Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH:Canon issues from Fantasy Flight
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. Advanced Jedi Training Droid 6 (Talk to my master) 00:05, March 25, 2015 (UTC)
While writing up the appearances for Stay on Target, I've discovered that the book—which we are assuming is legends—contains references to a number of nuCanon elements. Both Lothal and the Crymorah syndicate are mentioned, and looking back Lothal has also been mentioned in Star Wars: Age of Rebellion Core Rulebook. What should we do about these appearances? Creating a legends page for Lothal in particular seems ridiculous, at least until the canon tab system is swapped round. Do we have a concrete statement that the Fantasy Flight games material is legends? If not than this might need to be taken into consideration when considering their status in future. Ayrehead02 (talk) 12:49, February 18, 2015 (UTC)
- The Imperial Handbook introduced the AT-DP into Legends, so i'd view it as a similar situation to that for now, at least until we can get official confirmation on it's stance in Canon. - AV-6R7User talk:AV-6R7 14:02, February 18, 2015 (UTC)
- Well, back in 2013, before the Canon hullabaloo, Jay Little said that FFG was "non-canon". That is, outside of canon distinctions. I imagine this is still true to some extent. Corellian Premier
The Force will be with you always 14:26, February 18, 2015 (UTC)
- I'm thinking that he was referring more to the scenarios rather than the content itself. - AV-6R7User talk:AV-6R7 00:33, February 20, 2015 (UTC)
- According to Cade Calrayn, the Fantasy Flight Games-brand RPGs, or at least X-Wing Miniatures, utilized the BBY year system and specifically referenced events in the Legends continuity, hence why FFG is listed under Legends. We could create a tab for Lothal and Crymorah syndicate under the Legends continuity, though. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 14:23, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
- Which, as has been mentioned, feels ridiculous. So from then on, until we do the switchover, if people want to read about the Lothal from Star Wars Rebels, the Lothal most people actually expect to be reading about, they're going to have to go to Lothal/Canon? It really just doesn't make sense, and another argument in favor of making canon the default sooner rather than later. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:17, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't feel ridiculous. It is ridiculous. There's no point in creating a Legends Lothal page, and if people are going to create it then it should be at Lothal/Legends. The idea of killing the Lothal page's SEO by shunting it off to /Canon, when that's the only Lothal page that actually matters, is absurd. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 19:24, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
- Another reason why we need to fastrack the tab switchover. - AV-6R7User talk:AV-6R7 19:44, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
- I only said we could make it. Never said anything about whether we should. Though on the other hand... The Lasan Suppression from Star Wars: Imperial Handbook: A Commander's Guide is apparently a "Legends" Tab for the Fall of Lasan from Star Wars: Rebels, even though there's little to indicate it's even remotely the same event, so while I don't see any real reason to actually create it, I also see no real reason to not create it either. Unless I'm misinterpreting what Brandon Rhea and ProfessorTofty are saying. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 19:51, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
- The reason not to create it is that the Canon Lothal page, which is really the only one that matters because it's the one that actually documents information from the show that Lothal was created for, would—because of policy—have to go to Lothal/Canon. That would hurt its SEO, and people would instead be directed to a Legends page when they search for Lothal on a search engine. Not only does that mean they won't get the right information, but it also means that people will likely start adding Canon information into a Legends page. We'd be setting people up for failure with that, and we'd be making it harder to find the Lothal page that actually matters. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 19:58, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
- The Lasan Suppression and the Fall of Lasan are the same thing but in Legends and NuCanon; the Handbook was written without knowledge of the split and tried to use Rebels material. As for Lotha, I see no reason why it can't go to Lothal/Legends in this case, where it's a single mention in the same continuity situation of the Suppression. Cade
Calrayn 19:59, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with that. I'd rather make that exception and create a Legends subpage, rather than harm the findability of the canonical Lothal page. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 20:00, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
- Would there be a way to make that work with the tabs, though? ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:12, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
- I would imagine we'd just have to use the "canon=" and "legends=" fields in the era template. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 20:13, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
- You know, you COULD try to create an algorithm that cites which continuity the subject debuted in first and have it be the pre-determined first outcome, even give as the template that it needs to be on the date Canon and Legends were split up or after to have Canon articles appear first, and if it happens before that date, Legends is predetermined to be the first article. That makes things simple, and you wouldn't have to worry about the dilemma you guys are mentioning. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 20:18, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
- I would imagine we'd just have to use the "canon=" and "legends=" fields in the era template. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 20:13, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
- Would there be a way to make that work with the tabs, though? ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:12, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with that. I'd rather make that exception and create a Legends subpage, rather than harm the findability of the canonical Lothal page. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 20:00, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
- I only said we could make it. Never said anything about whether we should. Though on the other hand... The Lasan Suppression from Star Wars: Imperial Handbook: A Commander's Guide is apparently a "Legends" Tab for the Fall of Lasan from Star Wars: Rebels, even though there's little to indicate it's even remotely the same event, so while I don't see any real reason to actually create it, I also see no real reason to not create it either. Unless I'm misinterpreting what Brandon Rhea and ProfessorTofty are saying. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 19:51, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
- Another reason why we need to fastrack the tab switchover. - AV-6R7User talk:AV-6R7 19:44, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't feel ridiculous. It is ridiculous. There's no point in creating a Legends Lothal page, and if people are going to create it then it should be at Lothal/Legends. The idea of killing the Lothal page's SEO by shunting it off to /Canon, when that's the only Lothal page that actually matters, is absurd. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 19:24, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
- Which, as has been mentioned, feels ridiculous. So from then on, until we do the switchover, if people want to read about the Lothal from Star Wars Rebels, the Lothal most people actually expect to be reading about, they're going to have to go to Lothal/Canon? It really just doesn't make sense, and another argument in favor of making canon the default sooner rather than later. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:17, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
- According to Cade Calrayn, the Fantasy Flight Games-brand RPGs, or at least X-Wing Miniatures, utilized the BBY year system and specifically referenced events in the Legends continuity, hence why FFG is listed under Legends. We could create a tab for Lothal and Crymorah syndicate under the Legends continuity, though. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 14:23, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
- I'm thinking that he was referring more to the scenarios rather than the content itself. - AV-6R7User talk:AV-6R7 00:33, February 20, 2015 (UTC)
- Well, back in 2013, before the Canon hullabaloo, Jay Little said that FFG was "non-canon". That is, outside of canon distinctions. I imagine this is still true to some extent. Corellian Premier
(reset indent) That might've been a more workable idea in April/May, but now we're essentially counting down the days to a switch-over where canon becomes the default page (i.e. the canon Anakin Skywalker would be at Anakin Skywalker). So at this point, what you're describing, if I'm understanding you right, would probably be too much work for too little reward. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 20:20, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure about doing something like that. Most people grew up with Legends, after all, and the Disney Canon seems to be more of a recent thing. I'd rather we do something than go to the exact opposite extreme of making Canon the default. You've already complained about how doing Lothal as a Legends-default would be a bad idea. Most people would not be too thrilled with having Canon be the default, which is basically the exact same dilemma as we currently have with Legends. My proposition at least would make both groups satisfied. Not to mention, we could always slightly rename the title so we could at least distinguish between the two (ie, like how we handled the Ringo Vinda-related battle from The Clone Wars, or how we handled Palpatine by making Darth Sidious link up to Canon, and Palpatine himself to Legends. Actually, that might aid in the bit about Canon Anakin Skywalker by making his Canon counterpart Darth Vader). If it's going to be that way, fine, but don't blame me if there are complaints about the switch mirroring your complaints in this topic. There's at least better reward with my idea than with the proposition you give regarding making Canon default, which basically is the same problem all over again. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 20:56, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
- Making canon the default is the right thing to do in terms of being an objective source of information, as canon is the official information, and that was acknowledged in the community vote that created the tab system—but that's not the topic of this thread. The issue I raised here was specific to the topic of Lothal. People are only going to be searching for information about that from Rebels, rather than from anything else. Lothal being added into Legends is a fluke, essentially. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 20:59, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
- You could really say the same thing about the Legend AT-DP page. - AV-6R7User talk:AV-6R7 21:09, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe, but it would make work needlessly harder for those of us who still need to make sure all the Legends pages are up to date with all information, especially in articles that have both a Legends and Canon tab and were existing prior to The Clone Wars and don't have a distinct name to distinguish the two (At least Palpatine actually has his Sith Alias as his Canon article's name while his standard name is for Legends. We don't have anything similar for Anakin Skywalker, Luke Skywalker, Chewbacca, or Han Solo.). We've already got to include information from the Daily Star Wars blog, especially the rest of A New Beginning, Showdown, and The Final Trap since blogspot for some odd reason has been extremely late in finishing up the comics, into their articles, as they are far from complete with more than a few missing sources. To be honest, splitting Wookieepedia into two separate wikis would have been far more sensible and simple. We still need to create Lothal/Legends and Crymorah syndicate/Legends, especially when they actually were mentioned in sources definitely within the Legends continuity instead of the Canon continuity. And if the Lasan Suppression, AT-DP, and the others could get Legends articles, these most certainly can as well. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 21:20, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with the Pokemon. Wether we like it or not, we created this problem for ourselves. We should create the pages. - AV-6R7User talk:AV-6R7 21:28, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone's saying we shouldn't create the pages. Let's just be smart about it. EDIT: I see where my posts could be misconstrued that way. I was very unclear. My bad. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 21:29, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with the Pokemon. Wether we like it or not, we created this problem for ourselves. We should create the pages. - AV-6R7User talk:AV-6R7 21:28, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe, but it would make work needlessly harder for those of us who still need to make sure all the Legends pages are up to date with all information, especially in articles that have both a Legends and Canon tab and were existing prior to The Clone Wars and don't have a distinct name to distinguish the two (At least Palpatine actually has his Sith Alias as his Canon article's name while his standard name is for Legends. We don't have anything similar for Anakin Skywalker, Luke Skywalker, Chewbacca, or Han Solo.). We've already got to include information from the Daily Star Wars blog, especially the rest of A New Beginning, Showdown, and The Final Trap since blogspot for some odd reason has been extremely late in finishing up the comics, into their articles, as they are far from complete with more than a few missing sources. To be honest, splitting Wookieepedia into two separate wikis would have been far more sensible and simple. We still need to create Lothal/Legends and Crymorah syndicate/Legends, especially when they actually were mentioned in sources definitely within the Legends continuity instead of the Canon continuity. And if the Lasan Suppression, AT-DP, and the others could get Legends articles, these most certainly can as well. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 21:20, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
- You could really say the same thing about the Legend AT-DP page. - AV-6R7User talk:AV-6R7 21:09, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
- Making canon the default is the right thing to do in terms of being an objective source of information, as canon is the official information, and that was acknowledged in the community vote that created the tab system—but that's not the topic of this thread. The issue I raised here was specific to the topic of Lothal. People are only going to be searching for information about that from Rebels, rather than from anything else. Lothal being added into Legends is a fluke, essentially. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 20:59, February 22, 2015 (UTC)