Talk:Star Wars canon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Star Wars (Rated C-class, Low-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.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

George Lucas Opinion about the canon according to Dave Filoni[edit]

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.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosvel92 (talkcontribs) 05:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Kindred spirits[edit]

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?[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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?[edit]

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!!![edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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.— TAnthonyTalk 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.— TAnthonyTalk 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.— TAnthonyTalk 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.— TAnthonyTalk 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)
Well yes, Rosvel92 just provided this source that orders the Del Rey books, and individual sources for the novels themselves usually establish where they are in the timeline. But how do we translate this into sortable information? We can obviously number them 1 to 50 or whatever, but then you are updating the numbers practically every time a new book comes out, which is what I meant about sustainability. It seems ugly and messy, and I have not really seen it done before.— TAnthonyTalk 16:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
In most cases I think an external link would be provided to the timeline for the reader's reference, which I will at least do now.— TAnthonyTalk 16:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
You're correct, and numbering them 1 through 50 would be nothing but a band-aid solution. However, the real issues lies in the fact that we need a valid and sourced way to label in-universe chronology. This is an issue that is by no means limited to this article. It's completely nonsensical to purge all Star Wars articles of anything with in-universe dates, so a replacement is necessary. Someone suggested that years from The Phantom Menace could be used, but that has it's own issues, such as requiring a degree of original research. Maybe the "ASW4/BSW4" is a viable option. I don't know. What I do know is that completely distancing from chronology as a whole is not at all beneficial to the readers. ETRossier (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I still don't agree that there is a need for an in-universe chronology and that the value of the article is null if there is no in-universe chronology. The article is about the scope of the Star Wars canon and the history of the concept. Readding something in because it's ostensibly the "most useful functionality of the article" seems to me to be catering to fans, especially when one can easily put both the Del Rey and Wookieepedia timelines into the external links section. From the perspective of the broadest audience possible, I'm not sure why an in-universe chronology is of the utmost importance and why such information would matter beyond, say, the fan base. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I've notified the WikiProject, as it is becoming a discussion on such dating across all the articles. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I also support having a column for in-universe year, and would not be opposed to either re-sorting the table back to in-universe or having two tables. For questionable entries: Ahsoka is listed as 18 BBY on Wookieepedia. If a valid source can not be found for that, I would suggest adding it to the table with a hidden data key as 18, and then either leave the column empty or add a footnote stating that it takes place between such and such. To those arguing against FANCRUFT, I generally agree, however, I believe that in-universe timing of one of the largest franchises on the planet is of general interest to a significant number of readers interested in the subject. Assuming it can be verifiable, I don't think think we should discount that in favor of ignoring all FANCRUFT (which is an essay anyways). For one reading the plot of a given article, they are likely to be interested in other books which come before or after it in-universe. This article should be there to offer help in understanding the Star Wars canon, both in general terms and in-universe.--Odie5533 (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
And here lies a major root of the problem. Sure, maybe a good portion of this is catering to fans, but when the demographic of "fans" is numbered in the tens of millions (which would be a low estimate, based off sales), the cultural relevance needs to be put into account. We end up in a "follow the spirit or word of the law" kind of bind. ETRossier (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Why don't we use the Lothal Calendar (which is canon)? The Battle of Yavin for example took place in the Lothal Year 3277. 85.255.150.186 (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The cultural relevance of the in-universe dating? The cultural relevance of the franchise itself does not filter down to every detail. And tens of thousands fans does not automatically mean that all automatically know or care about in-universe chronology. Both the spirit and the word of the law, in my interpretation, both suggest that this sort of minute and technical, inside baseball detailing is not necessary to be included in the article. Personally, I do miss that sorting key dearly, but I don't think it's appropriate to include, and its inclusion is a nightmare to put in. Additionally, to the alternatives, the Lothal Year system is even more trivial and even more unverifiable, as is the BSW4/ASW4 systems. As for reader interest in which novels come before for after, to quote TAnthony earlier in this discussion, "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." Lists that can, and currently are, linked in the external links section. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)