Talk:Star Wars expanded universe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Star Wars Expanded Universe)
Jump to: navigation, search

RfC: Is it relevant to group all non-canon EU material in a Legends subcategory?[edit]

Yes, Legends material should go in its own section. As far as I can tell this has already been done on most articles (see Boba Fett for an example) but some have slipped through the cracks, such as General Grievous.
Darkknight2149 is correct that some material (I'm thinking of Star Wars Infinities) is not part of the EU. It's up to editorial discretion whether we leave that out (like we usually do with Marvel's What If (comics)) or include it in a separate section. Any special cases can be dealt with as they arise. The Star Wars Holiday Special, for example, is listed under the Legends section at Chewbacca. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

With regard to WP:WAF, should all EU material prior to Lucasfilm's April 2014 declaration that the Legends were non-canon (i.e. novels and the Clone Wars microseries) be grouped in a separate section on all Star Wars-related articles such as characters or events? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Not all non-canon material is Legends. That label applies to all material taking place within the Expanded Universe. There are stories from before the creation of Disney Canon that were not placed within the EU. DarkKnight2149 23:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Darknight is right, so we would need a greater consensus before anything takes place. TJH2018talk 05:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Just a note, I was called here by FRS. This isn't really my area, and I don't think it's really a policy thing. I think most people who sign up for policy RFCs expect interpretation or amendment issues for core policies, which this isn't, so I've changed the categorization accordingly. Tamwin (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I would agree with that change. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The way that I have always approached this, and implemented at other articles, is that when Disney created Legends, they created a separate real-world entity from Star Wars proper. So the primary topic of Star Wars articles is the Star Wars franchise, with a secondary franchise Star Wars Legends also existing and also notable enough for discussion due to its history as the well-regarded Expanded Universe. So whatever is done with the old EU stuff, I do think we should be using the official Star Wars Legends title. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

If I'm understanding the original question correctly, by consensus we are already separating Legends and other non-canon material within the major SW articles, like Jabba the Hutt, Darth Vader, and List of Star Wars planets and moons, for example. There are many, many ancillary articles for individual novels and such that no one has gotten around to yet, but this issue has been decided and implemented.— TAnthonyTalk 00:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Scope[edit]

Now that we are using the term Star Wars expanded universe generically rather than as a brand, I am wondering: does the term now include only Legends material, or does it encompass all media and therefore include the films and other canon works? I'm looking to improve this article and I think the term is actually all-inclusive. In practice though, I think the canon material will be covered in detail elsewhere and this article will primarily cover the evolution of the Legends brand. — TAnthonyTalk 17:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio?[edit]

I've been working on this article today, and popped over to the equivalent Wookieepedia entry looking for a particular source. I was horrified (but somehow not surprised) to find that much of the article matches word-for-word what was in this article this morning, down to the section headings. I haven't researched which came first, but the way this article was written definitely smacked of Wookieepedia style, so I'm guessing our version is the copyvio. Luckily, I already slashed and rewrote much of it. But I don't want anyone to be shocked when I overhaul even more.— TAnthonyTalk 03:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI, the Storyline section (which shares a lot of verbatim text with the version at the Wookieepedia EU article), was added to Wikipedia on January 8, 2006, and was subsequently added to Wookieepedia on August 28, 2006. It could use some editing though. Anyone? — TAnthonyTalk 01:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
And it appears that the bulk of the other duplicate content originated here, and was added to Wookieepedia on November 6, 2005 with the edit summary "updated page from wikipedia" LOL. The text I haven't gotten to yet remains largely unsourced and has POV and style issues though, so I'll be fixing that.— TAnthonyTalk 01:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Star Wars Live-action Television Project be mentioned in canon instead of here?[edit]

Since Star Wars Underworld was still on active development in 2015 and maybe as of now, shouldn't it be moved as an Star Wars canon un-made project? Because since it NEVER AIRED, even if it was into consideration, it was NEVER part of the plot of Legends!!! And would it air the version that was still being developed in 2015, it would be canon!

I mean it can still be mentioned here, but the detailed version should be there instead of here. Rosvel92 (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92

Rosvel92, I need you to reevaluate your perspective on what this article is about, and also understand the difference between "Star Wars expanded universe" and " Star Wars Expanded Universe". As the article stands now, the Star Wars expanded universe "is a collective term for all Star Wars fictional material produced by Lucasfilm or officially licensed by it." If you read this carefully, the scope includes ALL Star Wars works. Now of course, we have separate articles for many works, and (currently) a Star Wars canon article, so we don't need to get into much detail about a lot of it. But in giving this article a real-world perspective, it covers the chronological development of mostly non-Lucas works but also touches upon "canon" ones for context. The proper noun Star Wars Expanded Universe (title case) is the former brand name for the non-Lucas works, which of course is now changed to Legends. The capitalization of this article title was specifically changed because the proper noun was officially abandoned. In the specific case of the TV series in development, it originated pre-2014 and it has yet to move into any real production stage, so it seems fine here. It is also mentioned at Star Wars#Television, where else does it need to be discussed?. I need to also remind you that Star Wars canon is not List of Star Wars canon works. That article is about the concept of canonicity in the Star Wars universe. Yes, we currently list the works considered canon, but we do not get into detail about them, because this is covered elsewhere.—TAnthony (talk) 14:41, March 20, 2017 (UTC)
Just to be editing on the same page.

Not sure if I'm starting a new discussion, but from my understanding.

Before we had Lucasfilm, allowing two interpretations:

-the film universe which was the 6 films, and only the films (which later Lucas would expand to also, include both The Clone Wars (2008)), and

-then it was the expanded universe which was the films (and both The Clone Wars (2008)) plus everything other media that didn't contradicted them.

The thing is that the concept of an Expanded Universe was dropped when, they made the video-games, books, comics the same level of canon as the films.

The new designation is that everything is canon, putting everything within the same universe, there is not a expanded universe anymore, they got rid of it to make it all more cohesive, and to stop considering videogames, novels, and comics lesser works. Now they cannot be contradicted, not even by the films, now all the same universe, and the expanded universe concept has been completely discarded. This article should be renamed Star Wars Legends because otherwise is following a flawed logic. As none of the new products is part of any kind of expanded universe, since as of now unlike before 2014, as far as Lucasfilm is concerned everything is part of the franchise, and considering it as an expanded universe seems fan-cruft from my understanding, even if it technically is an expanded universe per sec, in the eyes of Lucasfilm is not, as now everything is the same universe with the same value as the films. To continue listing the new post-2014 non-film works as a canon expanded universe instead of the same one as the films, totally goes against the Lucasfilm official standing on the matter, and the point they were trying to make when they ditched the levels of canon.

Also a point I had edited and got reverted was that Star Wars Rebels was never promoted, from Legends to canon, it was the first canon work produced after the Legends re branding therefore it never was Legend.

We should rename the article Star Wars Legends, it doesn't mater how it was called before, w should call it by it's Official Lucasfilm designation, because if it's confusing to us imagine the un-informed reader.

Rosvel92 (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92

Firstly, this is the exact question TAnthony posted further up the page. Secondly, I think your push to have the article renamed is ignoring the fact that even after the Legends rebranding, Legends works are still being referred to as "expanded universe" by many outlets: IGN - March 23, 2017 ("...a bounty hunter who first appeared in the Star Wars Expanded Universe novel The Paradise Snare."), Polygon - December 5, 2016 ("One picture shows why Star Wars’ slimmed-down expanded universe was the right move"), Nerdist - July 16, 2016 ("...a very familiar face from the Star Wars Expanded Universe was going to make their debut in Star Wars Rebels."), Slate - July 16, 2016 ("When Disney declared the Star Wars expanded universe to be noncanon..."), The Hollywood Reporter - December 23, 2016 ("How the Abandoned 'Star Wars' Expanded Universe Inspired 'Force Awakens'"). At that point, I'd vote in favor of keeping the page at its current name, because "Star Wars expanded universe" is still being used very commonly to refer to "Star Wars Legends". The usage of the term in non-Lucasfilm media warrants it.
Secondly, the question is: is this article covering a canonicity designation and its history, or is it covering the concept of works outside the film trilogies? That's the question TAnthony posed. Currently, as it stands the article covers the concept of the universe outside of the main film installments. You yourself admit that this is a legitimate scope: "even if it technically is an expanded universe per [se]". The question if the article should cover only the level of canonicity has been posed, and it really shouldn't be tailored purely to the whims of Lucasfilm. Frankly, the article doesn't care what Lucasfilm wants right now, it's only concerned with the development and history of a concept. It's also worth nothing that Polygon at one point, post Legends, refers to all non-film media works as the expanded universe, and I imagine that it's possible to locate more media that does so. To say it's considered francruft, that is the idea that anything outside the main film installments is expanded universe is important only to a small subset of fans, frankly ignores the definition of expanded universe. The problem we're facing for the purpose of this article's scope is if the core franchise is the film or the canon.
Frankly, the core question is the one that TAnthony posed in the prior "Scope?" heading: "Now that we are using the term Star Wars expanded universe generically rather than as a brand, I am wondering: does the term now include only Legends material, or does it encompass all media and therefore include the films and other canon works?" At which point, since it seems we're discussing it here now, I would have this article cover the evolution of what was considered "expanded universe" up through the development of what is now Legends (so, that means including the 2008 Clone Wars film and series should be mentioned here) but the article remain at its current title. It is to Rosvel's point, admittedly, but I disagree with Rosvel's assertion that it should be because this is how Lucasfilm would want it. I think because of the existence of Star Wars canon, it would be more streamlined to focus expanded universe as a branding tool and its development over the franchise's history up until Legends.
Also, Rosvel, I very much encourage that you remember that the article isn't about changing to reflect whatever Lucasfilm wants. And I also very much encourage that you don't edit the article to drastically restructure it until this discussion is finished. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
TenTonParasol, we seem to have been responding at the same time and I think we're on the same page. I've been reshaping and cleaning up this article to basically explore the evolution of all works outside the films in a more detailed manner than should be in the main Star Wars article. The first of what I will call the "new canon works" like Rebels need to be mentioned for context when covering the Legends transition, but we can't go too much into "canon vs Legends" because that is what is really fancrufty.— TAnthonyTalk 16:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Mm. I'm sure I said something to that effect (that's what I get for trying to respond while watching Hallmark), but yeah, I don't want to get into a "canon vs. Legends" article type situation. Disregard whatever I said to give that impression. It should probably mention that whole thing, as something important to the context of it, but yeah not built around it. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Ha no, you didn't give that impression at all, I was sort of restating the obvious for the sake of the discussion.— TAnthonyTalk 00:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
The term "expanded universe" is generic for any franchise, like Star Trek expanded universe. I think it could be argued that "expanded universe" and "franchises" are somewhat interchangeable. except that in usage the expanded universe seems to apply more to storyline content. In any case, at some point, Lucasfilm seems to have embraced/branded it, and it became a proper noun, Star Wars Expanded Universe (note the capital letters). But even though the article title was capitalized for awhile, the topic was always the generic body of work, not necessarily the brand name, which is why it was not changed to Legends but rather changed to lowercase "expanded universe". This is more encyclopedic. I don't know that things like video games or roleplaying games have technically been deemed Star Wars Legends but they are definitely part of the Star Wars expanded universe. I'm not sure what you mean by "they made the video-games, books, comics the same level of canon as the films", this sees to contradict your ongoing argument. All derivative works have always been part of the franchise, and always will be; the only thing that has ever changed is which storylines are considered part of the "official storyline". We do not organize Wikipedia articles around storylines.
We should not have specific Star Wars Legends works and Star Wars canon works articles because that puts an unencyclopedic emphasis on canonicity. That seems to basically be how you consider this article and Star Wars canon. It has been discussed in many places that while we usually want to delineate "canon" and Legends in articles for the sake of understanding, this is not the basis by which we should be classifying things. Topics do not get "promoted" to canon, that is an in-universe perspective. There is no increased "value" attributed to canon works. Yes, Star Wars is pretty cut-and-dry as far as what fits into the "canon", but think about Star Trek, Marvel or DC Comics; there is different and everchanging canon for comics, TV and film, and they do not organize their articles around it. Obviously Marvel and DC have created franchise names for their cinematic universes, etc. but the related articles are structured around the media franchises and not the story. You and I have discussed this several times so I don't think we will ever agree, I'm hoping others will join in but I believe I'm in the majority on this.— TAnthonyTalk 16:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I won't make any major edits. But if the article is to be focused on everything outside of the films including canon works. I sort of think that

what, I think we should do, and I've been trying to say it multiple times, to no effect is that the main article of the Star Wars (franchise) is too heavily focused on the films,

That's why I think the --Star Wars Films-- and their development should be split into their own article Star Wars (film series) / Star Wars (films) which would be the same film section that already exits, exactly as it is, without any further edit.

Within the franchise article, the films should still be mentioned into the franchise article, but since they would be covered in depth into an individual article already, in the franchise article, they could be mentioned reduced to a small 5 sentence paragraph, two paragraphs maximum.

That way the franchise article, could feel more focused on the history of the franchise and it's development as a whole, and how it transformed from a films series into a multimedia franchise, rather than staying only as a film series, and we could merge in the Star Wars canon article there too.

Now, I don't know much about Trek, Marvel or DC comics, nor either of those franchises canons. I only follow Star Wars. But for the sake doing a quick search on DC, I found it's continuity revamps The New 52 and DC Rebirth have their own articles, and they seemed lesser, and way more smaller than Star Wars Legends. So I think, Star Wars Legends should have one, because it was kind of a big overhaul that already is hard to explain, and Lucasfilm clearly considers it to be separated from the Star Wars current direction. Or we could mention all in there but it would be confused, and it never was considered canon in the first place, I think. Rosvel92 (talk) 08:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92

The terms Expanded Universe and Legends only apply to non-canon content, not to all fictional media so the introductory paragraph is wrong[edit]

The terms Expanded Universe and Legends only apply to non-canon content, not to all fictional media so the introductory paragraph is wrong. If you see any recent interview whit anyone involved in Star Wars when they say Expanded Universe, EU or Legends they start talking about non-canon content, but they never use the Expanded Universe or EU term to talk about anything canon. So the introductory paragraph as it stands right now is telling false information, by saying all fictional material is part of the EU/Expanded Universe when that's not true. To reflect what I'm saying, I suggest rewriting the introductory paragraph like this:

Star Wars Legends is a collective term for all non-canonical Star Wars fictional material produced by Lucasfilm or officially licensed by it. It includes an array of derivative Star Wars works published before April, 2014. Before such date it was originally branded as the Star Wars Expanded Universe (and abbreviated as SWEU, Expanded Universe or EU). The EU works (novels, comic books, video games, and television series) were produced conjunction with, between, and after the Star Wars films produced at the time (the original trilogy (1977–1983) and prequel trilogy (1999–2005) of films). Originally EU works were intended as an enhancement, and extension, of the Star Wars theatrical films produced by George Lucas, with Lucasfilm tracking the continuity of all Legends material. However Lucas reserved the right to both draw on it and contradict it in his own works. In October 2012, Lucasfilm was purchased by The Walt Disney Company. In April 2014, before development started on sequel trilogy of films and further works, Lucasfilm announced that all previously released EU content would be declared non-canon to the franchise and rebranded as Star Wars Legends. To ensure that from then on that all forthcoming comics, books, games and other media were non-contradictory to the films, other canon media, and each other, Lucasfilm, created an Story Group division. The canon restructuring left the Star Wars theatrical films, the Clone Wars animated film, and the 2008 Clone Wars animated TV series as the only material embodying the official Star Wars canon. Apart from such works, all the works released after April 2014, would also be canon. Among such canon works produced after wards are the Rebels animated series, and the 2015 film The Force Awakens, and multiple novels and comic book series.