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)

References

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? EDIT: I guess it's just that they've removed the "in-universe timeline" column. Release order was always there. This makes it so much worse! Why was that removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ETRossier (talk • contribs) 17:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

As the person who removed it, it's inappropriate to organize information based on an in-universe timeline. Wikipedia approaches subjects from an out of universe perspective, that is, a real-world production standpoint. (Please see WP:INUNIVERSE.) Because the BBY and ABY dates are purely fictional, the information should not be organized as such. It is not Wikipedia's goal to include every bit of information and trivia about a topic, but rather to present the information in as broad and encyclopedic manner as possible. Such in-universe dating skews close to trivia, to fancruft (see WP:FANCRUFT), and overly technical information that is inaccessible to people who are not members of the Star Wars fan community. In short, yes, the in-universe timeline is indeed irrelevant from an encyclopedic and out of universe perspective. If you wish for a list of canon media organized by in-universe chronology, I suggest Timeline of canon media on Wookieepedia. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

As it says on the INUNIVERSE page: "It is acceptable to include both the fictional timeline and the real world timeline, providing that the distinction is not ambiguous; the real world time line should take precedence." I think the headers took care of any ambiguity, so I think we we're fine. Additionally, in my humble opinion, if having an article on Star Wars Canon and a list of it's works isn't fancruft, then I don't think that having the additional column for the proper order is crossing any lines. The timeline you linked from a fanpage would be the very definition of fancruft, however, as it is way too technical and involved in the content to be accessible to a casual viewer such as myself. ~Thanks for responding and indulging the conversation. E T Rossier 172.85.28.68 (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I, as an individual, tend to have a bit of a high bar from time to time. While using in-universe chronology is acceptable, it's still subject to whether it's prudent. The issue here is whether or not it's still appropriate. As indicated by several discussions above, the BBY/ABY dating isn't even associated with the canon material and has never been used outside of Legends. This both brings the snafus of applying an in-universe chronology not even consistent with the material itself and then that said in-universe chronology is very malleable, subject to sudden change. These issues are avoided by not having the dating to begin with. The subject of the Star Wars Canon itself isn't really fancruft, it's a subject that has been remarked upon by many third party sourced, especially since the introduction of Legends. (This article may not properly reflect it right now, but the topic itself stands.) Adding an BBY/ABY timeline is difficult because such dates are hard to source anyway, and they don't necessarily add overly much value to the article. The timeline of Canon media can be linked in the external links, and that sufficiently covers it. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with TenTonParasol, both because of the in-universe angle and since the BBY/ABY dating scheme is Legends-based (and this is a canon material article). Plus, I think much was original research based on editor calculations. In any case, I was also going to suggest Wookieepedia as the perfect place for an in-universe timeline to be maintained.— TAnthony^Talk 22:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Also agree with TenTon and TAnthony. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I should point out that List of Star Wars books and List of Star Wars comic books are also organized by in-universe timeline, but I have never had the strength to tackle either one LOL.— TAnthony^Talk 15:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to say I am also disappointed in this change. There are lots of pages about fictional universes that include an in universe timeline. It's an added point of reference that is easy to understand for even the casual fan. The page that has been mentioned to go to instead is an overly meticulous timeline that is quite intimidating to get through. I always appreciated the ease of looking at this page and am disappointed the only reason I read it is gone. Morph1138 (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I would not object to a sortable column (in the far-right position) that somehow helped identify the novels' chronology among themselves, providing the information was sourced. The problem is, there is currently no accepted system of dates or points of reference used by the publishers or in the texts for this purpose. All we can source at this point would be (in some cases) which works occur before/after/between other works. For example, this source establishes that the novel Star Wars: Ahsoka takes place between Star Wars: The Clone Wars and Star Wars Rebels. I don't know how we would begin to translate this information to the table in a manner which could be sustained moving forward, and some may argue that it is unnecessary because this information can be found in the individual articles. Plus it still may fail the in-universe litmus test. The bottom line is that Wikipedia is, indeed, not a reading guide and those looking for a storyline order for the novels can look elsewhere on the web and find the information in a list.— TAnthony^Talk 19:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to note that Timeline of canon media on Wookieepedia may seem daunting at first because it lists individual comic issues and TV episodes, but it has ingenious functionality to hide categories of works by clicking in the related boxes at the top. This far outclasses anything we could provide here anyway.— TAnthony^Talk 19:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Official Source, at least for some of the books we have this source coming directly from the book publisher Del Rey, but it doesn't include books published by other publishers, nor the comics, but at least it's a source someone should add in the article of the books somewhere, although I'm not exactly sure where: http://www.randomhousebooks.com/campaign/star-wars-timeline/
  • Suggestion, instead of Before and After the BBY and ABY, we should change all the articles to Before Star Wars 4 (BSW4) and After Star Wars 4(ASW4) because according to Pablo Hidalgo from Lucasfilm story group, the Battle of Yavin doesn't make any sense to hold so much weight, to be the in-universe starting point of the time-line, specially when the Empire Day and The Battle of Endor 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. Should we change all the articles? https://twitter.com/pablohidalgo/status/795361197490991104

Rosvel92 (talk) 11:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)Rosvel92

Additionally, I understand that exact in universe dates may no longer be feasible, but I have a VERY hard time imagining we couldn't come up with sources for a chronological ordering. I do understand that the purpose of wikipedia is not to cater to fans, but we really are pulling the plug on what I'd imagine is the most useful functionality of this article. A far-right sortable column would solve this. We'd be following the guidelines of keeping publication dates the primary focus, while keeping the readers informed in a way that truly matters to them. As for using a system such as "ASW4/BSW4", I don't think that's the best way to go, as only one guy with limited say suggested it. However, we should develop a standard to be used across these articles, as acknowledgment of the ordering of events is most definitely inevitable. ETRossier (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)