political group the Senate would accept, and they were stationed in Sundari, so that became the de facto capital. Keldabe may have remained the traditional capital, until it became the political capital again during the GCW. Still, it's all speculation at this point. And we don't speculate, do we? 208.22.79.251 04:02, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

WTF Where is it located finally? Edit

Ok, so finally where is the place of Mandalore in the galaxy? The Legacy period map from the "The Essential Atlas" shows that it is closer to Yavin, but the EAW "Forces of corruption" map puts it closer to Utapau and Mustafar...so where it is in fact! And it is not only MAndalore, but others as well. Everyone thinks they could place planets wherever they want!Has a unified decision on the locations been made? A MAP officially recognized by all has to be made (if it is not yet made IDK), ONE map, to define every planet from now on! No more changes! And when a book, a comic or whatever comes out or has to come out, authors of set works first will have to look at this source map and then refer to any planets or sectors or regions before including them. That way the major confusion of fans will be over! Unsigned comment by Dangrievous (talk • contribs).

  • An officially recognized map has been made. It's called The Essential Atlas. Please sign your comments. Thank you. Moon Demon 17:34, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
    • Last I heard Atlas is C+ cannon.SargeLIVES 08:11, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

No huge cities. Edit

From all the books Ive read; isnt mandalore mostly wilderness with a few small cities, with the biggest being Keldabe? I think the clone wars animation missed every thing up.

  • It's true, The Clone Wars TV series has taken a lot of..."liberties", shall we say, with Mando canon. But for the most part yes, Mandalore is mostly wilderness, but it's not an all-forest planet or anything so typical to Star Wars. It's been established for a while that Mandalore has several different ecosystems, desert among them. The New Mandalorians' capital city, Sundari, is out in the desert, away from most of the other Mandalorians. Keldabe's still there, but it was never stated as the largest city, simply the planet's true capital and thus the hub of economy and government for the Mandalorians not associated with the New Mandalorians. Bella'Mia 19:59, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
    • According to the Season 2 DVD featurette "Creating Mandalore", the Mandalorian Civil War was the cataclysmic event that turned Mandalore into the wasteland we see in the series. And no, the TV series didn't ignored what has been said in the EU or every other source. Alexrd 12:27, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
      • The "Creating Mandalore" featurette only refers to a great battle between the Jedi and the Mandalorians. That is a separate conflict nearly 700 years prior to the Mando Civil War, detailed in the Essential Atlas and which you can read about here. Bella'Mia 03:13, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
        • No. They show the Battle of Galidraan in the background (that's the battle they mention between the Mandalorians and the Jedi), which belongs to the Mandalorian Civil War. Alexrd 18:46, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
          • I understand that, I watched the feature, too. However, Filoni made no mention of Galidraan or the Mando Civil War, only a great battle with the Jedi. The images from Open Seasons were simply a convenient way to illustrate Mandos fighting Jedi, no different from flashing images of Mirta Gev or Novoc Vevut while talking about Clone Wars era Mandos. The Essential Atlas has already detailed the Mandalore-devastating war as a separate event, to which I already linked. This war. Bella'Mia 23:13, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Infox image inconsistent with Clone Wars canon. Edit

Based on Mandalore's appearance in Star Wars: The Clone Wars, the current image in the infobox is inaccurate, if not completely non-canon.

This Mandaloreplanet does not look anything like Mandalore system.

However Karen Traviss described the planet in her books, I'm pretty sure that Clone Wars surpasses all of it in canon. So shouldn't this infobox's image depict Mandalore as seen in the Clone Wars? JRT2010 11:31, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

  • The current infobox image is completely canon until stated otherwise in an official capacity, and remains the best depiction of the entirety of the planet Mandalore to date. To be completely honest, the image you chose to compare it with is of Mandalore from an odd angle, half shrouded in shadow, and half too bright from the planetary halo effect for any real detail to be discerned whatsoever, so if that's the only comparison, they may very well look identical. Furthermore, despite the Clone Wars show's depiction, the majority of Star Wars canon works—Karen Traviss's novels among them, but not alone—have depicted Mandalore as a primarily arboreal world with varied other ecosystems similar to Earth. Subsequent reference books, including The Essential Atlas and Star Wars: The Clone Wars: New Battlefronts: The Visual Guide, have enacted several retcons in favor of this portrayal. As reflected in the article itself, the New Battlefronts Visual Guide specifically says that only parts of Mandalore are desert, and The Essential Atlas reinforces this by listing "jungles, seas, desert" among Mandalore's primary terrain. The present infobox depicts Mandalore just fine, in spite of the show's several inaccuracies. --Bella'Mia 12:14, October 19, 2011 (UTC)
    • I chose that image because it's the only one on this site that shows Mandalore, as depicted in an episode of the Clone Wars. You want a better reference? Try: http://www.starwars.com/explore/encyclopedia/locations/mandalore/ I believe you'll see that starwars.com describes Mandalore's terrain as blasted desert and its climate as inhospitable; hardly the features of a primarily arboreal planet. Furthermore, even though the majority of Star Wars canon states otherwise, that doesn't change the fact that the sources you mentioned fall under C-canon, which is superseded by T-canon sources like the Clone Wars. So the current image definitely does not best depict Mandalore in its entirety. That image comes from a book, published in 2006, and is thus C-canon. The Clone Wars depicts it as a desert planet, which is backed up by the official website of Star Wars itself. Hence, the infobox image should reflect Mandalore as it has been depicted in the higher tier of Star Wars canon. JRT2010 15:31, October 19, 2011 (UTC)
      • Personally, I have no interest in Mandalore, or anything that has to do with Mandalorians (except the ones in Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic). But this article should reflect Mandalore as shown and described in the higher level of Star Wars canon, especially now with StarWars.com linking to us, as you yourself pointed out. JRT2010 15:41, October 19, 2011 (UTC)
        • I really do hate the X-canon argument. Yes, it is correct that the show holds a higher tier in the official canon ranks, but more to the point, Star Wars is intended to be a single canon, based on the single history, of a single, shared universe. When discrepancies are introduced, by any form of media—even as was the case with the newest of the films—a retcon or series of retcons that salvages older material while streamlining inconsistencies is always the more ideal choice than simply throwing out the prior work. Only when no other reconcilable option is available do they resort to that. The Essential Atlas and New Battlefronts Visual Guides are both officially canon, regardless of the lettered tier system, and thus are acceptable in their attempts to bring together new contributions with prior ones. As you brought up StarWars.com, I'm sure you might be aware that the Database carried information contradicted by numerous other sources over the years, and the new Encyclopedia is riddled with its own errors, both within the internal canon of the TV series, and when dealing with the Expanded Universe. This would appear to be the most likely contributing reason behind their current links to us. Therefore, it is the responsibility of Wookieepedia to present all aspects of canon to the reader, new and old. And with the established retcons, the current infobox image does indeed depict Mandalore as it is acknowledges by the larger Star Wars universe at this time. Bella'Mia 23:35, October 19, 2011 (UTC)
          • I never said that Star Wars wasn't one canon. It is one overall story. Nevertheless, the various canonical sources throughout Star Wars are divided by a classification system. Yes, it is true that a lot of C-canon material contradicts the Clone Wars version of Mandalore. Yet it is the TV show that holds the higher tier of canon. It's the C-canon sources of Mandalore that need to conform with the T-canon version of Mandalore, not the other way around. This is not all that different from the example that the canon article uses—older source material had to be retconed to fall in line with the G-canon version of Boba Fett's back story. "Larger" Star Wars universe or not, as long as the Clone Wars holds the higher level of canon, the TV version of Mandalore is what is supposed to take precedence on this article, and the lesser C-canon material has to fall in line. As it states on the canon article itself, "each ascending level typically overrides the lower ones." In that case, the image in the infobox does not best depict Mandalore because a C-canon-based image from 2006 does not supersede the higher T-canon's version of the planet. JRT2010 05:09, October 20, 2011 (UTC)
            • You're not really listening now. The point I have been making, repeatedly, is that despite the blatant disregard for previous canon shown by the Clone Wars TV series, subsequent sources have made the effort to reconcile the version of Mandalore seen in the show with the version of Mandalore established by the Expanded Universe. There is no need to change the infobox image, and there is no need for anything to "conform" to anything else, since the effective result of these late retcons is that there is no difference between the two depictions, each is equally valid, and both deserts and forests are both simply single aspects of a larger, multi-biome planet. Bella'Mia 05:34, October 20, 2011 (UTC)
              • The only one who isn't listening is you. Actually, I do see your point, but it doesn't hold up as far as the classification system goes, which you are treating as irrelevant. Regardless of the Clone Wars' "blatant disregard for previous canon," it still holds the higher level of canon and so it takes precedence over C-canon material, as I have repeatedly pointed out. "Each ascending letter typically overrides the lower ones" is a very straightforward rule which you seem to ignore. I'm not saying that Mandalore's other features such as "forests" or "oceans" have to be removed from the article. Unless stated otherwise, the C-canon material still counts unless directly overridden in an official capacity. However, my point is that the infobox should have an image of Mandalore as seen in the Clone Wars, since the show's level of canonicity surpasses every C-canon source you pointed out. JRT2010 08:58, October 20, 2011 (UTC)
          • Look, I'm trying to be reasonable. I've presented my case, provided canon sources to back up each claim, and explained my own reasoning based upon the officially issued retcons. You've dismissed the official canon several times now, and have yet to provide anything concrete to this discussion other than constant repetition that The Clone Wars outranks everything because it's a higher tier. That is not the case. In this case, the classification system is irrelevant. Once again...per The Essential Atlas and the New Battlefronts Visual Guide, nothing is overriding anything. And if Mandalore still possessed forests and oceans, the Clone Wars image is the one that is inadequate. Also, per the way Nal Hutta's appearance in the show is currently being handled, the alternate barren image of Mandalore will be included in the article, just not in the infobox. It'll be in the "Behind the scenes" section, and the anomalous nature of the show's representation noted. Bella'Mia 09:25, October 20, 2011 (UTC)
        • As opposed to your constant repetition of how C-canon material is simply not superseded by T-canon here. I understand that you're a big fan of the EU and you must have invested a ton of time into studying it, and obviously the Mandalorian part of it. But at the end of the day, this is George Lucas' story, his universe to make or change as he will. Dave Filoni has mentioned several times in interviews and blogs that Lucas is as involved in the Clone Wars as he was with the films. So if the TV-series reinterprets Mandalore as a desert-covered wasteland, than it was done so under his approval. If he changes something in Star Wars, than Wookieepedia has to go along with it as much as possible. On the one hand, we have the canon sources that you mentioned, written by different authors. On the other hand, we have the Clone Wars, which is not only canon but also has Lucas's direct involvement in it (not to mention the fact that people like Lee and Filoni say that Star Wars is what Lucas makes of it). Due to the lack of an overhaul retcon to the Clone Wars era continuity, I'm inclined to go with Lucas's vision of the story, as opposed to EU material of which he is not bound in any way to uphold or leave unchanged. JRT2010 11:02, October 20, 2011 (UTC)
          • To be blunt, if you want Lucas's every word to be the be-all end-all of the Star Wars universe, you're in the wrong place. Wookieepedia is in the business of detailing all aspects of canon. Wookieepedia has no obligation whatsoever to "go along with" everything Lucas says, but to record the Star Wars universe as it is detailed in official releases. But you're right, I've said that already. And considering this discussion is currently going nowhere in a roundabout type of way, I stand by what I've already said and I, personally, will not be changing the infobox image during the course of my ongoing expansion of the article. If this bothers you so much, as this lengthy back-and-forth would appear to indicate, I suggest you take the matter to a vote and see what opinions the other members of the community have on the issue. Bella'Mia 11:31, October 20, 2011 (UTC)
          • The only thing this circular argument indicates is your belief that older material from a lower tier of canon is not affected whatsoever by other sources that outrank them in the Holocron database. It's no secret that TCW has contradicted—if not outright discarded—EU sources. Nevertheless the show is still canon, and so is its interpretation of Mandalore. The show's version and the image in the infobox cannot both be canon; one is covered in desert and the other has a far more diverse terrain. Both sides contradict each other, but you're making the unilateral decision to reflect the "EU version" of Mandalore over the Clone Wars version, at least as far as the image in the infobox goes. If you can't see the problem there, then I can only suppose that it's due to a lack of impartiality; a preference for the "EU" version over the show. JRT2010 12:36, October 20, 2011 (UTC)
  • The version of canon policy you're presenting here is not one that is followed by LucasFilm staff, more pointedly it's not the one that Wookieepedia follows. Your unilateral decision that your perceived conflicts between sources cannot be reconciled while maintaining the validity of both is by no means any sort of final word. The fact that LFL's paid professional authors can and have done exactly what you're saying can't be done belies your position. But, if you do still feel that you're right and you have a majority consensus to enact the sweeping changes to site policy that would be needed to allow you to follow through with the changes you desire, then next step for you is to begin the requisite Concensus Track to amend Wookieepedia's charter. Otherwise, you'd best be served by either reconsidering the validity of the opposing argument or conceding that even if you feel you're correct, your personal beliefs are insufficient to justify single-handedly overturning what to this point has been a concensually uncontested matter. DD97Which bear is best? 16:27, October 20, 2011 (UTC)
    • As a general administrative reminder to all involved parties, not directed at any specific individual: please remember to uphold WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Others' personal beliefs should not be accused, and neither should other users—it is perfectly fine to disagree, but it is not okay to call out others on potentially different beliefs when it comes to matters like this. If deemed necessary, the administration will take action to prevent this discussion from blowing out of proportion, which will hopefully not have to be the case. Thank you. CC7567 (talk) 04:23, October 22, 2011 (UTC)
  • Really finding the argument that showing a sample, one portion of a planet, however large, in a short series of frames in the Clone Wars TV show, and what fits within that sample fully explains the range/population of land, the inhabitants, etc. is unreasonable. Not compelled to believe, for instance, that New York City is representative as THE environment and culture of the United States of America, let alone Earth.

FerrigoProsstang (talk) 18:54, March 21, 2014 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+