Difference between revisions of "Talk:Hutt Council"

From Holocron - Star Wars Combine
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 6: Line 6:
  
 
:If Percilia Kajidic agrees with this change, I'm fine with it, but does Percilia's Hutt Grand Council claim to be the heir to Angobba's Hutt Council faction? I believe Percilia's group claims unbroken descent from the fictional Hutt Grand Council in the Star Wars Expanded Universe and not from the in-game Hutt Council faction led by Angobba that was destroyed in Year 5. Percilia's Hutt Grand Council would need to rewrite/retcon its existing backstory to include the events surrounding Angobba's defunct Hutt Council. However, this change would set an important precedent for other Holocron articles: Angobba's Hutt Council was an actual Combine Member Group (CMG) and its documented history as related in this article were in-game events that actually occurred. (Some players in the Hutt Cartel were members of this old CMG.) In contrast, Percilia's Hutt Grand Council has no IC-affiliation to Angobba's old one other than using its name. If we adopt this approach, the new unrelated "Pentastar Alignment" may claim to be the official successor to the old "Pentastar Alignment" even though it isn't and we would have to retcon the history of the old "Pentastar Alignment" to account for all future unrelated successors. This would apply to all factions who share similar names from the Star Wars universe. -- [[User:Rupert Havok|Rupert Havok]], 2 November 2012
 
:If Percilia Kajidic agrees with this change, I'm fine with it, but does Percilia's Hutt Grand Council claim to be the heir to Angobba's Hutt Council faction? I believe Percilia's group claims unbroken descent from the fictional Hutt Grand Council in the Star Wars Expanded Universe and not from the in-game Hutt Council faction led by Angobba that was destroyed in Year 5. Percilia's Hutt Grand Council would need to rewrite/retcon its existing backstory to include the events surrounding Angobba's defunct Hutt Council. However, this change would set an important precedent for other Holocron articles: Angobba's Hutt Council was an actual Combine Member Group (CMG) and its documented history as related in this article were in-game events that actually occurred. (Some players in the Hutt Cartel were members of this old CMG.) In contrast, Percilia's Hutt Grand Council has no IC-affiliation to Angobba's old one other than using its name. If we adopt this approach, the new unrelated "Pentastar Alignment" may claim to be the official successor to the old "Pentastar Alignment" even though it isn't and we would have to retcon the history of the old "Pentastar Alignment" to account for all future unrelated successors. This would apply to all factions who share similar names from the Star Wars universe. -- [[User:Rupert Havok|Rupert Havok]], 2 November 2012
 +
 +
::I definitely think that a standard policy as disputed claims are a part of the SWC story(The most notable being that BOTH the GE and NR claim to be the heirs to the Galactic Republic, and so did the "Old Republic".)Whether or not an organisation is a successor to an org of the same name is an IC question, and should be treated as such. But you have a point in that if HGC wants to make a claim that they are they are the legitimate heirs to the old hutt faction, then they must reconcile this with the history of the old hutt faction. If you make a faction that has the name of an old faction, you must make sure to state that: a) Your faction is new , b)This claim is contested, and c)You are the heirs for the following reasons:(reasons). Until someone from the faction(or factions) in question comes along, a good take on this would be for an editor to add something like:"The Hutt Grand Council's position on the legitimacy of the [[Hutt Council]] is unknown, and their claim to represent the Hutt Race is contested by [[Hutt Cartel]].". In my opinion, doing it almost any other way is unfair to people who have put/are putting time and effort into all three groups. - [[User:Drak`ora Sabosen|Drak`ora Sabosen]] 18:36, 2 November 2012 (GMT)

Revision as of 13:36, 2 November 2012

Featuredaward.png This article has been a Featured Article of the Holocron. It is an excellent example for other articles to follow.



Successor Question

For this article to be fair, it should reflect BOTH organisations which claim to be the heirs of this faction. - Drak`ora Sabosen 13:07, 2 November 2012 (GMT)

If Percilia Kajidic agrees with this change, I'm fine with it, but does Percilia's Hutt Grand Council claim to be the heir to Angobba's Hutt Council faction? I believe Percilia's group claims unbroken descent from the fictional Hutt Grand Council in the Star Wars Expanded Universe and not from the in-game Hutt Council faction led by Angobba that was destroyed in Year 5. Percilia's Hutt Grand Council would need to rewrite/retcon its existing backstory to include the events surrounding Angobba's defunct Hutt Council. However, this change would set an important precedent for other Holocron articles: Angobba's Hutt Council was an actual Combine Member Group (CMG) and its documented history as related in this article were in-game events that actually occurred. (Some players in the Hutt Cartel were members of this old CMG.) In contrast, Percilia's Hutt Grand Council has no IC-affiliation to Angobba's old one other than using its name. If we adopt this approach, the new unrelated "Pentastar Alignment" may claim to be the official successor to the old "Pentastar Alignment" even though it isn't and we would have to retcon the history of the old "Pentastar Alignment" to account for all future unrelated successors. This would apply to all factions who share similar names from the Star Wars universe. -- Rupert Havok, 2 November 2012
I definitely think that a standard policy as disputed claims are a part of the SWC story(The most notable being that BOTH the GE and NR claim to be the heirs to the Galactic Republic, and so did the "Old Republic".)Whether or not an organisation is a successor to an org of the same name is an IC question, and should be treated as such. But you have a point in that if HGC wants to make a claim that they are they are the legitimate heirs to the old hutt faction, then they must reconcile this with the history of the old hutt faction. If you make a faction that has the name of an old faction, you must make sure to state that: a) Your faction is new , b)This claim is contested, and c)You are the heirs for the following reasons:(reasons). Until someone from the faction(or factions) in question comes along, a good take on this would be for an editor to add something like:"The Hutt Grand Council's position on the legitimacy of the Hutt Council is unknown, and their claim to represent the Hutt Race is contested by Hutt Cartel.". In my opinion, doing it almost any other way is unfair to people who have put/are putting time and effort into all three groups. - Drak`ora Sabosen 18:36, 2 November 2012 (GMT)