Talk:Star Wars canon

Novelizations

So am I to understand that while the seven films are obviously canon, the original novelizations of the first six are not?— TAnthony^Talk 22:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Issue's somewhat mucky, I think. I don't think Disney have ever specifically addressed them, and from the outset made clear they were working with the original films and TCW as their base. Del Rey Books have tweeted they're canon, but gave a clarifier to that. That's the closest to an official word, though, saying they're canon, but I'd prefer not to rely on a single tweet. (Note: there have been new junior novelisations of the original trilogy, which are all pretty clearly canon.) – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 23:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

List of Star Wars books has them as Legends works, and it seems that they all have some variations from the films they're based on, but I hadn't seen any official designation (until you noted those tweets). I was trying to decide which nav template they should be in, {{Star Wars canon novels}} or {{Star Wars Legends novels}}.— TAnthony^Talk 00:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

For now, I have the first six in the Legends template and the Force Awakens novelization in the canon one, and the templates distributed accordingly. I can easily change this if consensus decides otherwise.— TAnthony^Talk 01:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Disney seemed pretty clear that any books or comics from before just aren't canon anymore, so I would lean towards keeping them as Legends. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, if I remember correctly, they are definitely kept Legends. – LoLuX12 (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Your assessment is 100% correct. The novelisations to the first six films are definitely part of the expanded universe, but are by no means canon. In fact, many elements from the Legends universe that was never canon is sometimes referenced in the novelisations. DarkKnight2149 21:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@The Millionth One: That only applies to the current novelisations following The Force Awakens. The previously released novelisations only apply to Legends. DarkKnight2149 21:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Pretty sure Battle of Yavin is canon

The most recent edit (changing the table list to a bulleted list) cites the ABY/BBY (after/before Battle of Yavin) as non-canon. However, the Battle of Yavin occurs during A New Hope, which I've taken to believe as canon, so what's going on there? Is there a reference to it not being canon? Epic Wink -- (talk) 14:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

And just a further note, some novels (which I'm pretty sure were canon as they were published after Disney acquired Star Wars) were removed without citation. Epic Wink -- (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted this drastic edit pending discussion. You are correct that the battle is canon, but I'm wondering if the dating scheme based on it has been explicitly used in the "new canon". Yes or no, the spans before or after that date are indeed unsourced in this article, and should be. Whether the dates remain or not, I think I prefer the current table format, but that should definitely be discussed and we'll see where that leads us.— TAnthony^Talk 16:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Even clearly labeled as an "in-universe" time difference, I think a general readership would be better served by changing that to something further out-of-universe, e.g. "Years before the events in Star Wars A New Hope." BBY/ABY-ness seems an unnecessary in-to-out-of-universe conversion. --EEMIV (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

BBY/ABY can still be used as short hand, with a note explaining that they refer to before and after the events of the original film, respectively. Besides, there is already ordering based real-world release, so I don't really see the point in trying to make the in-universe timeline "further out-of-universe". - adamstom97 (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The Star Wars Wikia page uses years since the events at the start of The Phantom Menace. If we were to use that, we could do away with the suffix and just contain a number in the in-universe date column (eg 1977 | 32 | A New Hope | Movie) -- Epic Wink (talk) 05:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The problem we are going to have (if there is no longer an "official" dating scheme) is that these kind of calculations are original research. And I'm sure in many cases it will rely solely on a phrase of dialogue in a novel, like "10 years ago when Vader told me he was my father". I think the in-universe timeline approach in List of Star Wars books and List of Star Wars comics is helpful to readers because there are so many works, but we may have to eliminate dates altogether for new canon material and just keep the works ordered properly, which should be citeable.— TAnthony^Talk 14:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

If we are going to give any in-universe timeline, it should be before and after the original film, not just after the earliest set film since that can change. Also, simple calculations are allowed if they must be in order to sort out where in the in-universe timeline something falls. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, BBY and ABY terminology has never been used outside of Legends. DarkKnight2149 23:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

George Lucas Opinion about the canon according to Dave Filoni

I believe this quote should be in the article unless someone finds a quote of George Lucas saying his own opinion. It's the opinion of the creator of Star Wars, and it's the most recent, I could find.

George Lucas opinion about the canon

Watch the video interview around the minute 41 mark, Dave says:

"It's a funny thing having been here a while and actually telling Star Wars stories hmm... I'm in like a very odd unique position. Which is that... There is this notion that everything changed when everything became Legends, and I can see why people think that but you know having worked with George (Lucas), I can tell you that it always very clear, and he made it very clear, that the films and the TV shows were the only thing that he considered canon, that was it. So everything else was a world of fun ideas exciting characters, great possibilities but the EU(Expanded Universe) was created to explore all those things. And I know and I fully respect peoples opinions about it that some of the material said the next canon part of it hmmm... Ok, but like from the filmmaker world that I was brought into the TV series and the films were it. So it was not a big change for me when everyone was saying everything is Legends status. I'm like yeah that's what I always understood it's all Legends status what I've been able to do in Clone Wars is the same thing that George was doing in the prequels, which is like Ayla Secure. Ayla Secure gets pulled out of the comic books and now she's walking in the Jedi Temple. In Clone Wars there were several things from the Expanded Universe that hey we need a gang, we need another kind of mafia group not just the Hutts, hey Back Sun that exists..." -Dave Filoni on a video interview published by the Official Star Wars (Youtube) Channel on August 12, 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosvel92 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Kindred spirits

Kindred spirits needs to be added , it takes place during the clone wars and is released on july 21 2015 BadilYerak (talk) 08:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

We got the Star Wars timeline wrong in the articles books and comic articles?

According to this tweet by Pablo Hidalgo, instead of Before and After the BBY and ABY, it should be Before Star Wars 4 (BSW4) and After Star Wars 4(ASW4) because in-universe it doesn't make any sense for the battle of Yavin to hold so much weigth, specially when Endor and the Empire Day, are much more significant in-universe dates, and Star Wars 4 as the measuring only works as an the out of universe time frame because it was the first film, but no in-universe. https://twitter.com/pablohidalgo/status/795361197490991104 Should we change all the articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosvel92 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think the only thing really worth deriving from this is that in-universe timeline and treatment of subjects should be only a fleeting component of how we treat Star Wars topics at Wikipedia. Out-of-universe, real timeline production information is the gold standard, not e.g. subject to relatively fickle changes by producers and executives. --EEMIV (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Isn't the Han Solo comic considered canon?

Think it is. I see pending work Darth Maul has recently been posted with Doctor Aphra. Also believe there's a pending Thrawn novel...just saying. Can anyone confirm or update? One solution (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't answer the question regarding the 5-part Han Solo comic, but it was a great video to watch. Unless you posted the wrong link? One solution (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there will be an upcoming Thrawn novel, and yes, you are correct about the Han Solo comic being canon. DarkKnight2149 23:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

LIVID about how the list order was changed!!!

I am absolutely LIVID that the list of new canon works has been put in release order instead of chronological order. What was the thinking in doing this!? This was one of the most comprehensive lists out there for following the series chronologically, and someone just decided that that was irrelevant. Why has this happened?