This is the talk page for the page "Wookieepedia:Canon policy."

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.

Film novels[]

Now that we've formalized our new canon policy, as promised we have our first update. Del Rey made this Tweet earlier this past week regarding the canon status of film novelizations: "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." I interpret that to mean that only the novel scenes that correspond exactly to the scenes in the films are canon. For example, the Revenge of the Sith novel includes many extra scenes not in the film itself; therefore, those scenes would not be considered canon. In other words, to quote the first response to that Tweet, "So basically... they aren't. The movies are." I know some people here on Wookieepedia are already disagreeing with this interpretation, so I'm just stating here that I'm updating the Canon policy to reflect exactly what Del Rey said without attempting to qualify its meaning. Interpret or misinterpret Del Rey's proclamation as you will. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:02, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

  • Without clarification, it's possible they're thinking more along the lines of the part in the Revenge of the Sith novel where Magnaguards are stated to be newish and that part conflicts with TCW, but this sounds like a good plan until/unless they expand on their statement. —Milo Fett[Comlink] 16:09, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

Rebels material[]

Is there a source saying that Rebels "supplementary source material" is canon? Specifically things like Meet the Rebels and Zeb to the Rescue that are coming out before September 2. They're type=canon right now per this policy I guess. -- Xell Khaar (talk) 00:59, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

  • There's no reason to suggest that any of the Rebels supplementary material wouldn't be canon. The entire Rebels project is being overseen by the Lucasfilm Story Group, specifically Pablo Hidalgo, who's writing at least one of those Rebels young readers. Don't let the September 2 date mislead you. The new canon press release announcement provided that date in reference to when the first new canon adult novel is coming out. That's not to say the Rebels young reader material coming before then isn't also part of the new canon. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 01:04, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree with you that they probably are canon. But, aside from the one witten by Pablo Hidalgo, do you know, for 100% certainty, that each of those obscure learn to read books was overseen by the Lucasfilm Story Group? I mean, I'm all for using common sense when making policy, but there's actually quite a number of things that have come out this year that were probably overseen by the Story Group (they've been around since 2013), and there's no reason to suggest that any of it wouldn't be canon either. It's like where do we draw the line? -- Xell Khaar (talk) 01:29, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
      • We're drawing the line at Star Wars Rebels. It's that simple. If we need to make revisions to the policy, we'll make them. Don't overthink this. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 01:36, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
      • Since you're looking for a hard source, this should work for you. Jennifer Heddle: "Movies, Rebels, Clone Wars, and all content (books, games, etc) moving forward." The Rebels supplementary material would fall under "all content moving forward." Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 01:45, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
        • So does that mean we should set April 25 as the cutoff date instead of September 2? That's when the official announcement and that tweet was made. Anything "going forward" would be anything after April 25 then right? I think that might actually make more sense than choosing the arbitrary release date of a book. Re-reading the official post for the 100th time, I think I can actually make an arguement for that. The September 2nd date comes from this quote: "On the screen, the first new canon to appear will be Star Wars Rebels. In print, the first new books to come from this creative collaboration include novels from Del Rey Books." In other words, the Del Rey novels will be the first of the "unified storytelling approach" that they mention, what it doesn't say anywhere in the post is that they are necessarily the first new canon. The Jennifer Heddle quote specifically says anything moving forward (from April 25) is canon, even if it's not part of the unified storytelling approach. The only exception would be Rebel Heist since Jennifer Heddle specifically says it's Legends in a tweet. In summary, I propose the September 2 date should be moved to Apri 25. I'm sorry I'm overthinking this, but that's what I do. -- Xell Khaar (talk) 11:38, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

TCW novels[]

As one of our lingering canon status situations, Jennifer Heddle originally said on Twitter that she believed TCW tie-in novels are "only canon if they are directly based on something that was in the show" and that that's probably a question for Leland Chee. Well, this recently popped up on Barnes & Noble, so I'm presuming that means the rest of the series is Legends too. I've updated the policy page to reflect this. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 06:36, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

Changing "Legends" articles to "Canon".[]

I've found articles on things that only appear in what is considered official canon (such as The Clone Wars), but are listed as being under the "Legends" brand. If they didn't appear in anything that was rebranded as "Legends", should we change their status to canon? Or should they get separate canon articles if they debuted before the Expanded Universe was established as "Legends"? Immblueversion (talk) 06:45, June 30, 2014 (UTC)

  • Everything that appears in The Clone Wars is considered both Legends and NuCanon, and thus receives two articles. Please note that copy-pasting the Legends versions to create the canon versions is not acceptable; the links must be changed, and most of the information such as character names, ship names, dates, etc. originate only in Legends sources and thus cannot be included in canon articles. Cade StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit.svg Calrayn 12:26, June 30, 2014 (UTC)
    • Oh, I've been careful not to do that. And thank you for the clarification. Immblueversion (talk) 13:27, June 30, 2014 (UTC)
      • How does one create a canon tab for an article? I wanted to make a canon article for this one http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Funeral_of_Obi-Wan_Kenobi but don't know how. GreenDragonRanger (talk) 22:14, December 5, 2014 (UTC)
        • Normally, you would just create the page at "Funeral of Obi-Wan Kenobi/Canon," and the tabs will automatically generate. But in this case, that page should not be created, because it does not adhere to Wookieepedia's Notability policy, as it is a conjecturally-titled subject. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:19, December 5, 2014 (UTC)
        • Actually, I take that back. It falls under the Battles and Events clause, so it's ok to create. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:20, December 5, 2014 (UTC)

Would it be better if someone made a "New Wookieepedia" for the new canon instead of making /Canon pages, or is the current model of organizing the two canons good? I think the current method is fine for now, but if the Expanded Universe keeps expanding as much as it always has, soon, it might get confusing. Hopefully, alot of the old canon will get (re)implemented into the new one. Idk. What are your thoughts on the matter?

Ender37 (talk) 22:59, December 18, 2014 (UTC)

"Information previously found in the now-defunct StarWars.com Encyclopedia"[]

Why are these information canon? Wouldn't one say that they were removed for a reason? Plus, weren't these information based on EU stuff as well? Except if there is an official announcement stating that these are canon. Patsoumas1995 (talk) 17:02, February 26, 2015 (UTC)

  • There was nothing in the old Encyclopedia that was from the Expanded Universe. You're thinking of the old Databank. Most of the stuff in the old Encyclopedia is just stuff that was copied to the new Databank. As for it being removed for a reason, not sure, but I think the decision was made to keep counting it as canon because it was still around at least for a little while after the announcement of the switchover. I could be wrong about that, though. ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:20, February 26, 2015 (UTC)
    • For the record, Tofty is correct. The original Encyclopedia went defunct on July 1, 2014, so it stood as the only source of supplemental canon information for more than two months following the April 25 vacating of the EU. And since nothing in the Encyclopedia made any reference to the EU, we treat it as a Canon source even though it has been replaced by the modern Databank. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:14, March 5, 2015 (UTC)
      • Did the original Encyclopedia contain any unique information not found in the movies, the Clone Wars, the novelizations, or any EU source? If so what are some examples? Hypnosifl (talk) 17:41, March 22, 2016 (UTC)
        • Yep. Darth Bane's Encyclopedia entry contains some unique canon history on the Sith. Cwedin(talk) 18:01, March 22, 2016 (UTC)
          • Which, to be clear, was added to correspond with the canonical depiction of Darth Bane from The Clone Wars. Some of that information even contradicted the EU. So we can safely say that's canonical information. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 18:06, March 22, 2016 (UTC)
            • I just commented on this in Talk:Encyclopedia_(StarWars.com)--it looks to me like the Darth Bane and Sith entries in the Encyclopedia were just repeating information about the early history of the Sith that was previously introduced on pp. 137-138 of *The Phantom Menace* novelization, which talked about the Sith being founded by a rogue Jedi and then destroyed by a combination of internal power struggles and attacks from the Jedi. Was there anything in either Encyclopedia entry that can't be found in the novelization or any other prior source, including the Clone Wars episode? If so, what? Hypnosifl (talk) 18:59, March 22, 2016 (UTC)
              • The information about Darth Bane's origins and the origins of the Sith, including in the novelization, came directly from George Lucas. So its similarity is simply reflective of the fact that it was Lucas' concept for the origins of the Sith. I don't mean to be dismissive here but we've discussed this ad nauseam and there's no reason why the Encyclopedia cannot be treated as a canonical source. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 19:21, March 22, 2016 (UTC)
                • But as I noted in a comment below, the novelizations appear to have been declared non-canon despite perhaps reflecting Lucas' intentions. If the Encyclopedia entries presented no new information but were just summarizing aspects of the novelizations, it seems odd to say the Encyclopedia but not the novels should be considered canon--plus, if the website was merely intended to summarize preexisting information, that undermines the idea that the people in charge of the website were ever trying to have it be an independent source of canon, which was the argument you gave for treating it as canon in our earlier discussion on the Encyclopedia talk page. Also, note that the novelization said the Sith had been founded about two thousand years ago--that bit of history likely came from Lucas too, and yet the novel Tarkin disregarded it and had a Sith shrine that was at least five thousand years old. Hypnosifl (talk) 19:32, March 22, 2016 (UTC)
                  • This will be the last point I make in this conversation: the novelization is irrelevant. You're assuming the information was added based on the novelization. Arguably it was because of George Lucas, especially because the Darth Bane info (for example) was added at the same time as The Clone Wars The Lost Missions release. This is a non-issue. I wouldn't worry about it. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 19:42, March 22, 2016 (UTC)
                    • I don't think the timing proves anything, since the Encyclopedia didn't even have a Darth Bane entry prior to airing of The Lost Missions episode that featured him, which could have easily prompted whoever was in charge of the Encyclopedia to say "well, now we need a Darth Bane entry since he's been shown on The Clone Wars, so aside from what's presented in the episode let's see what background we can find on him in non-EU sources", and then found the info in the novelization (note that first archived version of the Bane Encyclopedia entry appears in April 2014, and the Bane episode first aired in March 2014). Anyway, if you're not willing to discuss the issue further, can you tell me who else I might raise the point with? Was the decision to treat the Encyclopedia as canon made by consensus in a public discussion somewhere, or in some kind of private discussion among administrators? Either way, if a lot of the people who made the decision were under the false impression that the Encyclopedia was presenting original information that hadn't already been stated in prior sources, I don't think you should assume that just because learning this was incorrect doesn't change your mind about the Encyclopedia's canonicity, it wouldn't change any other peoples' mind either. Hypnosifl (talk) 20:01, March 22, 2016 (UTC)

Illustrating differences between Old Canon and New Canon[]

Someone might be interested in the differences between pre-April 25 canon and post-April 25 canon. Maybe some way of illustrating the differences could be worked out...? Rickyrab (talk) 01:44, August 18, 2015 (UTC)

Clarification from Pablo Hidalgo on novelizations[]

The original novelizations of the OT and PT are currently mentioned in the "What about?" section of the article, whose introductory sentence reads "Certain sources previously released as Expanded Universe material remain unclear as to whether they are now considered to be canon". This seems to indicate that although wookieepedia policy is to treat them as Legends, their canon status is somewhat unclear. It's true the tweet from Del Ray was ambiguous, but see this recent tweet by Pablo Higaldo which seems to settle the matter. He was asked the question, "If a pre-2014 novelization mentions a fact not shown onscreen, always non-canonical, or only if it conflicts with other canon?" and his response was "We're not beholden to anything published previously. Maybe it happened. Maybe it didn't. Future storytellers need not count it." So that seems pretty clear that these pre-2014 novelizations are not canon, although future writers are of course free to take any elements they like and re-introduce them into canon. Hypnosifl (talk) 17:41, March 22, 2016 (UTC)

Two Questions[]

Are the Force Awakens and Rogue One novelizations considered canon (like most Del Ray novels), Legends (like the novelizations of films I-VI), or some kind of second-tier canon that can be overridden by the films? Obviously they contradict the films in many places.

Unrelatedly, are statements in interviews etc. by anyone who's worked on canon material also considered canon?--MugaSofer (talk) 22:36, January 21, 2017 (UTC)

In this twitter exchange someone asked Pablo Hidalgo "Is the TFA novel canon then, or is it also based on canon events with artistic differences?" and Hidalgo replied "all novelizations are basically that given that they're finished before the movies are done". It's clear in context that when he said "all novelizations are" he meant they are all "based on canon events with artistic differences" rather than strictly canon, since just a little earlier in the exchange he had explained why the RoTS novelization can't be considered canon. Also, in this tweet Hidalgo said "A novelizations will never match what's on screen because of when and how it's written. In case of conflict, defer to film." Hypnosifl (talk) 00:03, January 25, 2017 (UTC)
Like Pablo said, the Lucasfilm Story Group treats the film novelizations as canon wherever they don't contradict the movie: i.e. Naka Iit helping Poe off Jakku is canon, but inconsistent dialogue is not. So, in a way, the novelizations are a second tier of canon, but it's not really from artistic differences, it's just due to changes made in the film scripts. As far as unlicensed info such as interviews, it's usually a case-by-case basis. However, if it's said by the Story Group, you can most likely consider it canon. - Cwedin(talk) 00:23, January 25, 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, another example would be Unkar Plutt showing up at Maz Kanata's castle and Chewbacca ripping his arm off. Canon since it's not contradicted by the film. ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:17, January 25, 2017 (UTC)
The caveat there is that it's canon until contradicted later as well. Plutt will be in The Last Jedi, so if he has an arm then we know that part of the novel isn't canon. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 01:21, January 25, 2017 (UTC)
  • I no longer have access to my old bookmarks, but I know there were a few published statements that directly and indirectly say that all official publications are canon. There is no longer a hierarchy system. Everything should be approved by the Story Group before publication to ensure continuity (even though this hasn't always happened - e.g. Hachete Publisher's (France) use of Super Shadow's midichlorian counts - Matt Martin said he never saw them before publication). In regards to Hidalgo's tweet, I'm curious how that stands up to Matt Martin's tweet saying that social media personal statements made by SW officials/employees aren't canon. I'm not sure how Hidalgo's statement, even though as a knowledgeable/reliable source, compares to statements made by SW people in an official capacity, such as in an interview or an official SW podcast or video. Thoughts? Red Heathen (talk) 02:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
We didn't need to revive a topic that is from 2017. But the hierarchy system was always kind of there, point proven by this year's Bad Batch and the Kanan comic series, clearly TV/film are gonna are take priority over comics/novels. Pablo has continually said to not use his tweets as canon fact, if there was a statement made in an official capacity that would likely trump whatever he said on Twitter Lewisr (talk) 02:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, not necessarily. Unless I'm mistaken, arms can be reattached in the Star Wars universe if done quickly enough. Your basic point is solid, though, though I'd admit I'd be rather surprised with the Story Group if they allowed something as big as that to be slipped in there, only to be contradicted later. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:02, January 25, 2017 (UTC)
Cwedin, you wrote "Like Pablo said, the Lucasfilm Story Group treats the film novelizations as canon wherever they don't contradict the movie" -- can you link to where Pablo (or other members of Lucasfilm Story Group) have said this? He didn't in the statements I quoted, he just agreed with someone who said the novels are "based on canon events with artistic differences". Hypnosifl (talk) 01:54, January 25, 2017 (UTC)
Sorry if I was unclear, I was just paraphrasing the second tweet: "In case of conflict, defer to film." Since the extra scenes in the novels don't conflict with the films, we can assume these scenes to be canon (until we're told otherwise). I may have extrapolated a bit, but this seems to hold true, as many details from the novelizations have ended up in reference books and such. - Cwedin(talk) 02:18, January 25, 2017 (UTC)

Continuity Question[]

I have a question regarding the continuity issues between "Star Wars 7: New Planets, New Perils!" where Han Solo and Chewbacca transport their reward from Yavin 4 to give to Jabba but are hijacked and robbed by Crimson Jack AND in "The Rebel Thief" where Han Solo claims to have returned the reward money to the Rebellon. Which of the two sources has precedence and why??? Please help. -- Frank V Bonura 21:36, April 29, 2018 (UTC)

Discrepancy for 2017 RPG sourcebook[]

No Disintegrations (Fantasy Flight Games) is listed as canon per Special:Diff/7807821 and Special:Diff/7807422. Should this be changed or should the canon policy be changed? –MJLTalk 00:12, January 20, 2020 (UTC)

  • Everything in No Disintegrations is definitely canon (correct me if I'm wrong, because some FFG books arbitrarily mix Canon and Legends content). That being said, Lucasfilm has still not made any definitive overarching comments regarding the canonicity of any FFG material. It mostly comes down to us at this point to make executive decisions on how we're going to handle these books. Most things are pretty obvious, but others far less so. That's why the FFG clause in the Canon policy has remained unchanged up to now, because officially there has been no change. However, we could probably make a minor revision to explain that there's an undefined split between Legends and Canon material in these things. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:35, January 21, 2020 (UTC)
    • Okay, so I recently wrote Koshka Frost. Frost is a character introduced in No Disintegrations that interacts with characters introduced in Suns of Fortune named Viktor Hel. Do we really need a Viktor Hel/Canon because it's obviously the same character.
      I bring this up because I think the policy position is that the post-2014 FFG short stories should just be considered canon where it can be isolated from Legends material. Either that, or we should consider removing the blanket statement that they're not cannon ("However, as these roleplaying games are based nearly exclusively in Star Wars Legends material, Wookieepedia treats them as Legends."). –MJLTalk 03:16, January 22, 2020 (UTC)
      • It seems you've uncovered one of many little nuances in these books that exemplifies why it's so difficult to label one thing Canon or Legends. To try and summarize this as briefly as I can, the FFG RPG system definitely started out as Legends, well before the Expanded Universe was declared defunct, so it's impossible for us to just say everything can be considered Canon. That's something only Lucasfilm can do. Therefore, we need to be conservative and not assume a new subject is Canon, particularly when there is reasonable doubt. In this case, you've got Viktor Hel, who is also referenced in the Guns for Hire Expansion Pack in relation to the Kihraxz assault fighter, a starship that has only ever appeared in Legends material. Therefore, we either create a Canon article for Viktor Hel or continue to treat him and anything directly connected to him, such as Koshka Frost, as Legends. And to answer your question pertaining to this Canon policy, as I said, we could probably make a minor revision to explain that there's an undefined split between Legends and Canon material in these things. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 03:28, January 22, 2020 (UTC)
        • Lucasfilm has been clear that they won't address that issue entirely, at least not now as you can see like here and here. So I honestly don't think there's much to change to the policy, just to make clear that split that Toprawa is saying. As for Viktor Hel I would just treat the subject as Legends. No Disintegrations, if I remember correctly, has more Legends content than canon (Not sure).--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 03:33, January 22, 2020 (UTC)
          • Honestly, I think there has been a shift by FFG towards moving towards canon altogether. If you look at Guns for Hire, you'll see that they reference characters like Poe. He's exclusive to canon, so does that make Guns for Hire canon? Are we to say that material published in Star Wars Insider 160 isn't canon? I mean, Chimaera Expansion Pack is clearly canon with people like Arihnda Pryce included.
            My suggestion, and I truly think this is basically how Lucasfilm is treating it, is that FFG is canon where it aligns with other officially licensed material and is pretty much a "secondary canon" of sorts. It's basically all canon, but Lucasfilms doesn't want to go through the trouble of backing it in case they change their minds later. It's no longer wholly reliable for Legends material, nor is it wholly reliable for canon material.
            Therefore, we should just have folks just use caution. –MJLTalk 17:23, January 23, 2020 (UTC)
            • That's pretty much what we do. Only that material from 2017 onwards is pretty much considered more canon than 2016 material. Not all FFG is canon and that's pretty much established with the contents of the book. From 2014 to 2016 is pretty much Legends and starting 2017 until now is more canon, that's something that we have beel telling you that there's a split between Legends and Canon material. If you want to focus on "canon" material work with sources from mid 2017 onwards, those are the safest to consider canon--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 23:39, January 23, 2020 (UTC)
              • I meant like.. we should treat Guns for Hire as canon as well then, right? –MJLTalk 05:07, January 24, 2020 (UTC)
                • Just read up to page 60 in No Disintegrations, and there's an entry on the Kihraxz light fighter. I don't know if that changes anything else we've talked about, but I figured I would note that here. –MJLTalk 04:26, January 25, 2020 (UTC)