Wookieepedia talk:Canon policy/Archive1

Fan-made assumptions
Let's add something to this regarding fan-made assumptions and retcons. Just because it's logical and fits nicely with established canon does not make it any less fanon. --Imp 00:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record, he's referring to the issue (seen here) of calling Darth Maladi a Devaronian despite not being officially called one yet. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial_Emblem.svg 00:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

CUSWE
How is the CUSWE considered "unclear" in canon staus? It's a fan-made reference site... --Imp 00:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Needs revision
This page should better reflect the information in Star Wars canon. There's no special privilege for Databank material, for instance. jSarek 08:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

game canon
In article canon I added some information concerning game canon. I also added something relevant in this article. I don't know if it's right; i added this as a proposal. However I think Wookieepedia MUST adopt a certain policy concerning games (for example light-dark side choices, alternate solutions etc) MoffRebus 08:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Incontrovertible
Should the issue of Boba Fett living/dying in the Sarlacc be mentioned here? Lucas has said he dies in the Sarlacc, which would fall under the "word" of George Lucas, a G-canon source, which in theory would trump C-canon, but not in practice. - Milo Fett [Comlink] 23:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But then LucasArts would tell him about the mistake, and I'm sure Lucas would amend his statements. SoresuMakashi ( Everything I tell you is a lie  the truth  ) 23:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha ha. :P I'm just saying, I can't think of any cases in which the "word" of Lucas has been or could be used to resolve discrepancies in the EU, which is mainly what Wookieepedia is about. Wondering about differences between the One Sith as described in Legacy of the Force and Legacy, then solving the dispute with a quote from Lucas saying the Sith were destroyed forever at Endor, clearly isn't in line with official policy. - Milo Fett [Comlink] 00:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think as far as George Lucas is concerned, Boba Fett is dead, the Sith are destroyed, and basically most events that happened in the EU did not happen or did not happen the way the EU told them to be at least in his mind. I guess the reason why George did not insist on Fett's death is because of the popularity of the character. But don't be surprised if George Lucas makes another Star Wars film with the events post-ROTJ and shows there that Fett is really dead. Sometimes, I think Lucas is deliberately retconning a lot of EU facts to make them more aligned with what's on his mind. Questorminator 12:52, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Unclear?
What's with things like VIP statements being "unclear"? How does this get resolved when atually writing articles? For example: A NJO book is considered canon... SuperShadow is not canon... all straightforward enough; but what about these "unclear" things? How are they made clear? When we're writing an article we state (perhaps too definitively and often prematurely, but that's another matter) that X is canon, not that X is "unclear," so either it's a totally unhelpful category or it's honored mostly in the breach.--216.45.228.131 19:59, April 18, 2010 (UTC)l
 * It means that there's no official ruling on the canon status of the information form Lucasfilm. — Milo Fett [Comlink] 22:16, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Then what justification do we have for citing these sources to make definitive pronouncements on characters or events, as some wookieepedians do? I bet Lucasfilm never explicitly said Peter Jackson's LOTR movies *aren't* part of Star Wars canon... does that mean they belong in the "unclear" category until we get a clarification? This whole category seems like an excuse for people to quote their favorite authors or whatever for their own interpretations, a practice more commonly known as "fanon." Even worse is the implication that *unlicensed* material is in some kind of grey zone... it's unlicensed, for Ziro's sake! It is a far more logical system to only treat as canon those things which LFL positively states is canon. Other things can go into non-canon info sections or behind the scenes, as is appropriate on a case by case basis.--216.45.228.131 23:11, April 18, 2010 (UTC)l
 * Generally, we *don't* cite those sources to make definitive pronouncements, though we sometimes have to rely on them in some circumstances; note we always cite the passage in question for the reader. As for your Peter Jackson example, that's pretty well covered by the canon system; forgive the tautology, but non-Star Wars products aren't Star Wars products, and thus aren't canon. As for certain articles in unlicensed magazines, they ARE in some ways a "grey zone," because even though they're not canon, some elements from them get treated as canon anyway; for example, Dan Wallace notes in Endnotes for Star Wars: The Essential Atlas (part 5 of 5)], "After consultation with Lucasfilm, we agreed to include planets introduced in unofficial RPG articles in magazines such as Polyhedron and Dragon, so long as they'd been written by authors who at some point received an author credit for licensed Star Wars material. (Note that this says nothing about such articles' canon status beyond the fact that the star systems exist.)" That said, your suggestion to put things "into non-canon info sections or behind the scenes, as is appropriate on a case by case basis" is already our general standard operating procedure for such things. jSarek 23:56, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * This sounds like you can add anything and everything simply because it passes the few, but all-inclusive canon policies. Example: Porridge was indeed mentioned in those 2 sources stated, and although I would disagree as to how a one-liner article on something that was mentioned briefly would indeed benefit from the addition of a picture, it certainly passes through the "canonicity checklist" because it did appear in a book as per "All novels, reference books, and collections of short stories published by Bantam Spectra, Del Rey, Dorling Kindersley or any other officially licensed publishers". More examples: Absolute zero, Photon, Bone. Note that these articles are on topics with real-world equivalents with IU appearances. Is it necessary to include Han Solo's choice of Underwear (ie. boxers/briefs/nothing at all) or Darth Vadar's hobbies? Perhaps but hardly deserving their own articles. Speaking of underwear, the article is, to me, doesn't pass through this particular policy "Conjecture based on our own universe (with the exception, of course, of any such conjecture officially published by Lucas Licensing)", on what is not considered a valid resource. Songjin 08:17, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

THE LEGENDARY STAR WARS EXPANDED UNIVERSE TURNS A NEW PAGE
Just yesterday, an article on starwars.com announced that only the movies, the clone wars, rebels, and any future material are considered canonical as to make way for Episode 7. Any past EU material is non-canonical and is now under the "Legends" label. It's like "Infinities" but there's a ton of stuff under it. This is a horrible change (in my opinion) but a necessary one to make way for the new movies. If only Lucasfilm had been vigilant in monitoring EU material for inconsistencies. Almost every page on this wiki will need to be changed. An administrator must edit this page. Please see the article here: http://starwars.com/news/the-legendary-star-wars-expanded-universe-turns-a-new-page.html
 * It's being worked on. 1358  (Talk)  19:36, April 27, 2014 (UTC)