Talk:Star Wars expanded universe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Star Wars Expanded Universe)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Star Wars (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Wars, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Media franchises (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media franchises, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to media franchises on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Science Fiction  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

POV and canonicity[edit]

Related to the below... I wonder if it is accurate to include the Clone Wars cartoon series as part of the Expanded Universe. Lucas has repeatedly stated that the series were not just fully canonnoical (if that is the correct term) but integral to the tale. I know this is contentious ground and that a few of the film related comics are also considered fully canon (not just by fans but endorsed by Lucas himself). I personally feel that the Expanded Universe tag tends to be applied (by Lucasfilm and fans) to the books, comics and games (all of which (aside from early versions such as Splinter and the Han Solo books) are linked in their own continuity and that this tag doesn't apply to the Clone Wars which is, well, part of the 'main' continuity... I wait to be corrected and flamed by the historically vocal and divided Star Wars fanbase--AlanD 23:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

If the cannonicity of the expanded universe is disputed then is every single article in wikipedia about star wars which indiscrimately is based both off the movies and EU inherently a POV article? (Actually even if you agree that EU is "cannon", its possible that anything in the EU might have been contradicted by another EU story that is way less popular) -Anonymous

No. They might disagree about which versions should be presented as the "one truth", but they do not diuspute that the various versions exist. maru 07:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What? I don't understand this answer. If they do not agree which version should be presented as the one truth, but that they agree that various versions exist, they should therefor clearly mention that in every article, (ie. based purely on the movies, the empire is bla bla, but in most fan fiction and expanded universe material, the empire is blabla). Most articles do not do any sort of this distinguishing, which de facto presents everything as the "one truth". -Anonymous
Sigh. When you have multiple versions, that's what the whole canon thing is for! To decide which version is correct! --Maru 18:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
It's simple. Lucas says that, in the end, his version is the only real version, and all else is make-believe (well, you know... make believe in the context of a make-believe setting). It's just a matter of how much make-believe you want to accept. At the top is the "reality" (and yes, I know we're talking fiction... go with the metaphor) of the movies and only the movies. Then you get into higher and higher levels of "make-believe" that have less and less connection to "reality". That's what the levels of canon indicate: just how much make-believe you're in for.
Yes, the whole point of Canon is to figure out which version is the correct one. In the few cases where important events seriously conflicted, Lucasfilm has been very good about producing a book, comic or other EU material which presents a reconcilation: a third version of the story which incorporates elements of both, so that the substantial facts of both are correct (or could be seen as correct by those involved), but minor details are changed to accomodate the other, and this new version becomes widely accepted as canonical. Lucasfilm has people who are on staff and paid to do nothing but keep up with continuity and the EU all day, and to find contradictions and help authors reconcile them or decide which version is to be discounted, so they are quite sharp about such things. Wingsandsword 05:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
"In the few cases where important events seriously conflicted, Lucasfilm has been very good about producing a book, comic or other EU material which presents a reconcilation". This seems like fanboy mythology. Where is there documentation that lucasfilm speficially produces a comic or book to reconcile conflicting EU versions of a particular point in the star wars story? -Anonymous
One example: ROTJ killed Boba Fett. Fett then reappeared in Dark Empire. To recouncile his death in the pit of carkoon with DE, lucasfilm had an anthology ("Tales from Jabba's Palace" and "Tales of the Bounty Hunters") produced ret-conning his death. --Maru 02:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
No, it really is fanboy mythology. Basically, what the fanboys are saying is "We know that Lucas doesn't ignores all the EU stuff, and that since he's the deciding authority only what he considers official actually counts, but we don't care... we want what we want and we're not going to let a little thing like the owner of the property deciding against us stand in our way."

EU, specifically[edit]

Do we really have to believe all the stuff proposed in the New Jedi Order series and the other stuff? I personally am what you would call a purist, meaning I believe that the movies are for the most part, the only factual elements in the Star Wars universe. I don't mind all the prequel series, but the stuff that takes place after the Endor Battle is what I don't like. Palpatine returning, Chewbacca getting killed, I really prefer to end with the scene on Endor. Is there anything bad with that? --Scorpionman 01:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree[edit]

I must admit, in terms of the expanded universe, i don't really mind the stuff before the movies, like the tales of the jedi. i'm not saying i am a huge fan, i just don't despise it. In terms of the aftermarth, i hate to say it, but the yuuzahn vong are pretty lame and chewbacca is one of my favourite characters and shouldn't die. -Anonymous

  • George Lucas said Chewie should die and liked the Vong otherwise he wouldn't have had them. 17:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)jamhaw

um, then don't read them[edit]

To be honest this is an entry about the expanded universe and if you don't want a part of it then that is fine and dandy but the fact remains that it is a huge entity unto itself and worthy of an entry here.--AlanD 00:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

SW Galaxies and Canon[edit]

Hello all. Just a quick question about the source material found in the Galaxies source books: Prima's Official Strategy Guide: Star Wars Galaxies, an Empire Divided, 2003. Prima Games, a division of Random House, Inc. Is this C canon or S canon. The reason I ask is because much of the information written in here about the various locations and planets are all also found in other EU sources, though compiled to fit the Galaxies game universe. Additonally, certin characters introduced in the Prima Guide was then introduced into a Galaxies book series spin off, such as Queen Kylantha of Naboo. Additional cities and planet animals were also fleshed out in the material surrounding the game. I understand the game itself, all the stats ect. are all the lowest of cannon, but what of this other material, all written in suport of the game and based on other EU sources, but with additional elements in them as well? --Drachenfyre 21:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it falls under the RPG sourcebooks- C-canon with the exception of game elements. --maru (talk) contribs 18:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
What happened was the game included a large number of glaring holes in regards to canon which is how it got "demoted" to S-canon. What S-canon means is that it exists in canon anywhere that it does not disagree with higher forms of canon. However, if someone is writing a book they can choose a character they like, such as Queen Kylantha of Naboo and right about them and the stuff they write about the queen takes precedence over the stuff found in SWG. Likewise, if they decided they hate the Queen and kill her off and it becomes lore or even contradicting SWG and say no it was Queen Someone else of Naboo who was in charge and Kylantha never existed. They can do that and if they do Kylantha never existed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed revision of the article[edit]

Based on a discussion on the discussion page for the main Star Wars article, I have prepared a draft revision of this article which attempts to merge the EU material from the Star Wars article with the material already located here. Rather than simply take the plnge, I've put that draft on User page for comment. Feel free to comment here, or join the discussion where it started. Thanks. Justin Bacon 15:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Looks fine to me, and I would support moving it from your user page into the article. In general, the stuff brought in from the Star Wars article is, in my opinion, tighter and more encyclopedic in style and range (sticks to facts rather than observations), so it might be good to keep removing redundant or non-verifiable info from the first sections. (Something we can all help with if you go ahead and change the article). Dystopos 17:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I too support your new version of the page, and wish to see it incorporated into the current version. Though, I do believe the material you've taken from the main star wars page needs to be expanded for this article. The Wookieepedian 20:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay. With three votes for and none against, the resolution passes. <g> I'll update this article and then head over to the main Star Wars article to reduce the Expanded Universe section down there to a short summary. Thanks, guys. Justin Bacon 04:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure how much expansion of the summaries taken from the Star Wars page is needed here since most elements of the EU have their own articles. What could most use expansion is the real-world context for the different elements. How the notion of the whole "expanded universe" evolved and "expanded" over time as agreements were made with different licensees and Lucas' attitude toward the prequels and other "canon" productions evolved. Dystopos 16:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Parallel Universe quote[edit]

An anonymous user has clumsily attempted to re-include a quote from George Lucas about the EU being a "parallel universe". (Some poking indicates he was the one to add the quote originally to the article.) It's not a bad quote to have, but someone needs to go back to the original source and find out what the actual quote is. The version added by this editor reads: "George Lucas considers Expanded Universe to be parallel universe." There are... ummm... many problems with that "sentence". Justin Bacon 08:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I see Wookieepedian has added a revised version of the quote. Do you actually have the article, Wookieepedian? Did Lucas actually use the word "somewhat"? I'd be more comfortable with an actual, verbatim quote at this point. Justin Bacon 16:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Actual quote: "STARLOG: The Star Wars Universe is so large and diverse. Do you ever find yourself confused by the subsidiary material that's in the novels, comics, and other offshoots?

LUCAS: I don't read that stuff. I haven't read any of the novels. I don't know anything about that world. That's a different world than my world. But I do try to keep it consistent. The way I do it now is they have a Star Wars Encyclopedia. So if I come up with a name or something else, I look it up and see if it has already been used. When I said [other people] could make their own Star Wars stories, we decided that, like Star Trek, we would have two universes: My universe and then this other one. They try to make their universe as consistent with mine as possible, but obviously they get enthusiastic and want to go off in other directions." (Clumsy anonymous user :))

  • That's a good quote and, even though Lucas isn't the final authority for WP, the idea of distinguishing between his productions and direct licenses and the rest of the expanded universe makes a lot of sense for WP. Dystopos 16:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, I'm just going to put the whole quote in the article. I think it provides a very pertinent and direct view into George Lucas' thinking on the Expanded Universe. Thanks for the quote Clumsy Anonymous User. ;) (You should register with that as your handle. <g>) Justin Bacon 18:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
"There are two worlds here," explained Lucas. "There’s my world, which is the movies, and there’s this other world that has been created, which I say is the parallel universe – the licensing world of the books, games and comic books. They don’t intrude on my world, which is a select period of time, [but] they do intrude in between the movies. I don’t get too involved in the parallel universe." (Cinescape July 2001)
This quote is in the Star Wars canon article and IMHO it helps reinforce the later StarLog article that the movie and EU are two separate realities-- (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


I'd like to add an image of the WEG Star Wars Roleplaying game to the "Development" section of the article, but my scanner is on the fritz. If somebody has the book handy, I'd appreciate it if they could add the image. Thanks. Justin Bacon 04:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: Once the "Future History" section is properly expanded, I'd also suggest a cover image from the New Jedi Order novels for that section.
Vector Prime? Why, I'll add it now! The Wookieepedian 04:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Name change[edit]

Who is in support of changing the name of the article to Star Wars Expanded Universe? The Wookieepedian 05:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not. I don't think it sounds as good, and the number of redirects that would have to be fixed are mindboggling. --Maru (talk) 05:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, I made the suggestion based on a comment from Justin Bacon. I would like a name change to the page, but I agree on the redirects. --The Wookieepedian 06:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
There's only about a half dozen actual re-direct pages pointed to this one. (And the most significant one is the article name the move is being proposed to.) This page would, obviously, become a redirect to the new one. So it doesn't look like a particularly insurmountable task to do the move. But I'm impartial either way. --Justin Bacon 06:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Justin, what I meant was that about 400 pages link here, to Expanded Universe (Star Wars). If we move it (leaving a redirect in its place), that is 400 new redirects (since while before they were direct links like they should be, now they are linked to a redirect. And redirects to here would then become double redirects), that we are obligated to fix. --Maru (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Nice Work[edit]

I just wanted to congratulate The Wookieepedian for his role in the vast improvement of this article. The "levels of canon" section is a particularly useful guide from an authoritative secondary source. I'll try to spend some time editing out redundancies and tweaking the structure, but I'm amazed at how much better this has gotten since just last week. Dystopos 21:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

You must be looking at the wrong contributor. Justin Bacon is the one who deserves ALL the credit. He is the one to be congratulated for merging much of the EU content from the main Star Wars article into this one, and improving the general flow of the article. I've only made a few tweaks to it myself. But, combined, I agree, this article has VASTLY improved over the last week. The Wookieepedian 21:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations to Justin, too. I was just really happy to see such a clearly-made case for how to distinguish different levels of "canon" which is exactly what this article should be about. Dystopos 00:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree. If you've seen those guys on the TF.N and OS messageboards, they seem to have no clue about levels of officiality, as they have about 20 new topics per day asking some crazy topics like: "is clone wars canon?" The Wookieepedian 00:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I myself don't know a lick about EU stuff. I really like the first movie and a lot of things about the 2nd and 3rd. The prequels didn't do much for me. Never had much interest in the cartoons. Never cracked a book or comic. I think I played the demo version of a 1st-person shooter game. I did like the vector-based arcade games a lot.-- anyway. That's my perspective. A big fan of the production of the first film. Dystopos 04:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Myself, I've read several of the books, and played several of the games. But my primary area of knowledge as far as the EU goes are the few live-action EU productions that have been made (The Holiday Special, The two Ewok films, video game cutscenes, etc.). The Wookieepedian 07:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Spoiler tag?[edit]

there are some spoilers in the text(e.g. order66 deaths in ROTS), should there be a spoiler warning?

Yeah. I'll add one. The Wookieepedian 23:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

RfC/poll – Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker: one article or two?[edit]

What do you think? E Pluribus Anthony 19:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

List of Star Wars characters twice?[edit]

List of Star Wars characters is listed twice in the list of lists, so I removed it, but I was reverted. Any particular reason why it should be there twice? TimBentley 20:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Black Oracle[edit]

I don't mean to advertise, but will somebody go to my site: No body ever goes there :(

I checked it out. Pretty cool, but please don't link to it on one of these pages, as it is considered spam. However, you could sign up for an account here and put a link to it on your userpage. :) The Wookieepedian 20:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I am now registered as user: holocron. I now have actually spent money to get my own (non-freewebs) website. It is not complete yet but check back in a couple weeks at

Knights of the Old Republic[edit]

"Knights of the Old Republic by BioWare, Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords by Obsidian Entertainment are recent additions to the EU, but take place long before any other Star Wars material." I changed this paragraph to what it says know, because it was incorrect. Evidence in the games clearly state the approximate time in which they take place. Custodes 12:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No, internal textual evidence isn't the issue. The issue is that the KOTORs take place after at least some of the Tales of the Old Republic series. --maru (talk) contribs 16:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The following sentence is misleading: "This style of RPG is somewhat new and made big waves for its innovative style". This style was first introduced in Baldur's Gate back in 1998 while KOTR came out in 2003. That's a difference of 4-5 years and in between that time several games based on the Baldur's Gate engine were released. Following those a new engine was developed for Neverwinter Nights (Aurora) and then a modified version of this engine was developed for KOTR (Odyssey). Hardly new at that point. Not sure how to link to other articles, but I refrenced the above against other articles in Wikipedia.

I also don't think it qualifies as an action RPG, a category more commonly associated with Diablo clones. The game is not actually "real-time". Even if the auto-pause game settings are never used the player is still giving orders to the character which will go off when that character's initiative is reached. 23:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: We know the game is based on the d20 system developed for D&D 3.x and modified for Star Wars d20. I'm not sure how well the game mechnics are explained in the game manuals (not very for KOTR2) but the Improved Initiative feat still exists in both which indicates the game mechanic is still being used. 23:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the comment about the play mechanic being 'innovative'. Any RPG gamer knows that's simply not true. It was seen in Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, Neverwinter Nights, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment. All of these games were released before KotOR came out. There very well may be additional games I've not mentioned that used a similar system that were released prior to KotOR, but I cannot recall them at the moment. 20:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Ooops, forgot to log in first. This comment is mine GutterMonkey 20:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Classic Star Wars Lukes fate[edit]

I saw it the library order thing what is it I have not seen it on the list what is it 20:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)jamhaw Anyone can put anything on this website DO NOT TRUST IT!

How many trilogies?[edit]

I'm not a Star Wars guru, so I came to this page and Star Wars (film series) looking to find more information about the so-called "trilogies". From the article I'm reading here [1], there is a mention of 3, 6, 9, or 12 episodes, and it sounds like this is referring to potentially 4 trilogies. I'm familiar with the original trilogy and the prequel trilogy, and I see there is such a thing as the Thrawn trilogy, but I'm having a hard time finding a breakdown of what the official or unofficial list of trilogies are, and what kind of media they would be available in. In particular, I want to know, is there a fourth trilogy I don't know about, and if there is, is it simply wishful thinking, a set of books, a series of movies, or something else? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

In Star Wars, "Trilogy" is usually applied to the Star Wars films, the Original Trilogy (IV,V and VI) and the Prequel Trilogy (I,II and II). As for the "other" trilogies in Star Wars of which you speak, these include not only the Thrawn Trilogy but the Han Solo trilogy, the Lando trilogy, Jedi Academy trilogy, Dark Empire trilogy, Corellian trilogy Force-Heretic trilogy, Dark Nest trilogy as well as the trilogy that makes up Labyrinth of Evil, ROTS novelisation and Dark Lord: The Rise of Darth Vader. (I think I got 'em all, for better or worse). There is no "fourth trilogy", nor is there even a "third trilogy" for a simple reason: Return of the Jedi. According to interviews around 1980 and subsequent ones with Gary Kurtz, there were potentially going to be nine Star Wars films. Leia was not initailly intended to be Luke's sister, nor was the Emperor supposed to die in this film. Luke's sister was first going to appear in episode VII and the Emperor to die in episode XI. Return of the Jedi overwrote all these, thereby stopping all subsequent Star Wars sequels until the 1990's when Heir to the Empire was firts published. There is no "unofficial" or "official" trilogy. There is only the Prequel and Original trilogies. Anyone telling you there's a Star Wars Episode VII is a nerf herder spouting the eroneous speculations of the infamous Super Shadow Force be it with ya, mate. Katana Geldar 00:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Quinlan Vos in ROTS?[edit]

I was under the impression that Vos was going to be in ROTS but he was taken out. Pablo Hidego told fans as early as 2003 that an EU character was going to be in the film (leading to wide speculation) and sometime later it was revealed that the character Pabs was refering to was Quinlan Vos, but he was cut from the film. Has he been put back in? Was he there all along and I missed him? Katana Geldar 00:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

According to wikipedia's own page on Vos, he was only mentioned by Obi Wan. They ended up cutting the scene that he would have been in out. [[2]] --mauler90 (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Levels of canon[edit]

I just want to say that this is the nerdiest thing I have ever read (and I don't mean that as any kind of insult!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

redirected from 'Dejarik'?[edit]

Hey, does it seem weird to anyone else that Dejarik redirects to this page, yet isn't mentioned at all (nor is 'vrax,' apparently an alternate name) in the actual content? Even a brief mention and link to the wookieepedia page would probably be better than nothing...


I've been adding categories at the bottom hoping the EU might get more interest prompting Disney to keep the stuff from the 16 years between IV and I; and hopefully do remakes of I-III. I've only read a few of the books; so if someone more familiar with the material could add any categories EU stories might fall under. Would I be correct that artificial wombs are not specifically mentioned in the EU before their appearance in episode II? CensoredScribe (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Updated information on canonicity of the Expanded Universe[edit]

-- (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Right, so guys, is it only the post-ROTJ EU material that is being relegated to the Legends canon. Are all the pre-ROTJ EU still C-canon? I mean, that's the impression I got from this so ... ? --Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 19:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested Move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to Star Wars expanded universe, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 23:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Star Wars Expanded UniverseStar Wars Legends – New name. As I understand, no new material will be published under the Legends title or in the EU, so it makes sense to change it to its new title. KonveyorBelt 00:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I don't see "expanded universe" as really a proper noun; rather, it refers (in multiple franchises) to content created beyond the "mainstream" or main plot, e.g. Star Trek Expanded Universe. Perhaps the more appropriate rename is "Star Wars expanded universe" or "Star Wars spin-off fiction". In my mind, all the upcoming "official" novels, comics, etc. still fit in the uber-category of "expanded universe" beyond the core films. --EEMIV (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Move to Star Wars expanded universe. We don't capitalize "universe", "franchise", etc. in other titles, because they're not proper names or part of the proper names. "Star War expanded universe" has been used by a huge pile of reliable sources for 20+ yaers. "Star Wars Legends" is just some new marketing label, fails WP:COMMONNAME and fails WP:OFFICIALNAME's interaction with the the rest of the WP:CRITERIA.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  18:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Move to Star Wars expanded universe. As it is no longer used as a proper noun in an official capacity, I support SMcCandlish's idea. ONR (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


Who wrote Star_Wars_Expanded_Universe#Official_levels_of_canon? or more accurately, who said D refers to Disney canon, and who said D refers to Detours? Citations needed, because the same shorthand should not refer to two different things. -- (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Name change to Star Wars Legends?[edit]

As the official name of this is now Star Wars Legends and the content published under this banner is no longer canon, I believe a name change to said official name would be the best way to go. ReddyRedCP (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@ReddyRedCP: See discussion above under "Requested move" (green section). — Gorthian (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

"Expanded Universe" over "expanded universe"[edit]

@User:TAnthony I believe that the article should have the "Expanded Universe" capitalised, because official sources use the capital letters over lower case ([3]). This indicates that "EU" is an official name (albeit one that isn't used as often, due to the Legends label) and it should be treated as such. DarkKnight2149 00:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that, with the change to Star Wars Legends, the extended universe concept as a proper noun has officially gone away. However, there is definitely an argument to be made for the fact that the franchise has been termed the SWEU for 20 years. So I'd like to see more people to join in on the discussion.— TAnthonyTalk 15:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I personally think this article should be retitled as Star Wars Legends and put a note that it's also known as (or formerly known as) the expanded universe. --JDC808 00:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I also think that Star Wars: Legends is a more appropriate title but, if I'm not mistaken, I think that the consensus was against it during past discussions. I'm not sure why specifically, but I might go through and read the past discussions if I ever get a chance (just to get a better understanding of why this is the case). DarkKnight2149 03:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


So am I to understand that while the seven films are obviously canon, the original novelizations of the first six are not? Please comment at Talk:Star Wars canon#Novelizations.— TAnthonyTalk 22:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)