Welcome, Conner itsatrap![edit source]
Wookieepedia aspires to be a reliable source for all Star Wars fans to read and draw information from, and as such, fan-created continuity and fan fiction are not allowed within our articles. All in-universe material must be attributable to a reliable, published source.
Do not remove talk page and forum comments, including your own, as they are part of the public record. Remember that you should always sign your comments on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~.
For an optimal viewing experience, Wookieepedia recommends using the Monobook skin. For help changing your skin preference, see Help:Skin.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wookieepedian! If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the Senate Hall, visit our official IRC channel, or ask me on my talk page. May the Force be with you! —Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:55, December 18, 2013 (UTC)
Hey there, welcome to Wookieepedia. Signing your comments is done by typing four tildes:
~~~~. No need to append your username to that, the tildes will do it automatically. Cheers, 1358 (Talk) 21:32, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip!Conner itsatrap (talk) 21:35, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
Please see Wookieepedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Cade Calrayn 23:27, April 26, 2014 (UTC) Okay, sorry. I didn't think it was that personal, but I'll be more kind.Conner itsatrap (talk) 23:41, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
Canon discussion[edit source]
Although I'd like to discuss this in the Senate Hall, you've made it clear that you're just going to ignore any logical connections I make and throw insults my way. Not much of a discussion, and it's spamming up what we're trying to discuss over there. So if you'd like to talk about this like rational humans, maybe learn a thing or two you didn't know about the situation and maybe inform me of a thing or two I didn't know about the situation, let's do it here—or just agree to disagree and end it at that. Either way, let's keep it out of the forum.
First, can I ask that anything you say to back up your side of the argument be given a source (i.e. a quote, press release, etc.) so that I can know exactly where your point is coming from? And can you do this instead of throwing insults, which don't actually make your point? Second, can I ask if you're familiar with the full nature of S-canon? There. I hope that's a civil start to a constructive conversation. Winchester 327 Comlink » 21:10, April 27, 2014 (UTC) To answer your question, yes, I am familiar with S-Canon. The way I read it and took it in, I saw S-Canon as canon until easily proven apocryphal. I see this as the opposite, like 86 said. This all could be interpreted both ways, but I thought that them saying "not canon" made it seem like they meant it.Conner itsatrap (talk) 21:22, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm going to quote the article here just to have it all in one place:
- "... 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."
To me, this sounds like the exact process Jennifer Heddle has described for how Legends material may or may not show up again. Her tweets:
- "Existing stories are there as a resource. But only new stories going forward are part of this 'one universe.' "
- "There might be people you recognize. Will prob still use planets etc. We're not throwing it away."
- "No way to tell what will get pulled from EU going forward. It's all there if we want it."
In other words, it's all non-canon, except that it's there as a resource if they want to make any element canon again. Same thing as S-canon, to my way of interpreting it: "available to be used or ignored as needed by current authors." They can say Thrawn exists in a future story, guide, etc., and his existence is elevated to the new canon; they don't say he exists, and he remains in Legends only. I see this as functionally identical to S-canon, and even the reasoning behind S-canon matches the reasoning behind Legends. S-canon: "This includes mostly older works, such as much of the Marvel Star Wars comics, that predate a consistent effort to maintain continuity." Legends: The EU now predates the "consistent effort to maintain continuity" represented by Lucasfilm Story Group.
This also happens to match, exactly, what happened with the Clone Wars continuity after the TV series started. Ryloth, for instance, was "EU canon," but George Lucas never considered the EU canon in the first place. To the showrunners' thinking, they pulled Ryloth from non-continuity and elevated it to the film/TV-only canon; they also changed it, making the planet have a regular day-night cycle. The same process will be used with all Star Wars stories moving forward: they are free to use elements of the EU, and most likely will, and will change things to suit their creative needs.
In the Senate Hall, I was not saying Legends is now S-canon. I was saying our policy with its information should be the same as it is for S-canon, since we are discussing policy. What are your thoughts about S-canon, in general? Winchester 327 Comlink » 21:58, April 27, 2014 (UTC) Well, I thought that S-canon was actually canon (you know, before…). In any case, there seems to be a slight misunderstanding: you know that the EU isn't actually canon anymore, right? One thing is for sure: things were a lot simpler in 1991 (I wish I was around then!)Conner itsatrap (talk) 22:12, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm 100% aware that the EU is not canon. I never said, or meant to imply, that it was. In fact, I've more or less been saying that it never was canon, outside of itself. But it's not "gone," as in deleted, it's just in a strange state of existence that can't be easily summed up by calling it non-canon. It can be non-canon while also being a whole lot more than that (much like S-canon). Winchester 327 Comlink » 22:49, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
Good, we've reached an agreement. What about the default setting? And the names? What do you think and why?Conner itsatrap (talk) 00:22, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
- Just thought I would point out that your disagreement is pointless, as S-canon and Non-canon are practically identical. Neither constrain future works, and both can be referenced. The only difference is that one is intended to be ignored, the other intended for inspiration and elevation if possible. The only reason the two are seen as different on the Wook, is because the site has traditionally chosen to point out non-canon, while assuming S-canon is valid until contradicted, even though being canon by definition means it isn't supposed to be contradicted. It is one of the Wook's oldest and most fundamental mistakes, and runs contrary to all academic research. Point being that whether Legends should be treated as one or the other depends wholly on whether the Wook decides to perpetuate the S-canon mistake, or list all of it as non-canon, the way it always should have been. This is and has always been an internal Wook problem, not a matter of external Lucasfilm definition. -anon