This is the talk page for the article "Canon."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for a discussion about the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit Wookieepedia Discussions. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.

This talk page has archives.

Talk pages are not forums for debate[]

The Talkheader template at the top of this page says it all, and this debate ends here. If you want to talk amongst yourselves, use your individual talk pages for discussion. Please do not perpetuate this discussion further. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


I would just like to point out that there is a slight contradiction within this page. As I am an avid Star Wars fan, I would like to know the canon of certain events and subjects, however, I have noticed that the term "deleted scenes" are found in the G-Canon and N/Non-Canon sections, which is rather confusing. If a kind soul could straighten this out, I would greatly appreciate it as I doubt I am qualified to edit such an unstable and hotly debated page. Unsigned comment by (talk • contribs).

Move the Infinities Logo?[]

I find it slightly confusing to have the Infinties logo on the top of a page about canon. Maybe we should move it. 15:14, January 19, 2011 (UTC)

Who fogged up the window?[]

This article contains a quote from Chris Cerasi using the analogy of a "foggy window" into the Star Wars universe. A couple paragraphs later, the article text contains the phrase "Sansweet's 'foggy window'". Sansweet's name is mentioned nowhere else in the article (in fact, his first name is never mentioned) so it is unclear (dare I say "foggy"?) what his connection is to the "foggy window" analogy. Did he in fact invent it, and Cerasi was just referring to Sansweet's concept in his quote? Or is this an attribution error, in one case or the other? (Interestingly, a source is given for almost every quote in this article except the Cerasi one -- which is the longest quote in this article.) Asithol 10:24, June 29, 2011 (UTC)

George Lucas[]

George Lucas said the Emperor doesn't get cloned and Luke doesn't get married so should we deem the Emperor's clone and Mara Jade as Non-Canon?KitFisto19BBY 21:19, March 2, 2012 (UTC)

  • George Lucas has said a lot of things, and not always the same things. I think Leland Chee says it best: "The only relevant official continuities are the current versions of the films alone, and the combined current version of the films along with whatever else we've got in the Holocron. You're never going to know what George's view of the universe beyond the films at any given time because it is constantly evolving." Wookieepedia adheres to the inclusive continuity indicated in the second view, where the clone of the Emperor and Mara Jade Skywalker are both quite canon. jSarek 20:55, March 3, 2012 (UTC)
    • So Darth Maul surviving is non-canon?;)KitFisto19BBY 21:00, March 3, 2012 (UTC)
      • Did it happen in "the combined current version of the films along with whatever else we've got in the Holocron"? Since the Clone Wars cartoon is in the Holocron, then yes, it's canon. jSarek 08:51, March 6, 2012 (UTC)
        • Darth Maul's survival is canon as introduced by Dark Horse comics. George Lucas has chosen to acknowledge that insertion of EU lore into his own TCW continuity. This is much the same as when he accepted into film canon the name of the Galactic Republic capital planet as Coruscant, a name invented by Timothy Zahn for the EU Thrawn trilogy. GethralkinHyperwave 05:48, March 8, 2012 (UTC)
          • The only Dark Horse comic in which the original Darth Maul (not the clone/doppelganger/whatever of "Resurrection") appeared was Star Wars: Visionaries, in a story acknowledged as non-canon by Lucasfilm. It wasn't until the Savage Opress storyline that we were given any hint that Maul was indeed alive, and there is no evidence Lucas based that decision on the non-canon Visonaries story. (There is also no evidence that the Visonairies story is now canon; Maul's final fate may yet be met in the TV series.) jSarek 06:45, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
            • Ah, I forgot that Resurrection was Infinities, I guess because the return of Maul has been promoted so much for TCW. Thanks for the clarification, JSarek. In any case, Kit, the answer to your question is that there are degrees of canonicity, and that is what the Canon article discusses if you will but read it carefully. The films are G-canon. The cloned Emperor and Mara Jade story arcs are C-canon, and Darth Maul surviving is T-canon now that it is presented in TCW—although, as JSsarek so kindly pointed out, the details may not be the same and the post-EI comics about Maul will likely continue to be N-canon. You can be a film purist if you like, but trying to mold this wiki to that philosophy by changing articles and arguing over canonicity will only get you banned. GethralkinHyperwave 15:21, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
              • It doesn't matter if he says a lot of things the point still stands that his statements are still considered canon and he does have the final say. You have to look at what his most recent decisions is because as we all know he changes his mind alot. I mean just look at all the special editions. Leeland Chee explained this on the old Starwars.com forums.DarthJon
                • Leland Chee and George Lucas are mentioned a lot in this subthread. In 2018 (or 2019) on Twitter, I asked Chee specifically about Lucas' statements. He answered me and said the same thing he stated in his old SW blog, which was that what Lucas said becoming canon depended on three things. He also said that usually whatever Lucas said in regards to published content and story lines are generally kept secretly in the Holocron as G canon because these items affected the future of the story. This is all readily available on his old blog, which can be found in the internet archive.Red Heathen (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
                  • In regards to Darth Maul and his resurrection prior to when Lucas brought him back on The Clone Wars: 1. "Old Wounds" was never canon. Maul's return in that story officially was not canon per Leland Chee in his blog. He specifically typed out the words "not canon." 2. "Resurrection" was part of SW Tales issue number 9. SW Tales, until the last four or so issues, were not canon. HOWEVER, items in these stories or the stories themselves, individually, could become canon if they or some of their elements were said to be canon or if they are published in a canon source. There was also something said about whether or not Chee discussed a topic in his blog as canon. "Resurrection" is about a fight, and this fight was said by Chee in his blog to have occurred. The story itself was discussed in one, maybe two but I can't remember for sure, officially licensed SW publications. I think it was one of the encyclopedias. Maybe. I can see the paragraph with it in it, but I don't have access to my SW library anymore to confirm the title. The story as a whole should be considered as old C-Canon, and if not the story, at least the fight. Red Heathen (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

S-Level Canon[]

About how old does something need to be to be considered S-Level Canon? --Mgrozo 22:01, June 3, 2012 (UTC)

I think those released before the Prequel Trilogy. Patsoumas1995 (talk) 22:58, August 1, 2012 (UTC) Unless it's tales, pre-Thrawn Trilogy. They were the ones to start connecting continuity.

Two questions[]

"Elements originating with Lucas in the movie novelizations, reference books, and other sources are also G-canon"

Reference Books & other sources... Which ones & where can I find those, please? And also, are the deleted scenes of Episodes IV-VI G-Canon? Patsoumas1995 (talk) 22:57, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

  • Well, for example, Rothana was included in Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross-Sections after Lucas mentioned it to one of the creators. Keep in mind we're discussing elements here, not entire works; so while Rothana (and anything else from Lucas) would be G-canon, the rest of the book wouldn't be. As for the deleted scenes, when asked "Are deleted scenes considered G-level," Leland Chee answered "Yes, unless they conflict with something else seen in the films or if the reasoning behind deleting the scene keeps it from being continuity." In 2011, he changed his tune a bit, saying that "Potentially yes, but not always, unless its specifically reinserted into the film like Jabba in ANH and the extended Podracer scenes in the TPM DVD." jSarek (talk) 07:01, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

Star Wars: Clone Wars[]

In the article "Star Wars: The Clone Wars" is mentioned being one of the only two television show to be included in T-canon, but what about "Star Wars: Clone Wars"?

-- 01:56, November 4, 2012 (UTC)Alexander

  • From what I can tell, the original Clone Wars TV series is C-canon. 20:02, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Leland clarified this to me on twitter, but he also said that Rebels would be T-Canon (which is, along with almost everything else, made ambiguous by the story group including Pablo, who said "Those letters mean nothing to me ;)" on twitter about levels) , of which no note seems to have been taken. Conner itsatrap (talk) 20:23, January 15, 2014 (UTC)conner_itsatrap

Regarding the Sequel Trilogy[]

How do we define G-canon after the Disney sale? Since Lucas is no loner the head of the company, do we still accept his final say on the matter? For example, would we accept any more "Stewjon's" or "Conan Motti's," as being canon? Doctor Kermit(Complain.) 04:36, November 19, 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to tell. On the one hand we have the G-canon Empire Strikes Back, which Lucas wrote the story and payed for, but otherwise had the least amount of involvement in amongst the films. But on the other hand we have the C-canon Caravan of Courage, for which Lucas also wrote the story and payed for, but also personally took part in directing scenes and was on set for much of the time. Adamwankenobi (talk) 15:28, November 21, 2012 (UTC)

What seems likely given recent comments about VII, VIII, IX completely disregarding the EU is that almost all of C level canon is about to get demoted to S level. This happened to Star Trek in the late 1980s. 03:56, March 20, 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't that polarize the fans against Disney and George Lucas?Nostalgia of Iran (talk) 02:53, July 25, 2013 (UTC)

I think, given that the story group alone controls what is canon, George can no longer say.Conner itsatrap (talk) 20:26, January 15, 2014 (UTC)Conner_ItsATrap

On January of 2014, Leland Chee announced the following, in response to a question regarding whether the fans would be seeing Mara Jade and the Solo twins and other characters from the EU in episodes VII, VIII, and IX:

"This can not be made clearer, the post "Return of the Jedi" Expanded Universe, launched in 1991 with the publication of "Outbound Flight", is dead. No story from that point forward counts. The Story Group is going to use the basic descriptions of EU characters as inspiration for new characters, but these new characters will not be the same characters and will not have the same histories. Luke's wife might come to superficially resemble Mara Jade, but she will not be Mara Jade. Similarly, fans should not expect to see Jacen Solo, Jaina Solo, Kyle Katarn, Corran Horn, Cilghal or any of the other EU characters, but rather characters who might resemble them in some ways. That's why Bob Iger said they would use the 17,000 character for inspiration for new characters. But they are only being used for inspiration."

And of course, Bob Iger is CEO of Disney. This statement just about shuts the door on the canon tier system entirely. Not only is everything below C-Canon now non-canon, but so is everything in T-Canon. And the entire idea of differing levels of canon is now scrapped. 23:31, February 28, 2014 (UTC)

Not that I think you're lying, but can you please post the link that stated this? It's one thing to claim he said it, but as a wiki, we need proof. Well, I guess when Episode VII is inevitably released, we'll move the pre-Sequel trilogy post-ROTJ expanded universe to another wiki if its true that they've been made non-canon. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 23:43, February 28, 2014 (UTC)

"This can not be made clearer, the post "Return of the Jedi" Expanded Universe, launched in 1991 with the publication of "Outbound Flight", is dead."
Now that's funny, Outbound Flight was published in 2006. —Super Saiyan 7 Somebody | talk | edits 00:08, March 1, 2014 (UTC)

That can mean only one of two things in that case: Either Leland Chee is growing senile, or the user's trolling. Either way, I'll wait for the anon to post the link, assuming the anon's being honest, anyways. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 00:20, March 1, 2014 (UTC)
  • I vote trolling, anyone who knows anything about the EU would know that Heir to the Empire launched the post ROTJ EU.

--Roguestar (talk) 03:55, March 19, 2014 (UTC)

Star Wars: Rebels.[]

I recently asked Leland on twitter about the levels of Droids, Clone Wars, and Ewoks. He said "Currently, the only T-Canon sources are The Clone Wars series by Lucasfilm animation and the upcoming Rebels series." I assume he was talking about TCW as opposed to the mini-series because the "The" was capital, but the tweet also implies two new things. 1: Rebels is T- not C- canon. 2: either the long-since-shelved Underworld is being reduced to C-canon, if so, probably because Lucas' involvement is overruled by Disney, or it has been unofficial officially canned, which is much more likely. The point in sharing this is the page needs to be updated.--Conner itsatrap (talk) 19:36, December 17, 2013 (UTC)conner_itsatrap

I feel as though Star Wars: Rebels is big enough of a production that it should be mentioned in the intro to the Wiki page 02:45, November 22, 2015 (UTC)

New canon policy[]

Looks like this is going to need a huge update now... (as is the whole wiki). See: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/lucasfilm-unveils-new-plans-star-698973 JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 22:04, April 25, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah... Anyone have any ideas on how to approach this?

They're talking about it in the Senate Hall. Ps. sign your posts. --Conner itsatrap (talk) 21:08, April 26, 2014 (UTC)Conner_itsatrap

Yes, it's a horrible change (in my opinion), but it's a necessary one. If only Lucasfilm had monitored the EU from the beginning so there would be no conflicts. Wookieepedia said it would simply label any newly non-canonical objects as being Legendary, just as it has on any infinities material. I learned of this on Wookieepedia's instagram. We need an administrator to edit this page. Please see the starwars.com article here: http://starwars.com/news/the-legendary-star-wars-expanded-universe-turns-a-new-page.html I don't have an account; that's why I'm not signing.

  • We're aware of this but no changes will be made just yet. Right now we're debating and very soon we'll have formal proposals about the radical changes that the Wiki will be subjected to. I say, give it a few days. Winterz (talk) 19:22, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

Divide the wiki in 2[]

Considering the latest news, and in order to better separacte what is canon and what is not, i think that it would be for the best by the wikia was separated into 2, one would be the Star Wars Legends wiki, containing knowledge of past canon and pretty much what this one already had, and another would be the Star Wars wiki, focusing on what is officially canon in the new Disney SW universe. 14:32, May 20, 2014 (UTC)

The idea has been suggested and denied already.--Dionne Jinn (Something to say?) 14:38, May 20, 2014 (UTC)

People there are afraid of this wikia disappearing, but what i'm suggesting is putting Legends in a new wiki, while this one focuses on canon, this one wouldn't lose viewers at all because it's focusing on canon.

As it is, it's only going to get painfully confusing to have Canon and Legends together, there already are characters with information from both sources, either divide the character pages too or the entire wiki.

Those that don't know the difference will have a hard time getting into the wikia, and start confusing canon with legends. 14:49, May 20, 2014 (UTC)

The option to move legends to a new wiki was an option in the vote I linked. It got no support. And we are working on separating Legends and Canon material to different tabs. But it is going to take some time. You are most welcome to help!--Dionne Jinn (Something to say?) 14:51, May 20, 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we should've called the tabs Lucas Canon and Disney Canon, but whatever. Separating "Canon" from "Legends" without an explanation can just be confusing. What's "Legends" supposed to be, fan fiction? At least someone might think that way. Rickyrab (talk) 01:07, August 18, 2015 (UTC)

Movie scripts/screenplays[]

Has anything official been said about the canonicity of the movie scripts/screenplays? --Lelal Mekha Old Republic military symbol.svg (Audience Room) 19:11, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

New Canon Listing[]

Shouldn't there be a list of the material that is still canon? Including the new Darth maul comic and Star Wars UK magazine story that aparently are part of the new canon. 20:02, June 7, 2014 (UTC)

Anyone wants to give their 2 cents on the subject? 17:41, June 9, 2014 (UTC)

I know that I didn't start this topic, but, if I may add, that is a very nice and helpful list. Roger Murtaugh (talk) 00:28, October 10, 2014 (UTC)

Starwars.com Encyclopedia and Databank[]

Out of curiosity, what's the rationale for including these as canon? I can understand the Databank since it's newly on the official site, but has anybody in the Story Group commented on its status? The citations currently up for the Encyclopedia note that it is obsolete, and it looks like not all information has been carried over (and even if the info had been carried over to the current Databank, shouldn't we cite that instead since it's not a dead link?). For example, references to Bail Organa's wife as the "Queen of Alderaan" cite the Encyclopedia entry for Bail, but this info is not present in the current version of the site, which makes it seem like this has been intentionally deleted as non-canon. What's going on? Thanks! Gonkgonkgonk (talk) 16:09, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

  • Matt Martin on Twitter specifically said that these were canon. He specifically said anything non-editorial was canon. Editorial is not canon, and this includes the blogs on the website. Those are usually non-Star Wars authors and they write their opinions and thoughts. The official SW live blog podcasts are official. These have official SW employees, such as members of the Story Group, being asked questions. Red Heathen (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Canon rebooted, again, in the future?[]

Is there any guarantee that the canon won't be restarted, ever again? It'd be a shame to invest in characters and stories, again, if they won't last. Roger Murtaugh (talk) 00:27, October 10, 2014 (UTC)

  • No guarantee, but if it ever happens, it'll be FAAAAAAR in the future. Not really worth worrying about right now. IFYLOFD (Enter the Floydome) 00:44, October 10, 2014 (UTC)
A shame. I'm going to miss some of the previous canon characters, like, Kyle Katarn. You're right, though. No point in worrying, now. Roger Murtaugh (talk) 00:15, October 11, 2014 (UTC)
They didn't go anywhere. They're always there when you need them. Yes, I am paraphrasing Labyrinth. :) Adamwankenobi (talk) 00:54, October 11, 2014 (UTC)
I'm liking the reference, but, you know what I meant. It's unfortunate, but, true, I can always go back and play the games. They are still fun. Roger Murtaugh (talk) 22:24, October 11, 2014 (UTC)

New Page for the New Canon[]

I think we should revisit this page and separate what is now Canon from what was once Canon as opposed to having it as a section.--Marcuspearl (talk) 04:30, January 9, 2015 (UTC)

I second having an actual "new canon" list somewhere. The timeline is ok, but it splits out series by episode, and has titles of stories that are in magazines without listing the magazine or how to find it. How about a separate list that just says: Movies, Shows, Books, Comics, Other that lists each title (not episodes or issues of comics) so anyone can tell what to buy or read/watch? 00:07, April 15, 2015 (UTC)

Post-Return of the Jedi EU is dead. That means that everything in the expanded universe that is pre-Return of the Jedi is canon, no? In this sense, it's like everything is in the same timeline, and then after Return of the Jedi, the timeline splits. So.. Would things like, I dunno, Naga Sadow, still be considered Canon to some degree in the Disney-Star Wars timeline? I say this because there's a list, but since they said only Post-ROTJ is non canon, wouldn't the pre-ROTJ EU still be like an unofficial canon? 01:16, April 18, 2015 (UTC)

  • The Story Group have said that all expanded universe material regardless of era is now part of Legends and so non-canon, not just the stuff after ROTJ. It is all available for authors to use in future, but until it appears in a new canon product all of it remains non-canon sadly. Ayrehead02 (talk) 01:20, April 18, 2015 (UTC)
    • So Legends is EU canon pre-Disney "takeover"? Okay, so that's original canon and should be treated as the canon of at least one Star Wars universe. And Dis-Canon would be "new" Canon and thus not "Legends". Rickyrab (talk) 01:03, August 18, 2015 (UTC)

Lucasfilm canon[]

Because the Star Wars Visual Dictionaries are in consultation with Lucasfilm and ILM, are they considered canon? If the movies are canon, then surely the movie makers are canon? Lucasfilm is essentially George Lucas. Ingvanye (talk) 06:45, May 5, 2015 (UTC)

  • Is that because of the new agreement with Disney? 10:24, May 5, 2015 (UTC)
  • Lucasfilm and Lucas are different entities -

"Steven Sansweet, an Author of the EU said this at a convention in Australia: "In the canon debate, it is important to notice that LucasFilm and Lucas are different entities. The only canon source of Star Wars are the radio plays, the movie novels and the movies themselves - in Lucas' mind, nothing else exists, and no authorized LucasFilm novel will restrict his creativity in any way." ~ Steven Sansweet, EU Author - Director of Content Management and head of Fan Relations at Lucasfilm Ltd. User:Grim'alkun (talk) 08:35, March 29, 2020 (UTC)


What is canon, and what isn't canon? This article mentioned games being canon or something? Could anyone specify?--Fekyu 12:40, May 30, 2015 (UTC)

  • From before the Disney purchase: the six films, The Clone Wars (film and episodes only), and that's pretty much it. After the purchase, pretty much anything made under Disney's supervision that is not clearly supposed to be non-canon (like Lego Star Wars). The only real exceptions are Star Wars: Darth Maul—Son of Dathomir being canon, and the Fantasy Flight Games RPGs not being confirmed as canon. 14:58, May 30, 2015 (UTC)


It has come to my attention *chuckles* that the Star Wars franchise is now Disney intellectual property - and not only is the Mouse making movies, it's also reportedly planning new Star Wars theme areas in Disney World and at Disneyland. So should those movies be a continuation of G-canon, a different canon (Dis-canon), or non-canon? How about the theme areas? Rickyrab (talk) 00:58, August 18, 2015 (UTC)

  • We'd need more details on the new theme park areas before making that distinction. We know next to nothing about their contents. However, the announcement mentioned everything (including employees) would be 100% in-universe. This hints toward it being canon. --Dentface (talk) 01:09, August 18, 2015 (UTC)

Who wrote this article? I am a trying to do a research essay for college about canon and I can't find the article editor anywhere; can someone please help me find this person? -- 22:12, November 11, 2015 (UTC)

There's seven not six star wars movies 10:36, December 31, 2015 (UTC)

Movie novelisations?[]

Sorry if this has already been discussed, but has this been considered / taken into account?


This is referring to the movie novelizations for Episodes 1 to 6, of course. Vympel (talk) 15:12, January 4, 2016 (UTC)

So is anyone going to object if we move the novelisations from Legends to Canon? --W Mumford (talk) 08:06, January 22, 2016 (UTC)

  • Did you read the whole thing? "To clarify, movie novelizations are canon where they align with what is seen on screen in the 6 films and the Clone Wars animated movie." In other words, you're not presenting us with anything new here, that we haven't already seen. To say that they're canon where they align with what appears in the movie is to say that essentially they're non-canon, which means for all intents and purposes, the content is Legends. The same could be said of something like, say, the Star Wars radio drama. So yeah, 'fraid we are going to have to object to moving them from Legends to canon because this changes nothing. ProfessorTofty (talk) 08:16, January 22, 2016 (UTC)
  • Vympel and W Mumford, as said above, the novelizations of episodes 1-6 are not canon. Novelization of 7 is, including the junior novel. There are no current updated novelizations for the prequel trilogy, but there is a set for the original trilogy, which is canon: A New Hope: The Princess, the Scoundrel, and the Farm Boy, The Empire Strikes Back: So You Want to Be a Jedi?, and Return of the Jedi: Beware the Power of the Dark Side!. They are junior novels as well, though. VDO talk 16:20, January 22, 2016 (UTC)
    • Well, what does 'where they align with what is seen on screen' mean? You're adopting an interpretation of that which makes the quote in contention meaningless, which to me would call in to contention why you'd interpret the quote in that manner. For example, if we refer to the ANH novel referring to, I don't know - Obi-Wan detecting Vader's mind, but its maturity being foreign to him - how does this 'not align with what is seen on screen'? Why isn't this canon? It contradicts nothing. Vympel (talk) 22:50, January 22, 2016 (UTC)
    • To be clear - I think the quote is being interpreted in a counter-intuitive manner, i.e. its being taken to mean "if its not in the movie already then its not canon" as opposed to the more logical 'it can't contradict the films'. Vympel (talk) 22:56, January 22, 2016 (UTC)
      • There's too much ambiguity for us to consider the Episodes I-VI novelizations canon. For example, the Episode III novelization leans heavily on EU material, and is written to follow Labyrinth of Evil in a lot of respects. So a lot of that heavy EU-leaning creates even more of a grey area. So, until Lucasfilm wants to outright declare them as canon (except in cases of contradiction), we don't include them in our canon pages. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 23:55, January 22, 2016 (UTC)
        • Yeah, the RotS novel is a very peculiar animal when compared to the other movie novelizations, which really stand on their own. I think someone needs to ask the question about how to treat them in a more clarifying manner. Frankly given the dedication of Wookiepedians it would be great if there was an official line of communication. I'd like to make clear I'm not complaining or agitating here, I just think maybe we need to think about this a bit harder. Vympel (talk) 01:21, January 23, 2016 (UTC)
          • The official line is what we've already been told, and I don't think Lucasfilm is inclined to really dig deeper into it than that or try to draw canonical lines within novels (other than, perhaps, the TFA novel and all future novelizations). There's something that Wookieepedians should always strive to remember, and that's this: Star Wars stories are not told to benefit wiki editors. They're not all going to fit neatly into a cohesive canon. It's not going to be as simple as 'yes, this is true and that other thing is false.' Novelizations, as Pablo Hidalgo and others have said on Twitter, are meant to be interpretations of films. It's the authors of those novelizations who get to interpret the films. Are the interpretations true? Are the things they add to the story true? Maybe, maybe not. The important thing isn't the answer. The important thing is the question. And that's Lucasfilm's stance, so the canonicity of certain novelizations is not going to be clarified. Nor should they be, in my opinion, because Lucasfilm doesn't exist to benefit the documentation of canon on the internet. So I'm perfectly content with leaving the Episodes I-VI novelizations out of articles. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 03:59, January 23, 2016 (UTC)
            • Just adding more to this soup of a convo. In regards to old canon, Leland Chee stated a couple times on his old SW blog that the parts of the adult novelizations of the movies that Lucas helped with are considered G canon. The problem with this is that we don't know what parts Lucas helped with. Red Heathen (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

"So far, all game characters with customizable gender, except Meetra Surik, have been canonized to be male." This must be a typo, can't edit, have to register.

Which versions of the films are considered canon?[]

Is it the 2004 Special Edition films, or the 2011 Blu-Rays? -User:11Morey December 21, 2016 9:54 PM (EST)

  • The most current release is considered to be the canonical version. So in this case, yes—the 2011 BD release is the current, definitive version. — DigiFluid(Whine here) 02:58, December 22, 2016 (UTC)
    • Or the 2012 3D version, in the case of The Phantom Menace. JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 04:47, December 22, 2016 (UTC)
      • And now Disney has re-released a few (made changes to films as seen on Disney+). Do these take precedence and render the 2011 BluRay release non-canon?Red Heathen (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Canon/Legends tab[]

I wounder if this page needs a Legends and Canon tab. It might make sense...

--??? (talk) 22:16, December 10, 2018 (UTC)

  • It now has a canon tab, and I am not sure why because an article about canon does not mean that it is canonized by Disney. 22:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Lego Star Wars: The Freemaker Adventures[]

Shouldn't this show be in the "Exceptions" section? It's a post cannon-reboot show, but it's clearly not cannon (the show's own page here on Wookieepedia makes that pretty clear LEGO_Star_Wars: The Freemaker Adventures#Continuity). Smnc (talk) 03:09, December 30, 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure its that necessary to specifically mention since all Lego stuff wouldn't be canon, but if you want to add it then feel free --Lewisr (talk) 03:19, December 30, 2019 (UTC)
  • The exceptions listed look like things that fall under Legends (or non-canon within the Legends continuity), so I'm not sure stuff like Freemakers would fit in that list, but a brief explanation that there are non-canon works built around the current canon continuity might be helpful, since the page doesn't seem to directly address that fact currently. Toqgers (talk) 03:32, December 30, 2019 (UTC)


We need to track down which issue of Cinescape is referenced in the article as "July 2001". There is no issue published on July 2001, as you can see on the publisher website. SW is featured in the Vol 7 #3 (Summer 2001), which is a possible lead. It's also featured in 55 (dec 2001), 57 (Feb 2002), 61 (June 2002) and 62 (July 2002), per the summary here and here. It's possible it was misswritten 2001 instead of 2002 in the article, and issue 62 contains a interview of George Lucas. But we need to be sure. --NanoLuukeCloning facility 19:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  • The interview was done around 2001. Some people got the issue around January 2002. The full interview was published in an issue called Cinescape #62. July 2002. Cinescape gave a preview of it in June 14th 2002. And I have the link. I'm going to update the page with it in a few seconds. --Luke cadeku. 22:27, March 2, 2021 (UTC)


Why is this page labeled as canon? Canon means it actually happened in the timeline. This is a page of the idea of canon, not canon objects. The idea of canon doesn't really exist in the Star Wars Universe. And sure, it mentions canon content, but so do some of the real-world pages. This should be labeled as a real-world article. 01:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)