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) 00:01, October 31, 2016 (UTC)
I've noticed that The Force Awakens Beginner Game and A Call for Heroes is considered canon, however if memory serves me right, I'm more than positive that whatever comes from Fantasy Flight Game's is considered non-canon, like their Star Wars: Armada miniatures game. However, Ayrehead02 states that:
"Last I saw Pablo's stance on FFG's canon status was literally "I'll leave that up to the Wook to decide" so I doubt we'll ever be 100% certain, but since this is entirely based around new canon stuff it seems like a pretty safe bet. I'm pretty sure I remember Leland Chee said that they were basically keeping the galaxy maps from the atlas intact, and since the TFA visual dictionary did almost exactly the same thing I feel the argument for it is pretty strong."
Thus, if anyone has the quote where Pablo states that, or confirms the TFA Beginner Game's canonical status, I'd like to open this topic up to discussion. (I'm not going to lie, the images from the game are to die for.)
2) Galactic Atlas Pre-Release Info
The upcoming reference book, Star Wars: Galactic Atlas, scheduled for release in November 2016, already has a galactic map and two other pages released online on both the Edelweiss catalog and on the Jedi Bibliotek in higher quality. Since pages on the wiki are already using images from the Atlas, my question was whether or not pre-release info such as this should be used on the site, and whether or not the other pages released early should be added to articles. Especially since these images make mention of a BBY/ABY dating system which has so far been absent from the canon, and might be a simple 'typo' on the authors part.
Oh the marvels of canon. Confusion now hath made his masterpiece. Commander Boots 21:22, September 25, 2016 (UTC)
I misremebered the tweet slightly but it's here: https://twitter.com/pablohidalgo/status/776124099571556352?lang=en-gb. That being said I don't think the tweet itself holds that much meaning and Pablo would definitely be annoyed if we actually used it to set any kind of policy, I was simply using it to show that I doubt we'll ever get any statement on this as they clearly aren't interested in making one. I'm aware that the images from the game aren't great, and if anyone has access to a better scanner or a digital version of the map I'd implore them to replace what I've uploaded. Likewise, if people disagree with my formatting and cropping of the images please let me know and I'll update what I've done and stick to it in future. With FFG stuff I think the policy we've been using so far of treat each release or even section of a release as either legends or canon works and seems to be how it's designed: providing the player and GM with as many elements from both continuities as possible and leaving it up to them as to what they use. I'd be for having entirely new planets and stuff like that listed as canon, as it's new content released by an official Lucasfilm source after the legends cut off in 2014, but that's just me. To be honest with both the game and the atlas, I'd say we should include them for now based on what we know, but obviously if something changes with the atlas release or a later more official source that contradicts them then we can change it. What ever happens, having some official policy here on how we treat FFG and if we include pre-release info would be a great idea. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:54, September 26, 2016 (UTC)
It seems that this topic is larger than I initially thought. As you can see from this talk page, it would appear that the subject of what is/isn't canon in terms of Fantasy Flight games and pre-release info is hotly debated. Perhaps we should have a discussion about this instead? Commander Boots 22:04, September 26, 2016 (UTC)
Given pablo's comment, it seems pretty obvious that we shouldn't count the FFG TFA Game as canon. People are already deriding us for doing so. We should backpedal when it's still time. --LelalMekha (talk) 10:09, September 27, 2016 (UTC)
Who on earth is deriding us? If the consensus is to not include it I'm fine with that, but in that case what do we do with the articles? Making them all legends is far more ridiculous. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:12, September 27, 2016 (UTC)
Does that mean that we're going to decide what's canon and what's not against explicit word from a member of the Story Group? We are not canon makers. --LelalMekha (talk) 10:14, September 27, 2016 (UTC)
Wait, where did he explicitly say it isn't canon? Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:47, September 27, 2016 (UTC)
You're probably going to tell me it's not explicit enough for you... but you posted it yourself. "The Wook's on its own for [counting anything from Fantasy Flight Games canon]." That means, at best, that he doesn't want to answer or that there's no clear answer to begin with. At best, the canonicity of FFG content is ambiguous, since we can't get a clear answer. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a shame. But if all we can get is vague answers, we shouldn't jump to conclusions just because they're convenient for us. --LelalMekha (talk) 10:53, September 27, 2016 (UTC)
I actually interpreted the tweet entirely differently as: The Wook's on it's own in working out what is and isn't canon I'm not going to comment. Still, you're right in that it is ambiguous at best but I don't think that means we should count it as all legends either. To be honest the options I can see are either count everything from FFG as non-canon, create a template similar to the Tales 20 thing noting that it's a grey area or decide on a case by case basis what is and isn't canon, kind of how we have been for the X-Wing game. The first option brings up the issue of where we include it as non-canon and the last ends up with us wielding more power in these decisions than we probably should. We really need a wider community input on this, perhaps in a CT? Ayrehead02 (talk) 11:04, September 27, 2016 (UTC)
I agree: we definitely need a wider community discussion. What I fear is that we started deciding what's canon and what's not, while it's really not our role. --LelalMekha (talk) 11:28, September 27, 2016 (UTC)
Since we clearly aren't getting an answer from the people who can make those decisions we are going to have to make some choice one way or another if we include it anywhere on the wiki. That's why the disclaimer option appeals to me. Ayrehead02 (talk) 11:47, September 27, 2016 (UTC)
"Sounds like the Wook community needs to figure out how it wants to handle game material." I... really don't get it. How could it be up to us? It's not up to us. --LelalMekha (talk) 22:39, September 28, 2016 (UTC)
I mean ultimately how we handle it or anything on the site is up to us since we aren't official and us labeling something as canon doesn't make it canon. Ayrehead02 (talk) 22:44, September 28, 2016 (UTC)
Does he think we don't know that? What's the intent behind such comments? I sit our fault if it's impossible to get a clear answer from them? I'm starting to believe we should ignore FFG altogether. --LelalMekha (talk) 22:57, September 28, 2016 (UTC)
I don't think he means any offence by it, I think the comment is mostly due to the fact that this same user keeps specifically asking the same thing in regards to Wookieepedia. Anyway not including it at all seems like a poor option, to be honest since he says that it's mostly accurate and that the points on the map are almost all still there I'd be happy with including it as canon. If anything is later contradicted we'll just change it as we have done for everything else canon like Ultimate Star Wars, Absolutely Everything You Need to Know etc. Ayrehead02 (talk) 23:05, September 28, 2016 (UTC)
(Reset indent) What people here need to understand, and I've said this before, is how canon is defined by Lucasfilm. Canon is not every single piece of informational material that comes out of Lucasfilm. Whether a piece of information is canon is determined by a simple question: do other storytellers need to take a piece of information into account in their stories?
FFG is not designed as a clear, set story. It's a role-playing game. The game gives players some information that they need in order to role-play a story. It's not a novel. It's not a movie. It's not a TV show. It's a set of tools to enable fan storytelling.
Lucasfilm is not the problem for giving a vague answer about whether information in there is fully canon, because they want to give fans tools without potentially restricting official storytelling because a card game once said X is true and Y is false. Wookieepedia and this strict "everything must fit into a continuity!" mindset is the problem. Official creators do not treat canon the way Wookieepedia treats canon—and that's a good thing. I want storytellers to focus on telling stories rather than trying to cater to a wiki-centric mindset.
Ultimately, this is really a very simple question: do we want to add this info to our canon pages or not? If yes, great. We can include it in canon articles, and remove any information from FFG that's contradicted by an official story later. If not, that's great too. We can document it without tagging it as Canon or Legends, and just treat it as information that exists in the meta. Either way, members of the community really needs to stop going around in circles on getting worked up over it. It's really a very simple decision that comes down to what we prefer to do.
This is on us to decide. That's the way it should be. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 23:06, September 28, 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest including anything from FFG games that have the Lucasfilm Story Group credit in the front as canon; any thing with things like Keeper of the Holocron, Community Manager, etc. as Legends. Also, in some of the later books, like Nexus of Power, there are sections that say something along the lines of "According to Legends" in reference to stuff like Revan, Tython, etc. - 23:10, September 28, 2016 (UTC) —Unsigned comment byAV-6R7 (talk • contribs).
That's a misconception of the role of the Lucasfilm Story Group. They're not the canon police. They're there to oversee the development of Star Wars storytelling. That does not mean every single thing they touch is automatically the official story of Star Wars. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 23:16, September 28, 2016 (UTC)
Even so, I'd consider that the "safety threshold." - AV-6R7Crew Pit 23:32, September 28, 2016 (UTC)
Why? They've explicitly said they're not the canon police. They're story developers. If that safety threshold was true, then content from The Old Republic starting with Galactic Starfighter would be canon by that standard. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 23:51, September 28, 2016 (UTC)
I hadn't considered that; either way, we need to codify something. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 23:58, September 28, 2016 (UTC)
Ok in order to get the ball rolling with this I've created a very rough draft of a Consensus track vote related to how we might handle this. Before I post it I'd like to hear your thoughts, as if options I've not considered or important information that I've missed can be added before it goes up it will help people to understand what is a hugely confusing issue. Ayrehead02 (talk) 19:08, September 29, 2016 (UTC)