Talk:Dezalk

Does anyone think that the unamed matoran that wears the Mask of Sensory Aptitude is Dezalk?--FROGGER0 18:25, June 20, 2012 (CST)

The Matoran wearing the Mask of Sensory Aptitude has a blue Kanohi, and Dezalk is a Ta-Matoran.... -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2012 (PDT)

Ohhh.--FROGGER0 10:50, June 21, 2012 (CST)

Appearance

I'm starting to doubt that the unused VNOG sprite is Dezalk's actual appearance. The original quote says:

"In VNOLG, apparently this Matoran was to appear, but didn't. Therefore, he had no role in the non-canon game. My question is: would it be alright if the fanbase called him Dezalk, since we have no picture of Dezalk?"

"Okay by me"

"Hmm... so the fanbase may have an unofficial image of Dezalk after all...?"

It's clear that PeabodySam's intention wasn't to get a canonization from Greg, but just asking if it's something the community can unofficially do, more like the fanon names such as 'Fohrok.' There are also a couple of quotes that would suggest this sprite is not Dezalk.

Quote 1

"its an unused test image, trying out the animation, and included in the game files"

"I don't have the authority to canonize something like that. Since it is a web thing, I would suggest talking to Binkmeister about it."

While the context isn't about Dezalk specifically, the answer does apply. And about Binkmeister, even if we could still ask him, whether his answer could be considered canon is dubious since he's no longer at Lego.

Quote 2

"Do all of the Matoran of Voya Nui have the same shapes as the sets (like all Ta-Matoran have the same shape as Balta, all Onu-Matoran Garan, etc.) or does every Matoran have their own shape?"

"Same shape"

While it is weird that all the rebuilt Matoran of the same element would have the same body type and possibly contradicted by the Matoran in the comics, it's still worth mentioning. Thoughts? Dag (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I feel like the original "fine by me" is on the level of other things that have been accepted (not ones I'm a fan of though, so like, I don't think it's necessarily enough of a standard) but I think the bit about him not really knowing what it is in the first place is pretty telling. At least with "Turaga Lhikan", Greg expressed SOME idea of what it was supposed to be, although frankly I don't think that's enough either. -- Dorek _Talk 04:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

With Turaga Lhikan, he had even expressed way prior to 2014 that it was Turaga Lhikan. I personally feel like Dezalk's appearance is on a level of canonicity similar to Fohrok, Kratana, or the MNOG II names. Widely accepted, but technically not canon, but I'm interested in hearing if PeabodySam has any comment, I don't like to assume intentions. ~ Wolk (talk) 07:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah, yes... the only time that I (accidentally) contributed something to canon! Or did I?

I can't say for sure what I had in mind fifteen years ago, but based upon my own wording, it looks like I was just looking for something that fans could generally use as a representation for Dezalk's appearance, rather than an outright definitive canonical appearance. Wolk's comparison to Fohrok and Kratana seems rather apt; these are widely-used by the fandom and Greg is fine with them in the absence of anything more official. But I'm not sure I would rank it on the same level as the MNOG II names, since at least those come straight from official media and just haven't gone through legal; in contrast, this sprite has zero official connection to Dezalk (aide from being a Matoran in a Voya Nui-set game).

(As a side note, the one time I did try to establish a Matoran's canonical appearance with Greg, it was confirming that Midak was the Onu-Matoran in MNOG, and he said "no". I suppose that I didn't word my inquiry very well, since when Wrinkledlion X asked the same question a few months later, Greg said "it was okay".)

But while on that subject, quote 1 seems a little strange, since Greg has shown considerable authority in what is or isn't canonical from online materials. I get the impression that he was just hesitant to canonize anything that was an unused prototype, but again this isn't an absolute rule (such as the Fikou-Nui finally being canonized). And I wonder if quote 2 is one of those cases where Greg's word is superseded by story and media, since the comics show a wide variety of Matoran appearances on Voya Nui (unless that's just chalked up to artistic license). The fact that his response to my question was "okay" and not a definitive "no, Dezalk looks like Balta and not like Garan" also casts doubt on this assertion.

Either way, if BS01 agrees that my question and Greg's response do not amount to canonization, I'm honestly fine with that. The question will be if it's still worth mentioning on the article at all, albeit with the disclaimer that it's unofficial like Fohrok and Kratana; perhaps the image can be left in the infobox with an appropriate caption, but his Kanohi and tools would be changed to "Unknown". Or maybe it's better to just cut it altogether. --PeabodySam (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in! If this is indeed comparable to fanon names like Fohrok, which are used on their respective pages, then perhaps it could remain as the image for Dezalk, just with a proper caption, as you said. However, I do think this is a bit different than Midak and Fikou-Nui. For Midak, he did actually appear in MNOG and wasn't just cut content (as a side note, it's weird that Greg said in Wrinkledlion X's quote that he already said it's okay, but I couldn't find any earlier quote where he confirmed this). For Fikou-Nui, that's not exactly web content, but a retail game that was supposed to be released but never was, and Fikou-Nui did actually appear in the game. I think Greg's reasoning in Quote 1 might be that because this VNOLG Matoran was never meant to appear in the game, it wasn't meant to be canon or have any kind of story role, whereas Midak and Fikou-Nui were. Dag (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I personally would put Dezalk, in this instance, on a different level from the Fohrok and Kratana (maybe that one's debatable lol). With the Fohrok and Kratana, the reason they were made terms at all is specifically because the fan community were already using them, rather than the other way around. Nobody was holding this up as a representation of Dezalk to any significant degree (that I can recall; if I'm mistaken, that's definitely the stuff that should be referenced!) prior to this canonization, whereas the name "Fohrok" was being tossed around, and I'm pretty sure Greg (at the time) would have understood what you were referencing. -- Dorek _Talk 21:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

That's a fair point. So, are you saying you're in favor of just removing the image altogether? I don't really have a prefence either way, as long as we make clear that this isn't definitively canon. Dag (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I would be in favor of removing. Just wanted to point out that if there were other instances of this image being referenced in the community that it might be given more "weight", but given how we did go back and forth on keeping it early on anyway, I doubt that's the case. -- Dorek _Talk 22:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

It also would have been cumbersome to handle an image the same way as a nickname... Nice not having to deal with that. ~ Wolk (talk)

I just remembered something I came across a while back. Apparently BSS had (or was going to have) a poll about a comic appearance for Dezalk in 2011, years after PeabodySam's question. Unforunately, the BZP topic wasn't archived. Whether or not this changes anything, it would be interesting to find any more information about this. Dag (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Ugh I wish I had the password to that old forum, although it's probably been wiped at this point. I'll try looking again anyway... -- Dorek _Talk 05:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)