User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-45314928-20200727170605/@comment-45692830-20200727173951

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-45314928-20200727170605/@comment-45692830-20200727173951 It's nice that you believe that.

You seem to have confused a few things. Whether a story licensed a particular entity is not relevant to whether or not we can include references to that entity on their wiki page. Rather, we just require that all actual uses of things explicitly mentioned are licensed for T:VALID. The source is valid. How it's then placed into articles does not depend on the licenses, but rather on what conclusions you can draw given the textual evidence. Legal connections are irrelevant, narrative connections are what matters.

Indeed, this is why Man with the Rosette is not stated to be The Master in the article, even though the book in question would have had the rights. Narratively there wasn't enough support.

Again, it has been pointed out to you that the examples you're referring to are actually distinct concepts and there are other examples of Faction Paradox changing names, even when they have the rights. These are massive hurdles for you to overcome in your argument, you can't just ignore them and say "but I believe you're wrong".

-

Edit: I agree with Scrooge that some of these are certainly questionable, I think Kelsey Hooper could go either way, as there's an awful lot of narrative support for it. Questioning the Homeworld is just utterly absurd though.