Forum:CT Archive/New canon policy

Now that Star Wars has a "new canon," Wookieepedia needs to update its Canon policy. Just in case anyone has missed any of the news since Friday, April 25, the following now applies to canon: These facts and the statements made in the following proposal come from these two StarWars.com news articles and from comments made by Lucasfilm senior editor Jennifer Heddle on Twitter. You can peruse all the things she said here.
 * The Expanded Universe is non-canon and is now under the new "Legends" banner
 * The official canon is now the six Star Wars films, Star Wars: The Clone Wars, Star Wars Rebels, and just about everything new that comes out from this point forward (with a few exceptions)
 * The new canon officially begins on screen with Star Wars Rebels and in print with the aptly named novel A New Dawn, which will be released on September 2, 2014

I have rewritten our Canon policy page, which was in desperate need anyway, to reflect these changes. I invite everyone to read the draft here. I will preface this by saying that I have made no major changes overall, besides the introduction of the "new canon" and rewriting everything. This proposal operates on the basic assumption that Wookieepedia is going to divide its articles, in some form, into "Canon" and "Legends." That is a forthcoming discussion, and I ask that everyone please refrain from going off on that discussion tangent here. Please reserve that discussion for that appropriate forum. Everyone, I'm sure, also understands that we're facing a lot of changes to how we do things in the weeks and months ahead. I know we're all upset about the EU, but I ask that everyone please approach this objectively and without emotionalism.

Perhaps more so than any of our other policy pages, this Canon policy is a living document. It can, and certainly will need to be, updated and revised as we move forward. Heddle herself has said that the canon status of everything isn't crystal clear right now, and there are certain things they haven't even figured out yet (this is all explained in the proposal). As they make decisions and announce updates, we can update this policy as needed.

I will now summarize the changes in the proposal:
 * The page is now divided into two sections: New canon and Expanded Universe. Each section describes how its respective canon system works and provides a solid overall frame of reference for what sources are now new canon and what sources apply to the EU.
 * The New canon section devotes a subsection specifically to the comments made by Heddle in regards to the canonicity of certain EU sources. For example, there is EU material that is still ongoing, and she admits they haven't fully determined everything yet. Once they do, this section can be updated.
 * The EU section begins by laying out the Holocron continuity database's former tiered canon hierarchy system, which you can also read about in our Canon article. This system is now defunct in lieu of the Lucasfilm Story Group.
 * The section after that details how the old canon system still applies to our Legends articles. In short, we're not changing how we write our Expanded Universe articles. The idea that higher canon trumps conflicting lower canon in the EU still applies. I've laid out a more simplified explanation of the tiered canon hierarchy, since it has the potential to be confusing. Again, this isn't changing anything, but is only simplifying the explanation to help our editors understand the relationship between what I've termed Cinematic canon and Expanded canon.
 * The only significant departure here is that we're basically shedding the "ambiguous canon" tag. Now that all of the EU is non-canon, calling something in the EU "ambiguous canon" is pointless. So we will simply document that material as normal without any declarations of ambiguity.

That's about it. There's quite a bit here to digest, so I'm happy to answer any questions and clarify anything that needs it. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 02:13, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 02:13, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Cade  StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit.svg  Calrayn  02:17, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * 3)  IFYLOFD  ( Enter the Floydome ) 02:17, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Absolutely. This is what we need best as our new policy considering what we know as of now. Also, it's a good basis for the other incoming proposals and changes regarding this recent crisis. Winterz (talk) 02:19, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) SFH 02:53, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) I absolutely hate this situation, but we need to have something in place. Supreme Emperor (talk) 02:54, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Looks good to me.-- Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  02:59, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Feels more like a dusk than a dawn. :/ MasterFred Commerce Guild.svg(Whatever) 03:03, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) Trip391 (talk) 03:07, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 *  CC7567  (talk) 03:26, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1)  JangFett  (Talk) 03:31, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) JorrelWiki-shrinkable.pngFraajic 04:11, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 04:22, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) With some nitpicks, to be covered in Discussion. jSarek (talk) 04:31, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) As sad as it is, we have to face the reality: the end of the universe as we have known it.--Dionne Jinn (Something to say?) 05:24, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Though I'm with jSarek on keeping the ambig tags for unlicensed materials like Challenge. Menkooroo (talk) 07:04, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) In hope that some elements will return to canon.  Commander Code-8  Felicitations malefactors! 08:54, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Alexrd (talk) 09:32, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:43, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * 10) Well done, Tope and everyone else who has been involved. 1358  (Talk)  10:08, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * 11)  QuiGonJinn  Senate seal.svg(Talk) 10:25, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * 12) Looks good... well, as good as it can.  501st  dogma ( talk ) 11:47, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * 13) No other choice.  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 11:51, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * 14) Very well put together, Toprawa and Ralltiir. I am of the opinion that we should clearly label anything technically in the "new non-canon" category that was published under the "Infinities" label or otherwise declared non-canon while Lucasfilm was still independent so as to not create confusion with the new Legends N-canon that kind of is S-canon but actually is C-Canon. It's business as usual with the EU, in other words, while a separate, sort of movie purist universe gets its own little corner. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 (talk) 13:58, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * 15) Very nicely done. I imagine that things will get confusing in the days ahead, so it's good that we're getting the head start on this. Good work.&mdash; Cal Jedi Infinite Empire.svg (Personal Comm Channel) 14:02, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * 16) In terms of the "Ambig Canon" - there is no such thing now. It's not "Ambig Non-Canon" or "Ambig-Legends." Its all been lumped in with one another since they dropped the EU-Nuke. Sir Cavalier of One FarStar.svg( Squadron channel ) 15:47, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * 17) *As far as its in-universe "truth," yes. As far as it being officially licensed by Lucasfilm, no. I think that's a distinction worth making. jSarek (talk) 16:54, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * 18) Lord Dreist (talk) 16:50, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * 19) Inevitable. Gal-icon.jpg  OLIOSTER  (talk) 17:06, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * 20)  grunny &#64; wookieepedia :&#126;$ 17:39, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, good, let's not all go insane. "Legends" is business as usual, and we're not putting a paragraph about how Darth Vader briefly turned into a pig into the main body of his article just because DisneyLFL is a bunch of evil greedy assholes who should all die in a fire and burn in hell. -- Darth Culator  (Talk) 18:47, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Jinzler (talk) 18:51, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Good that we're staying on top of this. Corellian Premier Jedi symbol.svg Force will be with you always 18:59, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) With the change of ambig to unlicensed, this looks good. Green Tentacle (Talk) 19:15, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

Comments

 * In the "Reliable resources" section: The following identifies reliable, officially-licensed sources of information for Expanded Universe material. ... All Marvel Comics and Dark Horse Comics published prior to the Lucasfilm declaration of April 25, 2014, with specific exceptions as noted by Lucasfilm, such as the Star Wars: Rebel Heist and Star Wars: Legacy Volume II series. This is confusing --- it reads as if Rebel Heist and Legacy Volume II are exceptions noted by Lucasfilm and are not official Legends material. Maybe you meant to note those two series in regards to material published after April 25? Menkooroo (talk) 02:33, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I meant that to say those are examples of things published after April 25 but are still Legends. I've made an attempt at clarifying. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 02:41, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm personally in favor of a holding pattern until "A New Dawn" is released. We simply don't have much to go on at the moment without any works under this new policy. Rod (talk) 03:02, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * That's why this is a living document. We can make changes as they are announced. It does us no good to sit on our hands for six months. And we actually have plenty to go on, according to what Jennifer Heddle has said. We know basically what the new canon is and what it's not. That's a very solid starting point for us. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 03:05, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * We have the statement, true, but not how it's going to work in practice, which is why I think we should be cautious. Rod (talk) 03:07, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * "That's not how it's going to work in practice." You have nothing to base that on. Meanwhile, this policy reflects statements issued by Lucasfilm's senior editor. Our current Canon policy page is simply unusable right now. It needs to be updated. And I'm proposing we update it according to what we know at this point. Again, we can make changes as we learn more. This is a good thing. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 03:11, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree it's now most likely unusable. Which is why I'm in favor of using it until the first work in the new continuity appears, seeing what that work contains, then putting the new policy into action accordingly. Rod (talk) 03:42, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * Like I said, sitting on our hands for six months isn't going to do us any good. Everyone is eager to figure out how we're going to begin dividing articles between Canon and Legends, and that's a decision we're better off making sooner rather than later. And this policy is the first step so we know what an Expanded Universe article is now that its content is non-canon. We're still going to be writing EU articles in the interim, and our New Canon articles are only going to increase and expand as more Rebels info comes out and the first books hit in July, so we need to have this all defined in a clear-cut policy now. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 03:50, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * Very, very fair point. I'll concede; it's definitely best to plan ahead rather than just have all the stuff dropped on top of us at once. Rod (talk) 04:12, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that there will be plenty of promotional material and other medias that will need to be recorded here long before the novels or Rebels come out. Winterz (talk) 03:14, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * I feel like EU-established names, establishing the same character in multiple scenes (Nova Stihl as Navy trooper in conference room and leading stormies chasing Han on Death Star for example) and fates of characters seen in a doomed movie location (example Imperial dignitaries all being established by Star Wars: Galactic Files Series 2 as all being killed in Death Star II's destruction) should be incorporated into the "canon." Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 04:24, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * For the latter example I think of the old Databank entries for characters like Cassio Tagge, Conan Antonio Motti and Tiaan Jerjerrod, all established in their Movies sections to have been killed during their respective Death Stars' destruction, though none of those three's fates were obvious in the films alone. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 04:28, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Those are the sort of things that we only solved with resort to the EU and they've made that clear that it's not canon any longer so we can't assume that information unless it is canon. Remember Darth Maul? Everything in the EU pointed out to him being dead and then Lucas/Filoni felt like claiming he had never died and since EU being what the undervalue that it was, had to re-structure everything. Let's not do the same mistake, specially now that the sources are not even considered canon. Winterz (talk) 04:32, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * Would the old Movies sections to the original Databank entries be considered canon sources though? Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 04:34, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * No, not unless we receive word on that subject. Cade  StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit.svg  Calrayn  04:38, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * Disagree; I see no reason that Disney would make such a small, arbitrary change as, say, naming Ree-Yees something different. Thoughts? Rod (talk) 16:30, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * Then the EU is truly dead... Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 04:41, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * First, while the Ambig tag no longer makes sense in the context of canon, it DOES make sense to distinctly label articles on topics from unlicensed sources. The distinction is no longer one of canon, but one of officialness, and (possibly) one of legality for authors drawing on those materials. Secondly, the article mentions SotME as the start of the EU. I think that, it's generally regarded as having begun either with "Star Wars 7: New Planets, New Perils!" (the first non-adaptation Star Wars story) in 1977, or with Heir to the Empire (and the decision to make a coherent and unified universe ... boy, does that sound familiar) in 1991. I think that sentence could probably just be generalized to avoid trying to define a sticky, and now moot, point. Otherwise, I think this is a well-written and well-handled approach to the situation we have been presented, and I think it might even be worthwhile to delete and redirect Canon to it, since that article has never ceased to be a clusterkriff of poor writing and poor coherence between differing interpretations of what "canon" means/meant. jSarek (talk) 04:50, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to echo Rod's original misgivings about implementing anything yet—with a caveat. It's my personal (i.e. easily fallible) understanding of all official statements, including Jennifer Heddle's tweets, that this situation is identical to what was once considered S-canon. We never segregated S-canon from our articles so long as it didn't conflict with higher canon; at worst, it was given an "ambiguous" tag. Furthermore, there were always two canons (films + TV + word of George and others), but we never reflected this... why? The Databank did. Why are we jumping to "Cinematic canon" now? Or if it makes so much sense to, why were we so incorrectly biased toward EU + film canon being the only canon all these years, ignoring the film-only canon? Remember Ryloth. The Clone Wars timeline disclaimers. Heddle has used the term "not canon," but she has defined this in terms identical to S-canon. (I know S-canon is defunct; I'm saying Legends is functionally identical, not one and the same.) I am not saying the proposed canon policy is a bad one. I'm saying implementing it is premature. (Drafting it is not.) And I'm saying that treating Legends any differently than S-canon would have been treated is a fallacy nine years in the making, based on all the definitions we've been given. I feel like all anyone is seeing here are the words "not canon" and not the meaning of the words surrounding them. At best, we have a grey area here: non-canon defined in S-canon terms. Something that could very well be cleared up in an upcoming statement; Heddle has been frank, and her use of the term "canon" might not mean the same to her as it does to us. Holding off on new policies for now seems best to me, outside of having a place to dump new-canon and apocryphized material until it's time for said policies—or tell me we handled S-canon wrong all this time, and this was a long time in coming, which is possible.  Winchester 327 Comlink » 05:58, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * The difference is that S-canon was considered fully canon on its own unless contradicted by a higher source. The Legends stuff is explictly non-canon unless referenced by a new-canon source. So they are not functionally identical. Also, this is not the same as the "two canons" (movies and movies/EU) that we had before, in that we only have one canon now, and everything else (i.e. Legends) is completely non-canon. undefined
 * Also, as I understood it, the story group now has liberty to change things we are used to. If they decide that Han and Leia are not married, then in the new canon they are not, but in Legends stuff they still are. This might lead into two completely different timelines.--Dionne Jinn (Something to say?) 06:10, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * If S-canon was considered fully canon, then the text in the canon article is incorrect. Possible, as it's not sourced: "The materials are available to be used or ignored as needed by current authors. This includes mostly older works, such as much of the Marvel Star Wars comics, that predate a consistent effort to maintain continuity; it also contains certain elements of a few otherwise N-canon stories, and other things that 'may not fit just right.' Many formerly S-canon elements have been elevated to C-canon through their inclusion in more recent works by continuity-minded authors, while many other older works (such as The Han Solo Adventures) were accounted for in continuity from the start despite their age, and thus were always C-canon." Functionally identical to Legends status. No two ways about it. But is the article inaccurate? And this is the same as the "two canons," functionally, just not semantically. Just because we are told Legends is not canon does not mean it no longer has its own internal canon; all that's occurred here is a shift where the territory of the G- and T-level material has been expanded to cover the whole timeline, rather than just the film periods, the three years of the Clone Wars, anything they reference, and miscellaneous declarations. Because the expansion was absolute (didn't leave an "untouched" patch, e.g. a particular year BBY) it can semantically be called the "only" canon, the new "one universe," but this is mechanically no different than the EU ever was to the film-only canon. It's the same relationship.  Dionne Jinn, I see it the same way as you. But that just describes S-canon, or, in a more general sense, retcons. Two timelines is one way to look at it, but apocryphal stories vs. updated continuity is another; you could read the old Marvel comics and consider them a timeline, since they are cohesive within themselves.  Winchester 327 Comlink » 06:27, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding the reliable sources in the Legends section, what about Star Wars (Dark Horse)? Like Legacy II, it's an ongoing series that has been going on since before the announcement, but still has a few issues left, so I'd assume it should also be noted as an exception. QuiGonJinn  Senate seal.svg(Talk) 10:25, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a good question. I didn't include Dark Horse's new Star Wars run because, unlike Rebel Heist and Legacy II, that wasn't something Jen Heddle specifically addressed, so it's unclear. But it almost certainly would be Legends, and I'm sure we can ask her. I'll try sending her a question about this and will post anything I find out. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 16:55, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * I would think while this is all ongoing, there could be two ways of dealing with this. In the article for someone like Luke Skywalker, the sections of EU material would just be marked at start and finish in a tag like the ambiguously canon tag, but that says "this is part of the Legends continuity" or something similar. But for less important articles for, say, the Motti and Tagge examples, they are movie characters but we don't really know what's canon yet. For some of these that will not be immediately rewritten, I'd say a "placeholder" tag at the top of the article marking it as including elements of "Legends" would be a good idea. --JMM (talk) 12:44, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * It will take some time to sort everything out, so I agree that we are going to need something to signal the articles that need attention regarding a change of this magnitude. It isn't something that can happen overnight.--Dionne Jinn (Something to say?) 12:59, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged canon books (i.e. interconnected with the 6 movies.) is a first, so, it's not proper to describe them as "new canon". --Tythonian (talk) 18:17, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

Ambig and other things
jSarek has some good points, so I thought I'd start a new section for discussing this. He writes, "while the Ambig tag no longer makes sense in the context of canon, it DOES make sense to distinctly label articles on topics from unlicensed sources. The distinction is no longer one of canon, but one of officialness, and (possibly) one of legality for authors drawing on those materials." Any objections? And as for the Expanded Universe statement, you're right that it technically began with Star Wars 7. Would you be ok with the sentence reading "The Expanded Universe, which technically began in October 1977 with the Marvel comic Star Wars 7: New Planets, New Perils!..."? We do strive for perfect accuracy, after all. :P Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:33, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with labeling things as unlicensed. We have three ambig templates: Template:Ambig, which is what we use at the top of all our articles; Template:AmbigNew, which isn't a template used on any article but which I think is close to what you're looking for; and Template:Ambigstart/Template:Ambigend, which partitions in-line text. So I figure we can just keep using two of these three templates but reword them:
 * Template:Ambig can say "This article contains information that originated from an unlicensed Expanded Universe source. This article's subject originated in a source that was released outside of the Lucas Licensing process, and its licensing status was never confirmed by Lucasfilm Ltd." We can even move this to "Template:Unlicensed."
 * Template:AmbigNew, which is unused, is basically redundant now, so we can just speedy delete it.
 * Template:Ambigstart/Template:Ambigend can say "Warning: The following section contains information from an Expanded Universe source that was released outside of the Lucas Licensing process, and its licensing status was never confirmed by Lucasfilm Ltd." And Ambig/end can say "Unlicensed information ends here." We can move these two to "Template:Unlicensedstart" and "Template:Unlicensedend."
 * And we can tweak the wording in any other similar templates that include some variation of the term "ambiguous canon."
 * I personally like this option better than tabs; it's easier to remove if something gets recanonized, for instance. Rod (talk) 17:43, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, this specific ambig discussion has nothing to do with tabs. It concerns only unlicensed sources. The division of Canon/Legends articles is a discussion for another forum. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:45, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * This is good Tope, as it would prevent the sudden merging of the hundreds of articles that were labeled "Ambiguously Canon" into confirmed "Legends." Using the term "Unlicensed" would continue to provide the proper separation of information that was not licensed or confirmed by Lucasfilm. Are you going to cross out and change the last point in your summary?-- Richterbelmont10  ( come in R2! ) 18:08, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I need to explicitly do that. That last point just says we won't be declaring anything "ambiguously canon," which is still true. We can just change these ambig tags to "unlicensed" outside of this proposal. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:12, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * The last point currently states: "The only significant departure here is that we're basically shedding the 'ambiguous canon' tag. Now that all of the EU is non-canon, calling something in the EU 'ambiguous canon' is pointless. So we will simply document that material as normal without any declarations of ambiguity." This suggests that any material previously categorized as "Ambiguously Canon" will be documented "as normal," and that the "Ambiguously Canon" tag will be deleted. This seems to imply that all "Ambiguously Canon" articles will be merged into "Legends," with their "Ambiguously Canon" tag simply being deleted. This is not the case.-- Richterbelmont10  ( come in R2! ) 19:44, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're misinterpreting that line. It's not my intention in this proposal to delete the Ambig Canon tag, but we are shedding it in the sense that we will no longer be declaring anything ambiguously canon from this point forward. We will still be incorporating what was previously known as ambig canon into Legends articles, but now we'll be identifying that content as "unlicensed." So it's true that the ambig templates will no longer exist, because we will instead rename them as "unlicensed." With this understanding, there's nothing in that line that is incorrect. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:03, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

S-canon equivalence, inconsistency with Wookieepedia SOP

 * As I was saying: Per unaddressed points below: (a) the proposed policy does not adequately reflect that Legends is equivalent in stature to the defunct S-canon; (b) Wookieepedia has no precedent for segregating S-canon material from the rest of canon, and therefore has no precedent for doing so with S-canon's equivalents; (c) Wookieepedia has no precedent for segregating EU+film canon from film-only canon pre-2014, and segregating Legends continuity from Cinematic "one canon" is therefore a deviation; (d) said deviation must be explained and addressed in the new policy, i.e., why the "two canons" were never segregated in the past; (e) with film-only canon having existed for Wookieepedia's entire duration, and film-only canon having viewed EU+film canon as "not canon" but "used as a resource," the identical nature of this extended relationship to Legends material must be addressed, e.g., EU was always considered "not canon" from the perspective of the film canon, and this is reflected in changes made during The Clone Wars, etc. The proposed policy is therefore a drastic departure from the wiki's SOP, and the reasons for this departure must at the very least be addressed in full; currently, the proposed policy treats this deviation as if it were SOP, which is problematic and misleading.— Winchester 327 Comlink » 19:53, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * And for good measure, the opinion of Mr. Zahn, since mine apparently means squat no matter how clearly I state the evidence: — Winchester 327 Comlink » 19:55, April 28, 2014 (UTC)