| abstract
| - __NOWYSIWYG__ The page name for "Fire Warriors" seems to be a case of fanon. It's claimed that the name is "canon," but it doesn't appear within any official source or story. The only evidence of the name even being a thing are two quotes from Gene Yang. The first was published in an interview promoting the first part of Smoke and Shadows,before Azula's group was even revealed and when the actual Kemurikage spirits appeared to be the antagonists: “When we were talking about what to do with these three books, Brian described to me this group of Fire Nation women warriors that they were kind of batting around. And unfortunately, that concept got left on the cutting room floor. So it’ll be a little bit like the Fire Nation equivalent of the Kyoshi warriors. We’re bringing that concept in now, so that will be one of the main adversaries of the book." To further clarify things, Yang said in an interview on this very wiki: "And finally, for Smoke and Shadow, the center of the story of the Kemurikage is actually from an idea that Mike and Bryan had for the original series but that they just didn’t get to put in. They wanted a Fire Nation version of the Kyoshi Warriors, and we were able to put them in the comics." This fits perfectly with what was depicted in the comics, that the Kemurikage were actually normal women who worked against a warlord before becoming spirits. They defended their people and their nation, similar to the Kyoshi Warriors. Applying the 'Fire Warriors' name to Azula's henchwomen doesn't make sense, because they share nothing in common with the Kyoshi Warriors aside from being a group of women. They're criminals, not soldiers or law enforcers, and nothing has even clarified if they're following Azula for anything but personal obligation to her. Even if it could be argued that Gene Yang did mean to link the Fire Warriors concept with the Kemurikage imposters, Gene himself never used that specific term. It was probably created by the Entertainment Weekly writer who conducted that first interview, so using it as the title of a page would be like having a page for the Azula, Mai, and Ty Lee grouping called "Ozai's Angels" after the popular fan expression. "Fire Warriors" just seems to be fanon, and if the group even merits a page- which I think is debatable, given the lack of info about them and the likelihood that they weren't inspired by the Kyoshi Warriors- they should probably just get another 'Unnamed' title of some kind..—Preceding unsigned comment added by Loopy777 (wall • contribs) 01:04, April 11, 2016 (UTC) Since I did create the page, I'll offer my reasoning as to why I chose to accept that page name as canonical. One, as you mention, Andrea Towers used that term explicitly to refer to the antagonists of Smoke and Shadow. Although we don't have a full transcript of the interview to verify whether Gene Yang used the term himself, it just as valid to assume that Yang did in fact mention it than it is to assume that Towers made the term up herself. Extracting information from Entertainment Weekly and considering it canon is not at all comparable to accepting fan expression as canon, because Entertainment Weekly has proven itself to be a credible and legitimate source over the years. If I recall correctly, it was among the first few sites that gave us the first few promotional teasers for Korra, and it was certainly the site we used as reference for the Book Two: Spirits character pages and the character profile of Avatar Wan before those episodes even aired. I see no reason to dismiss the name "Fire Warriors" as conjecture because the source from which it stems is entirely legitimate and if a revision is made in the future by Gene Yang, then it will be easy enough to reflect those changes when a better source becomes available. As to whether the group merits the page, that goes without question. They are the primary antagonists and a major group of an entire trilogy, which more than warrants an article per our standards. File:Waterbending emblem.png Water Spout 01:59, May 12, 2016 (UTC) Agreed, as per Señor Spout's reasoning. 6:04, May 12, 2016 (UTC) I think Loopy has a fairly solid point, and even though I don't agree with his reasoning of it being 'fanon', I do think Water Spout's explanation is pretty thin. That being said, it's also the best one we have, so I don't think we should change it unless a better one comes along. 07:23, May 12, 2016 (UTC) I never called Entertainment Weekly an unreliable source, but it's not claiming that Gene ever used the term. It's Schrodinger's moniker, possible something Gene came up with but possibly not, and I think it goes against the principle of cataloging canon if it's accepted without any further verification or support. Keeping it as the article name until it's proven wrong might seem benign, but lots of people will accept it as fact unless the name is tagged an conjecture, and I can definitely see it working its way into official sources simply because fans start using it with a misunderstanding of its origins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loopy777 (wall • contribs) 20:13, May 14, 2016 (UTC) I know you never called EW an unreliable source, hence why I only remarked that it has vastly different value as a source compared to fan-driven forums like Tumblr or Reddit. That was in reference to your use of the Ozai's Angels example. As I said, I see the value EW has as a source and so the page name is appropriate from my perception. If its use becomes widespread and official sources choose to apply it as a result, then I don't see why that's an issue. Names we've used for fauna pages have been adopted into publications and even our dating system was adopted by Nickelodeon. It would just provide a stronger source. But personal perception aside, my inherent disagreement is with your initial proposal to rename the page to something along the lines of "Unnamed [...]", as I see no reason to create a more conjectural name when a name from a source is available to use. Branding the term itself as conjecture is another issue altogether that you never proposed until that rebuttal. File:Waterbending emblem.png Water Spout 22:17, May 14, 2016 (UTC) Well, I'm trying to find a compromise. The historian in me has every hair on end over applying our own terms (no, we didn't invent it, but it's still never been used in anything remotely official and we're kind of arbitrarily valuing it) and letting those become canon thanks to lazy official writers, but if the position of this community is that it's fine, I'd at least like some kind of warning for people who take a more conservative approach in regards to what constitutes "canon." Loopy777 (wall • contribs) 21:42, May 19, 2016 (UTC) I definitely understand that. As I said, you never proposed branding it as a possibly conjectural name. That is something very easy to do and something I would easily support. File:Waterbending emblem.png Water Spout 20:49, May 20, 2016 (UTC) Sweet. Thanks for the example. I added the conjecture tag to the page. Loopy777 (wall • contribs) 22:04, May 20, 2016 (UTC)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)