Forum:SH:The Great EU Purge (New Canon;Legends discussion)

Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH:The Great EU Purge (New Canon;Legends discussion)

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, August 13, 2014 (UTC)

---

General discussion

seriously are we not going to talk about this? Jennifer Heddle the Senior Edditor at Lucas Books said "It's all non-canon, but it all exists as a resource that could be used down the line."

This is kind of an important topic to dissucss since we now know the plans --DarthJon (talk) 14:38, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

• It is indeed time to take our heads out of the sand. We now know for sure that the EU as we know it is a completely separate continuity from the nine films, The Clone Wars, and Rebels, and now is the time to discuss as a community and figure out as a community how we're going to proceed. Do we, for example, split Luke Skywalker into two articles (a canon article and a "Legends" article)? Do we relegate "Legends" to the Behind the scenes sections of characters/planets/situations/etc. that originated in the films? We have just over four months until the first book of the new continuity is released, and we need to figure out a gameplan before that time. Everyone's opinion is valid, and anyone with an idea is welcome to throw it out there.
  
  My proposal is to tag EU-exclusive articles as "Legends;" possibly an image in the upper-right corner like we currently do with non-canon articles. Articles on things from the films could be split into two --- eg, Luke Skywalker and [[Luke Skywalker (Legends)]]. Info from Episodes I - VI would be present in both articles. Quinlan Vos, for example, would have stuff from The Clone Wars and his Episode III namedrop in both of his articles, but everything from Dark Horse et al would be exclusive to his "Legends" article. We can ask VIPs on Twitter for clarification on stuff like TCW promotional material and sourcebooks, the films' visual guides, etc. Thoughts? Menkooroo (talk) 14:59, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
• On the IRC people are talking about using tabs, each article will have a canon tab and a Legends tab. No idea how that will work for things that only exist in Legends material, or for things that only have *names* in Legends material. For example the many races, planets, technology etc. that are seen in the movies and Clone Wars but have only ever been named in the Expanded Universe. Strictly speaking that means they don't have names in canon yet. --Multiversity (talk) 15:12, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
  • That's a good question. Is M'iiyoom Onith still canonically the H'nemthe M'iyoom Onith? Or is she "Unidentified pointy-nosed cantina patron?" Also, a couple of anons were discussing this on Talk:Expanded_Universe#Legends. I was beaten to the punch with the two-article suggestion! Menkooroo (talk) 15:17, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd say using names from non-canon sources for canon concepts/characters/etc. until overriden by a canon one is fine. Especially that some of the names, while not appearing in the movies/shows were named behind the scenes while the movies were being worked on. JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 15:25, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
  • Articles with no canon name but named in Legends could simply have a message box at the top saying e.g. "this has no canon name yet, so the article uses a SW:Legends name" (and as we see with Rebels using the Lasat race, it's likely that more often than not the Legends name will be used if available) JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 15:25, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
    • That's probably the best option. I think examples like Korriban/Moraband where the names don't match will be few and far between. --Multiversity (talk) 15:29, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
      • Yeah, for every Moraband, we have several examples like Twi'lek or Coruscant where the name originated in the EU and was subsequently used in the movies/TV show. JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 15:42, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
• What about characters like Darth Plagues? In the canon all we know is that he was a sith lord who mastered keeping people alive. We don't know what race he was, when he was live or if he was even Palpantines master. --DarthJon (talk) 15:26, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, that's exactly the sort of thing we're talking about. If a decision were adopted where the main article only included information from the main canon and nothing from the Expanded Universe, then the main article would probably return to something more like this. But all of that is up in the air at the moment. ProfessorTofty (talk) 15:33, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
• Given the new canon policy, pretty much the only available options are either this or keeping Legends information in the main articles until directly contradicted by the new canon (this way we'd throw away most of the post-ROTJ info from main articles, but keep most of the stuff from e.g the Old Republic era, which is not likely to be contradicted in the new movies). JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 15:36, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

Another interesting point I just thought of: Presumably The Clone Wars would have to be considered part of the Legends "canon" in the same way the OT and the PT are - not officially labeled as Legends but taken as part of the background for the Legends stories. So for example in Legends continuity Korriban is still also known as Moraband as well as Korriban, whereas in canon it is now only known as Moraband. --Multiversity (talk) 15:46, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

• Also, what about The Clone Wars tie-in media - are novels, comics etc. based specifically on TCW part of Legends or part of the new canon? 16:05, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's something on which we should definitely seek clarification. Things like visual guides --- of both the films and TCW --- would give us species and character names for a lot of background characters, etc, etc. Jennifer Heddle has been really cool so far about answering questions which she's able to answer. If we keep up a good relationship with her, she could be a fantastic resource for how we're going to proceed. Menkooroo (talk) 15:59, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

Given the new definitions of canon, there are pretty much two ways to go forward - either separate Legends information entirely from the newly defined canon, or treat Legends info like S-Canon info in the past - part of the main articles unless directly contradicted. Also, could the information possibly still be kept within the same articles, but with some javascript button that could be used to hide all Legends info and display only stuff that is marked as canon? JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 16:05, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

• Wellll, Legends info isn't S-canon --- it's non-canon. Heddle made that explicitly clear in some of her tweets. Menkooroo (talk) 16:14, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
• Example: in the Moraband article, you'd have "Moraband {{legends|, also known as Korriban,}} is the original homeworld of the Sith", with a button that would either hide or display the information marked as "legends". Would this be doable? This way we would still have one article on each topic (aside from maybe some post-ROTJ stuff) instead of having several. JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 16:08, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
  • As for avoiding having multiple articles on one subject --- Green Tentacle is currently working on a mockup of a tabbed system. He's given me permission to link to it. But you can see it in the Recent Changes (or "Wiki activity," as I believe it's called in the default Oasis skin) too. Menkooroo (talk) 16:19, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
    • Hold on, are we definitely sure everything is non canon? That isn't what I got from the official announcement, it only seems to confirm post-ROTJ stuff isn't main canon now. Anything pre-ROTJ might still be canon surely, I mean the latest TOR update was done with the Story group and so presumably is new canon not just legends, which by extent might mean all of TOR or at least some other parts could be. Did I miss another statement or announcement that definitely said all EU except the Clone Wars TV series and Star Wars Films are not canon? Ayrehead02 (talk) 16:11, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
      • Apparently Jennifer Heddle is unsure about TOR at the moment. She has specifically mentioned pre-ROTJ stuff as being non-canon --- see Tope's collection of her tweets here (Tope, hope you don't mind me linking to that --- I saw it in the recent changes so I figured it was cool). "Q: What about the Kenobi novel, and other pre-Original Trilogy material? JH: Legends." Menkooroo (talk) 16:14, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
    • She specifically said that KOTOR is Legends now, for example. JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 16:18, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
      • Looks like she did say that the reference books for the movies and TV shows are still "there unless something new contradicts it" JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 16:21, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
        • As for the pre-ROTJ stuff, she says that while it's now part of Legends, "We don't consider it "erased" it's still there. As long as nothing new directly contradicts it, it's there to be used". This means that while not officially part of the new canon, any stuff set before the movies can likely be thought of as something akin to the old S-Canon - it's not likely to be changed without good reason, and is likely to still be referenced in future media. JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 16:23, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
          • Could we actually ask Leland Chee? He's mentioned he's a fan of the Wook before so if we reach out to him in this time of chaos and ask kind of how we should proceed he might give us some ideas? Like are named film characters still named, e.g the various rogues gallery articles from SW:Insider. Should we mark everything not in the films as Legends? Etc. Ayrehead02 (talk) 16:30, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
• I say we ignore Lucasfilm entirely. There's no reason to make drastic changes to our articles simply because of their business decisions, which essentially amount to a bratty new kid walking into a sandbox full of intricately designed castles, and knocking the whole thing down. Thankfully, Disney can't force their policy on this wiki in that way. Adamwankenobi (talk)
  • The wiki has always adhered to canon as defined by Lucasfilm. There have been drastic changes made to articles because of newly released content in the past too. JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 17:28, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
    • Those drastic changes resolved around solving issues like the retcon of a small quantity of material like the death of a character. This announcement however, comes to cause colossal changes if we go ahead with it since it defies our very existence. All the 110,000 articles here will be affected by it. Hell, even the naming of articles will have to be thought through as most naming was given in the now-considered non-canon. Winterz (talk) 17:32, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't that turn us into equally-bratty kids, though? We're considered such a credible source that Star Wars authors have actually cited us; if we do that, we'd go from reliable source to Denialist Fanwanker Central overnight. Rod (talk) 16:54, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
    • I disagree with Adam, but I think that future star wars authors will thank wookiepedia for having the EU content linked to canon content (in a way that allows fast access to information, not in a way that blurs the line between canon and legends) if they recycle part of the Legends content for new books -something mentioned in the official announcement. IMO tagging existing articles or sections as canon or legends/non-canon/whatever isn't a big problem, the problem will come when the new content removes entire storylines and characters.--Geekizer (talk) 18:19, May 1, 2014 (UTC)
  • I absolutely agree with Adam. Friday's announcement was an affront to all the work many of you have done over the years. I was outraged. It was like I was instructed to take a match to thousands of dollars worth of books and probably just as many hours, just because they are a burden on Disney's marketing efforts. If we must acknowledge this new "canon" it should be reconciled with the 38 year continuity we know and love. I utterly reject the Legends moniker. It is degrading. If anything I would prefer to see citations that say "OC" or Original Canon and "DC" for Disney Canon. TrueCanon (talk)
• In the name of all things that ever were good if but slightly, don't make a new EU Wiki. That would be the death of Wookieepedia and the EU (wish I was exaggerating). Just come up with a tag that says "This article incorporates both canonical and 'Legendary' information" or something, and slap it onto everything on the site. Every time a contradiction explicitly occurs, move the offending info BtS. Nice, easy, simple, painless, elegant. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 (talk) 17:37, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
  • It will affect them all, but mostly just in the form of adding a legends tag, which can be done by a bot. The only articles that cause issue are understandably those that appear in both the new and old canon. In terms of Clone Wars, a lot of the characters new to it are pretty much exclusive to Clone Wars anyway and won't need huge amounts of change. That means really only the stuff from the films will need to have hugely drastic changes made which is probably only several hundred or maybe a bit over a thousand articles. To be honest a lot of stuff effected needed rewrites anyway like Luke and Han and stuff. While it will be a lot of work to change these I imagine that it can be done, with those uninterested in the new stuff just continuing to work on the Legends stuff unaffected. Ayrehead02 (talk) 17:43, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
    • I looked at those tabs Green Tentacle tested, and they look as a viable solution to be. It might work.--Dionne Jinn (Something to say?) 17:48, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

Make a new Wiki—"Wookieepedia Legends" or some such—and move all existing Wook content there. Keep the main Wook URL dedicated, as always, to the canon Star Wars universe. Start again from the ground up keeping in mind only what's now considered to be canon by Disney/Lucasfilm. Pain in the ass, but we all knew it was coming, so may as well bite the bullet now. — DigiFluid^{(Whine here)} 17:49, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

• No. 1358 ^(Talk) 17:53, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
  • That would strip Wookieepedia of everything that makes it so great. I fear that this is what we would end up looking like. Adamwankenobi (talk) 17:56, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah I don't see a whole new wiki as being the solution. The tabs seem viable as Dionne Jinn said so hopefully that system will work. Once we get a bit more information it will become clearer what the best solution is though I guess. Ayrehead02 (talk) 17:57, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
      • That April Fools' page is creepy. Like a vengeful #%$&ing ghost. Yeah, tabs would be another solution. Old Databank-style. Although that's for later on, I think. Tags (with a 'g') would be best until things become clearer with the first releases of the new canon. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 (talk) 18:07, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

• Can I suggest that we keep "Legends" material as the default pageload for articles, requiring new-canon to be one click away? I'd like to see the millions of lines of text that are EU-exclusive remain as idiot-proof to access as possible. Why? Because, although Lucas Story Group folks are as knowledgeable on the EU as anyone here and generally have a great relationship with the Wook, other Lucasfilm employees have a history of skimming articles (see The Clone Wars) and incorporating select few things, then changing canon on the rest.
  
  Basically, I'm saying: if future author/screenwriter/director of this/that is new to Star Wars, we might lose COPIOUS amounts of EU material simply because, those (few? Numerous?) times they browsed Wookieepedia rather than bugging Lucas Story Group 30 times a day, they were too lazy/confused/ignorant to click the "Legends" tab.
  
  I know this seems strange and trivial, but please, this would statistically save quite a huge amount of EU information over the years. It's a little manipulative, but it's also just a default viewing mode we're talking about. Winchester 327 ^Comlink » 18:58, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's fair to call the Story Group knowledgeable seeing as all they managed to do is find Select All > Delete. 1358 ^(Talk) 19:02, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
    • Amen to that. We should be the ones consulted on EU knowledge. Winterz (talk) 19:07, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
      • I wish that were the case. Anyway just in terms of content the legends tab being the default makes more sense at least for now since most new canon pages will be tiny and uninformative. Greententacles test page is a pretty good example of this. Ayrehead02 (talk) 19:12, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
        • Not that this is the place to discuss it, but we probably owe Story Group our thanks for the existence of the EU at all after Disney. Leland Chee and Pablo Hidalgo are certainly among the most knowledgeable fans in the world, and have done a lot for us over the years! Chee maintains all EU information possible in the Holocron, so there was no deletion. My guess is LSG was formed to help save the EU and make sure nothing like this ever happens again.Winchester 327 ^Comlink » 19:22, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
          • Although there will almost certainly be some contradictions between, say, episode 2-13 of TCW and Episode VIII's novelization or something. 8) Luckily, this will come under the heading of "continuity error" rather than whole stories written off wholesale. Anyway, I agree with Winchester and Ayrehead above, and I like the tab idea better than forking the wiki. —Silly Dan _(talk) 20:01, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

If the Legends tab thing is going to be the policy going forward, what will that mean for contradictions in what was previously EU content? As far as we know there doesn't seem to be any requirement that all Legends material be considered to be consistent with other Legends material. Previously we could count those contradictions as errors that needed to be written around to portray a consistent narrative, but now they could just be seen as inherent to the nature of the source material itself. Why should it matter if one "legend" contradicts another "legend"? There's also the question of whether previously non-canon material (like the old Marvel comics, or the LEGO games) are also Legends. If so the Legends label may be better thought of as a collection of disparate stories than a separate consistent timeline or universe.--Multiversity (talk) 20:34, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

• • The rule with canon before yesterday was generally "if it is contradicted by a more recent source or a higher-canon source, the latter takes precedent," right? So wouldn't the same still hold true for all Legends material, with April 25, 2014 acting as the cutoff date for updating the Legends canon? Existing contradictions would be permanent, rather than awaiting official word/revised timelines. Winchester 327 ^Comlink » 20:59, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
    • But we're not living before yesterday, we're living now. New Legends material isn't going to be produced, but the concept of Legends itself is a part of the current canon policy. Personally I don't see that there's any reason to think that past canon policy applies to either Legends or new Canon material. Unless we consider the past canon policy itself to be Legends, which it may well be. --Multiversity (talk) 21:06, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
    • Cutoff date might vary, actually, since there are still some ongoing Dark Horse comics to be included, and SWTOR might be part of both canons. —Silly Dan _(talk) 21:07, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

Another question about the tabs -- would it be possible to have users select in their preferences which tab comes up first? E.g., perhaps by doubling the number of skins, with users selecting either "Monaco-legends" or "Monaco-new canon"? —Silly Dan _(talk) 21:07, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

• No, I don't think so. And Monaco hasn't been around since... 2011? 1358 ^(Talk) 21:09, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
  • Monobook, then. 8) —Silly Dan _(talk) 21:13, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to be a bit off-topic, but what you were just talking about wasn't resolved: I think it's important that if we go with the Tabs approach, which, I think we should, we mustn't give viewers the impression that Ledgends is an official multiverse-starter, or canon, as it is not. We should put something in the ledgends tab or on the homepage to specify that Ledgends, no matter how much we want it to be, isn't Canon, and that the EU canon is now technically invalid. I do prefer the tabs approach, though, as it seems to make the most sense and be the most informational. —Unsigned comment by Conner itsatrap (talk • contribs).

• *Legends, sorry I didn't sign.--Conner itsatrap (talk) 21:29, April 26, 2014 (UTC)conner_itsatrap
  • That was supposed to be a grammatical correction asterisk, I forgot how to make those. Sorry about the mess, I'm sort of new.--Conner itsatrap (talk) 21:31, April 26, 2014 (UTC)conner_itsatrap
• What Winchester 327 said ought to be Wookieepedians' #1 priority going forward: KEEP EU MATERIAL VISIBLE AS %&#@!!! If it gets buried now, it will not be accessible when it's most needed. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 (talk) 22:09, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

Jennifer Heddle said that it's all retconned. It should certainly be available, but shouldn't be left where it is, because it isn't canon. Take that as badly as you will, but this site is NOT you, and this site must remain objective!Conner itsatrap (talk) 22:18, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

• As a fan site, we aren't obliged to follow Lucasfilm/Disney's every whim. Adamwankenobi (talk) 22:24, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
  • But we're not just any fansite, we're linked on the official starwars.com encyclopedia, and trusted by a million million fans! And even if we were just another fansite, we should still take things the way they are.Conner itsatrap (talk) 22:35, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
  • The fact that it isn't canon doesn't mean it shouldn't be accessible. Maximize its accessibility and stick a tag on top that says "This article incorporates information from 'Legends' sources", with a link to the canon or Expanded Universe article explaining the new Lucasfilm policy. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 (talk) 22:38, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

I don't dislike that idea, but I prefer the Tabs because that way it wouldn't be mixed in with the canonical information. The Tabs would provide disambiguation, which I value quite highly.Conner itsatrap (talk) 22:47, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

• • Tabs would be optimal (Databank nostalgia is strong with this one). In the old starwars.com, I only ever read the EU tab because the film tabs were just a boring recap of the films. So it could actually help EU visibility if there was a barren wasteland of a page with canon information and a treasure trove of a page with EU information. The process would take forever, though. Tags would be useful for now. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 (talk) 22:54, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if this is a stupid question, I really haven't posted that much, but are tags the things that come up like "sorry about the mess," "I'm sorry, the article you're searching for does not exist," etc.?Conner itsatrap (talk) 23:20, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

• Like the ones here, directly below the disambiguation box. Right? --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 (talk) 23:40, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

I'd vote for a holding pattern for now: leave it in unless it's explicitly out. Like, for instance, if Luke shows up with a new wife in the ST we cal slap a Legends tag on Mara, but until then leave her where she is. Keep in mind the official blog, which is knowledgeable in the ways of the retcon, is still running, so we may well get some, as TV Tropes puts it, "arc welding." Rod (talk) 01:28, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

• I think there are a few people here who haven't accepted the truth yet. The EU is explicitly out. The starwars.com announcement, coupled with Jennifer Heddle's tweets, have explicitly confirmed that. There's no wiggle room. It's our job as a site to reflect this, not to pick and choose what we as fans think is still canon. Our "canon until proven otherwise" policy needs to do a complete one-eighty --- all previous EU is now non-canon until proven otherwise.
  
  If we do end up using the tabs solution, I'll be a strong advocate for making official canon the default tab and Legends the secondary one. As has been pointed out above, we're one of the largest and most professional wikis out there, with a gigantic readership, links from starwars.com, constant references made to us by SW VIPs, etc, etc. We have a choice before us: To continue striving to be the #1 fan resource for documenting SW canon as dictated to us by Lucasfilm, or to turn into a group of bratty kids who don't like having their toys taken away. I really hope the choice is an obvious one to everybody. Menkooroo (talk) 02:23, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
  • True, we ought to play our cards carefully, lest we go from respected corner of the fandom to whiner central overnight...Rod (talk) 02:52, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree that the tabs option is one of our better ones. I also agree that we should continue to try and retain the respect and repuation of the wiki. Unfortunately, the site will suffer regardless. A good 90% of the content will be non-canon, and the amount of new material being produced will not give us enough to build up such a complete array of information. But, we can't change Lucasfilm's policy (unless someone wanted to start a petition, which would be a slim chance... but still worth supporting) so all we can do is continue doing what the wiki has been doing from the beginning. Admiral James Kaizer (talk) 03:36, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
      • You're right --- our "canon" content will definitely be pretty paltry, but we can't change Lucasfilm's policy. When this is put to a vote in the Consensus track, one of the votes will probably be on which tab shows up as the default one: Canon or Legends. My vote will go with canon, for the reasons I espoused above. Menkooroo (talk) 03:46, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
      • If nothing else I think the names of minor characters like the Cantina aliens should be kept. Every piece of merchandising, even stuff that typically doesn't deal with the EU like the action figures, uses the card game, Tales from, etc. names for these characters, implying they are now considered the official names. Rod (talk) 03:52, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
  • This HAS been a blow to fandom on EU lovers like me. I was hoping to be back on but sadly I may never return. I suggest creating a dedicated EU wiki and to hell with this errant venture. So Kyle Katarn, Thrawn, etc are now branded non-canon and it just feels like a giant slap to the face on behalf of dedicated EU fans.-Boba fett 32 (talk) 04:39, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
  • I absolutely agree with Boba. Friday's announcement was deeply offensive to people like myself who have kept the Star Wars License lucrative in years when there were no films. As Far as Moriband is concerned, I will not accept it. This was an INTENTIONAL slap in the face to EU lovers by Dave Filoni and his hat. I do not care about the supposed "respectability" of this wiki, if it means we are subservient to a company that holds us in such low regard. They left no room for compromise. We are now just a pile of books with abstract ideas to be snapped up if it is useful to authors licensed by Disney. At a minimum the 38 year continuity be held and shared with the same level of respect as Disney's productions. Ours is not an alternative or subordinate of these new films. We must take a stand. Jacen Solo should not be axed because he is given a new name in the new films. Jacen has vastly more depth through literature than his clone will ever have in three movies. True, I have not been building this wiki like so many here over the years, but I ask you "Do you have respect and love for all the labor you have devoted to this wiki to have it arbitrarily dismantled by a Committee in Cinderella's Castle?" TrueCanon (talk)
    • Moriband came from Lucas himself, I'm pretty sure; he thought it sounded cooler. Also, did you just create an account to make this post? Rod (talk) 01:22, April 29, 2014 (UTC)
      • That is lovely for George. He should have made that correction years ago when he allowed the license to be used by Dark Horse. No Rod, I did not make a profile to just make one post, but I appreciate the insinuation. My beloved Nute Gunray needs to be expounded on, I also want to completely review all the elements and metals of the Star Wars Galaxy and create articles for those that may have been overlooked. The same goes for all Trade Federation articles. I did make the jump to enter the Senate because I feel the REAL decisions are being made here, by the fans. Wookiepedia is a precious resource and the direction it takes is extremely important. I want to stand with those that do not want to roll over for this reboot. I have spent a fortune in both time and gold on this continuity and I want to see it preserved as much as the democratic process will allow. Perhaps I will be in the minority, but I will have taken a stand for what I truly believe in. Yes, I am new to this, but give me a little time. Star Wars consumes much of my life and as I figure out how everything works, I intend to contribute to articles concerning the original canon and Disney canon that does not contradict the original canon. Oh yes, and everything with full citation. Nothing worse than finding out an fascinating fact about a character or item and having no clue from what source material it originated. TrueCanon (talk)
        • My apologies, and I wish you luck on your future editing! You have to understand, though, that since Wookieepedia IS a precious resource, we've actually been cited by actual SW authors (which, incidentally, means we're a better resource for SW than Wikipedia is for real life, heh heh), and if we make the wrong move here we run the risk of losing all that. Rod (talk) 03:48, April 29, 2014 (UTC)
          • That is quite alright Rod. I was and am emotional on this issue. However, I realize that being intransigent on this crossroads will not change or contribute anything to the ultimate solution. I need to move on and join the constructive discussion of how to adapt Wookiepedia to the announcement the best we can while also honoring 110,000 articles. I need to review each option, but it appears tabs has the most traction. It appears it can be done with relative ease, which is important. It would also allow all EU content to remain on our wiki without removing anything, but allowing updates for both (granted Legends would receive fewer and fewer updates, although I am curious about TOR...). Plus, with tabs we can leave legends as primary source material until a overriding article is made and a new tab can then be created. What do you feel is the best path for us moving forward? TrueCanon (talk)
• I know that Lucasfilm has not really presented it that way, but instead of seeing canon and non-canon, I personally now see official canon and Legends as two distinct timelines, without one of them being "erased" as so many fans are saying. I know it's just a personal point of view, but I think that this way of seeing it could satisfy everyone, instead of treating EU/Legends as some sort of Infinities stories. And one of the really good things I see in all this is that we could now consider that The Clone Wars TV show (and all its tie-ins) is no more tied to the rest of the EU (on the same level as the soon to be sequel trilogy), and so it could resolve the huge amount of contradictions that the show has made so far. Take Ryloth, for example: pre-TCW informations would still be completely valid, in its Legends form, but everything created about it in TCW would only be in its official canon tab. --109.212.145.74 14:06, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

(Oops, haven't seen I was not logged in while writing the previous message) --Kaal (talk) 14:07, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

• Menkooroo, you make excellent points. I also think, unfortunately, that you're being slightly sensationalist in your above comments. I think Jennifer Heddle and LSG have made it clear that Legends, while not canon, are still highly relevant. I don't think you've considered (for instance) that they certainly expect Wookieepedia to favor Legends material and to be the #1 resource for it; defaulting to Legends—slight bias though it may be—would not only be what they expect, but it's extremely likely they're looking forward to the resource.
  
  The only other comment I find sensationalist is your claim that defaulting to Legends, at least with most articles for now, would somehow be unprofessional. That's way off-base. Documenting everything and sourcing it is not unprofessional. Favoring extremely relevant, official information (Legends) over official reboot information is not unprofessional, especially when you consider what Lucasfilm is actually looking to us for. Seriously, let that sink in.
  
  Were the EU actually deleted—a misunderstanding that many of you are making—the default view wouldn't even be in question; we'd move on. It is not deleted. It is relevant, but simply not canon that they are required to adhere to. It's the exact equivalent of S-canon, as was stated above, and as can be understood from several of Heddle's statements. Now, I know S-canon only exists for Lucasfilm-internal classification now, but the role of Legends is clearly identical; that's all I'm saying.
  
  Yes, she has used the term "not canon" several times. Try and see what she actually means by that, though, all of you: they simply aren't beholden to the canon in Legends. It's all about creative freedom. It's the same damn thing as it was with the prequels, and The Clone Wars; they can always do what they want, and there will be contradictions. But we never forked or tabbed the Wiki over "The Movies" and "The EU" before (and even the official site did), so don't start talking like that's unprofessional now, Menkooroo. "The EU exists as a resource." It's S-canon–equivalent, by all declared statements. The entire EU is the new Marvel. We never shied away from prioritizing uncontradicted S-canon along with everything else before. So what the hell are you thinking now, if you can forgive my frankness? Honestly, this is business as usual for Lucasfilm; all it really means is they want to expand the 3-year do-what-they-want window of The Clone Wars to the entire continuity.
  
  Damn, now I feel like just about every fan is missing the point. Guess it'll take time. Anyway, ditching/de-prioritizing info (particularly of the sort exemplified in Greententacle's tabs test) is the wrong move. Winchester 327 ^Comlink » 17:10, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
  • Sir, you are in denial. While Jennifer said "we're not discarding it" that was clearly just a petty attempt to comfort the older fans. They're making it all non-canon, 30 years of work, how's that not discarding it? Its relevance to them is based on the ideas that they may use to please fans into leading them to profit by using ideas others created. All the EU has been thrown into a hole and they'll use it when and however they feel like. You can most certainly count on more than 90% never being used and the rest being used differently to suit their own purposes. Winterz (talk) 17:18, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
    • Let's be civil. Thank you, JangFett ^(Talk) 17:19, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry if I gave anyone offense and for strong language. We all are bound to have strong opinions on this. Winchester 327 ^Comlink » 17:27, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
        • Right, but my warning is for all involved parties. I realize that there are mixed emotional feelings, but let's not lash out against others. JangFett ^(Talk) 17:32, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
  • Put simply as far as I can tell I think the difference between this new system and the old one is as follows: Previously, it was all canon unless the films or tv shows contradicted it. Now it's all non-canon unless the films or tv shows use it. It's an exclusionary principle rather than an inclusionary one. --86.164.55.135 20:08, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
    • Yep, just exactly like it was for S-canon. Winchester 327 ^Comlink » 20:46, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

Finally, someone else who sees things the way they are!Conner itsatrap (talk) 20:31, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

I'd recommend doing it similarly to the old Starwars.com databank. You know, with the "From the Movies" section and then the "From the Expanded Universe" section (except we would call the "from the expanded universe" section the "from the Legends" section). As for names, I think we can keep them the way they are. After all, there is a reason for changing the story to better suit Lucas's vision, but what purpose would Lucasfilm/Disney have in renaming characters? There are only about 300 named characters (that's an overestimate) in the new canon, so we'd end up with "Unidentified Imperial Officer 237," and that's ridiculous. I don't think Disney will change names, so we're all good there. THEORY: Because they take place a long time ago in a galaxy far away (misquote), many legends have been created using historical characters and such. The new canon reflects the historical fact, but the "legends" reflect things that may or may not be true and although mostly contiguous, sometimes jibe with "fact." My theory is probably wrong, but there might be a bit of truth in it. 76.18.4.243 21:03, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

• I'll revise my vote to holding pattern until A New Dawn hits in four months. I honestly think we can have little idea as to what this new continuity entails until the first work init actually shows up. Rod (talk) 21:11, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

• Is it possible to ask the Lucasfilm Stroy Group their opinion? I expect that they've all used wookiepedia in the past, and are probably quite fond of it. They might even be reading this to try and get some idea of what the response to their announcement is! Personally, I like the tabs ideas. If the tab is empty for Canon, can we not automatically show the Legends tab? I imagine it wouldn't be too hard to do with Javascript. Even if required putting a bit of code in the empty tabs - that could be part of the creation script - and then manually removed when it was filled in. Sorry, I'm not going to sign this properly, I've forgotten my username. AdamBourke 22:42, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

I think some "new canon" content should also be added to the "legends" content in the event that there is no direct conflict. So, Rebels could potentially be there and the new Luceno Tarkin novel but not Episode VII. Having Luceno's Darth Plagueis and Tarkin exclusively under two seperate canon's wouldn't make a lot of sense to me seeing how Luceno's works all seem so interconnected with each other. For example, Tarkin content would appear in the "new canon" section and "legends" section while Darth Plagueis novel content would only appear in the "legends" section. The Darth Plagueis article for the new canon section would only contain what we know from Episode III. Unless the novel's canon status changes of course. Ceasing to add new content to this amazing knowledge database seems like a unnecessary concept to me. Thoughts? CornCorny (talk) 07:40, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

• It's a necessary concept, unfortunately. Legends is finished --- no new stories are being told in its universe. They've made that pretty clear. All of the new stories are part of the new canon only. Since Luceno is, for all intents and purposes, writing within an entirely new universe now, it remains to be seen what kind of a story he'll tell. Menkooroo (talk) 08:07, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
  • Film content and the TCW content will no doubt exist in both universes, why not new novels? If you ask Luceno if Darth Plagueis and Tarkin exist in the same universe I'm sure he'd most definetly say yes. So why seperate them? They've made it clear that legends content doesn't effect new canon but they haven't said that new canon content doesn't effect the legends content. We're focusing a lot on how the old won't effect the new, but I'm just trying to draw attention on the other way around. I don't think it always has to necessarily be a two way street, and no one from Lucasfilm has specifically said that it is one. Probably because they don't really want to draw attention to the continuity of the old stuff too much. But this is Wookieepedia. We do! CornCorny (talk) 13:54, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
    • I do understand your point. The question is, where do we draw the line? If information from the new novels apply to Legends, will it overwrite the non-canon info from the Legends timeline itself? If in the new films Luke never gets married and Han and Leia have only one child, Bob Solo, will that overwrite the Legends timeline post-RotJ? If we try to merge both canon with Legends, it will just be a mess. Its the reason that the old EU was shelved (sad sigh) to begin with. In my opinion, the Legends information in articles should at least refference The Clone Wars and the six films, as the timelines would fit together. Going forward, I don't think the new canon could fit into the old canon, unless they really didn't change much at all. Admiral James Kaizer (talk) 19:15, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
      • All new post return of the jedi content coming out will probably have to be emitted from the legends content. Mara Jade and Jaina Solo stuff would probably be a main appeal of the legends section to begin with. But new star wars content written to be including in the current universe (etc. Rebels and Luceno's Tarkin) could potentially fit in with relative ease. But there would have to be some clear policy guidelines in place. For example, what if there was to be a boba fett film which overrides some of the earlier books? I would say in that case the old books should stay because we have a new section dedicated to the new stuff. It could get messy yes. But I think its something to consider going forward. CornCorny (talk) 04:27, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

Another question: Are Legends and Canon mutually exclusive? Would there be any situation where you will find Canon information in Legends (or vice-versa)?--Richterbelmont10 ^{(come in R2!)} 03:50, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

• All existing canon material (the six films and the six seasons of The Clone Wars) are also part of Legends continuity. Any Legends continuity that made it into The Clone Wars is canon, but only as much of it as appeared in TCW. For example, Nal Hutta is canonically the Hutt homeworld, but only what we know from its appearance in "Hunt for Ziro" is canon. Everything else about it from Legends is simply Legends. Similarly, Quinlan Vos is canonically a dreadlocked dude who can read images from objects, but all that stuff from Dark Horse is just Legends material. Does that make sense? Menkooroo (talk) 03:58, April 29, 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that what lucasfilm have stated to be true canon is pretty much all that we should include in the new canon section. But I think there is room for the new to have an effect on the old section. For example, the Rebels show and Luceno's Tarkin novel have (as far as I'm aware) written to work within the already constructed universe. Why not include it within the old content if it fits in fine? CornCorny (talk) 04:31, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
  • Menkooroo, so what you're saying is that Canon and Legends are not mutually exclusive. All that is Canon is also Legends. Is this correct?--Richterbelmont10 ^{(come in R2!)} 15:02, April 29, 2014 (UTC)
    • No. As I'm understanding it, only the CURRENTLY existing Canon (that is, the six movies, TCW movie + series) is also part of Legends. However, SWR and the new episodes won't be part of Legends. 1358 ^(Talk) 15:04, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm new to the talk section so I sincerely apologize if my formatting is incorrect. That being said, I have a question pertaining to some of the reference books. Supplementary materials like the incredible cross sections books and the visual guide books were considered G-canon before the purge because they were released as direct tie-ins with the movie meant to inhance teh view experence. Would information obtained from the books, (Names, vehicle speeds, technology, ect.) be exempt from the EU perge? I know that books like the essential guide books are no longer canon because they include references to "Legends" material but I'm not sure that is the case with books like [[1]], [[2]], or [[3]]--192.103.41.201 22:32, May 4, 2014 (UTC)Augie

• Those books weren't G-canon. Only information directly provided to them by Lucas or the production team was regarded as such, and in that respect, they weren't unique; many other books, reference and narrative, contained information from those sources. Much of it will probably survive (the Story Group isn't going out of its way to reinvent the wheel when it doesn't impact the Star Wars story), but those books have no special standing and are Legends just like everything else. jSarek (talk) 18:17, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

Update: Del Rey tweeted out about an hour and a half ago — the novelizations of all six Episodes plus the TCW film remain canonical. — DigiFluid^{(Whine here)} 17:52, April 30, 2014 (UTC)

• Update: Del Rey updated that saying that the novelizations are only canon when they align with the movies. So basically they aren't canon not canonical. --DarthJon (talk) 09:42, May 1, 2014 (UTC)

Another Update: Disney released this app today: [4]. It seems pretty canon to me, as it is being released by Disney, and this could potentially help us out with the information that isn't explicitly stated in the films, like some species names, homeworlds. Hafje (talk) 15:33, May 1, 2014 (UTC)

I can't stop laughing. Fe Nite (talk) 20:25, May 2, 2014 (UTC)

Tabs or no tabs?

Discussion closed per Forum:CT:Tab system

• Cade Calrayn has cooked up a revised version of what the potential "tabs" system could look like. Check it out here (the links aren't part of it; this is just what the tabs themselves could look like). What do you all think? What does everyone think is the most feasible idea at the moment? Tabs? Two separate articles for every movie character/battle/whatever? Hopefully no one really wants to split into two wikis altogether. Feel free to keep throwing out any and all ideas. Menkooroo (talk) 03:17, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

If we're putting it to a vote, mine's on tabs. It would be difficult, and potentially take forever, but I think the final product will be worth it.Conner itsatrap (talk) 03:40, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

• With the use of bots, it wouldn't even have to take all that long to implement. Menkooroo (talk) 03:46, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not very knowledgable about bots. Would a droid really be able to differentiate EU from TCW? On a sidenote, we would have to wait until they say whether the Radio Dramas, Novelizations, and TCW-based EU is still canon.Conner itsatrap (talk) 04:18, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, I meant that bots would be able to handle page moves. But yeah, all of the "canon" articles we'd have to recreate ourselves. And you're right; we won't know if they're complete until we get some more word on novelizations et al. But we can start with the movies, TCW, and Rebels anyway, and then add more info as we receive more word. Call R2-D2 an "astromech droid" for now, and maybe be able to change it to "R2-series astromech droid" if someone tells us that the visual guides are canon. Menkooroo (talk) 04:51, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

• If we go with tabs, what do we do about those articles that only have "legends" content? Tag them with something at the top of the page saying "this only appears in legends material"?--Dionne Jinn (Something to say?) 07:18, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, you're right, that's essential. Especially since the new canon will have tie-in novels, and likely comics and sourcebooks and the whole nine yards. If someone looks at Gilad Pellaeon or Ania Solo or Denjax Teppler, there should be a very visible notice informing them that it's 100% "Legends" material. More visible than a small square in the top-right corner. Menkooroo (talk) 15:21, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
• I like what R5 suggested above: use tabs, make the Legends tab the default tab because it will always be more informative and keep the "canon" tab to an absolute minimum: no EU-given name or species, no EU illustrations, no sources whatsoever (because they are all Legends now) - strictly movies and TCW info. Let the users see something like this and have them decide which version of the page they want to read. --Darth Nospher (talk) 07:53, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
  • We don't know yet how informative the new stuff is going to be, it might surprise us (or it might not). And I think we have to keep the canon tab as default, because, well, it is canon and the whole point of this wiki is to deliver canon information.--Dionne Jinn (Something to say?) 08:01, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
    • Would it be possible from a technical point of view for users to choose themselves which tab they wanted to display first by default? Have a message on the frontpage notifying new users on how to do it, so that after they go to an article and see the bare-bones "canon" version, they can make the appropriate change and start browsing articles without having to make extra clicks to get real information. QuiGonJinn ^(Talk) 09:35, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't think that's possible, sadly. It would have to be done with browser cookies or similar; something I don't believe is very doable with MediaWiki. 1358 ^(Talk) 10:51, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
        • We can probably do something along these lines with JS, if we went with tab view for example. I.e. we'd have a gadget or something similar that would let you set a preference for Legends or new canon, and on page load the JS could select the right tab which would display the preferred version of the article. Cheers, grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 11:43, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
          • I had a play with that yesterday, but it has its own limitations. It makes it harder to edit the page since you're looking at a transcluded copy rather than the real thing. We'd also have to run all the JS to set up era icons, italicise titles, add language links, etc every time you changed tab. I'd lean towards keeping it simple if possible, even if that prevents us having user preferences. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 11:53, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

And there's also the problem of what the default would be for visitors.Conner itsatrap (talk) 13:20, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

• I do not believe that Wookieepedia would lose its respectability if, going with the tabs option, we made the EU tab the default view (I have always thought that striving to appear respectful is the most pathetically sad of endeavors anyway). I believe it's silly to make people go through a bare page called something like "Unidentified hooked-nosed human (Ord Mantell)" before they can reach the page with all the information, sourcing, pictures, etc, just so we don't look like we're not dancing to Lucasfilm's tune. But that's not what's most important, because people will look for the EU pages anyway. What is most important is that no EU article is deprived of its canon information. The mixed paragraphs that contain intertwined EU-film information should not be broken up (there's a hassle for you) so that the "Legends" tab remain purely EU. The canon tab ought to be ultra-conservative according to the "only what was seen on the screen is canon" dictum (it'll be basically empty pages of "This unidentified individual was there when...") and the Legends tab should be our normal articles. A year from now, when a bunch of new material has brought in new info and a bunch of EU sources have been canonized, the canon tabs would probably start to look like something. What is also, of course, important, is that we do not differentiate between canon levels and such in what is showcased on the main page. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 (talk) 13:29, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

• At the moment, it wouldn't even make much sense to show the new canon content as default, because there is so little content, mostly just what's explicitly shown and mentioned in the movies and TCW. Everything else, every little detail such as names, species, etc. not explicitly mentioned is non-canon until proven otherwise. Sure, it's likely that Vader's flagship will still be called Executor and that those fuzzy creatures on Endor are still called Ewoks. But we can't just assume that until we get official confirmation. So keep the Legends content as default until there's enough canon content the satisfy the reader's interest. This is still a wiki made by fans for the fans, not a paid project where everyone works for LFL and has to strictly adhere to their business plans.--91.67.137.207 13:57, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

• • I mean, right now, we can't name nearly everything that appears in the movies - Y-wings, B-wings, Star Destroyers, several planets, droid models, minor characters... Articles which used to e huge will be five paragraphs long now. —Unsigned comment by Admiral James Kaizer (talk • contribs).

I see where you're coming from, and I think it's fine either way. I just hope nobody is misled by the main page.Conner itsatrap (talk) 14:06, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we need to go so far as discarding names and species just because they weren't explicitly mentioned in the films. So, the little furry guy who helped Leia can still be Wicket the Ewok and the big furry guy in the Cantina can still be Muftak the Talz, etc. I doubt they'd change anything like that just for the sake of changing it. Rod (talk) 14:30, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

• Well, tell that to morriband(sp?). They didn't have any reason to change that, but they did because they could. They still might do the same thing to anything! We shouldn't make any assumptions at all, I can't stress that enough.Conner itsatrap (talk) 15:08, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
  • Moraband was just one exception. For instance, several characters in TCW were of a species that was only named in what is now Legends. Those names were always retained, which I think sets a valuable precedent for us to work off of. Rod (talk) 20:42, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

• Treat Legends like S-canon, have it as default pageview, under a tab labeled "Legends." Have the films, TCW, Rebels and everything canon moving forward under a secondary tab labeled "The Saga." Inverse prioritization of the old Databank. Speaking of which, if we go with tabs, why not move Behind the Scenes to one as well? Winchester 327 ^Comlink » 17:49, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

But Legends isn't s-canon, when they say it's still a resource, they mean they can bring anything back, not that they wouldn't have to. They know what it means when they say "not canon." We should have the Tab for EU, but I think the non-subjective, technically correct version should be default.Conner itsatrap (talk) 18:04, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't say it was S-canon. If you'd like to better understand how the Legends system will function, please thoroughly read my comment near the end of the topic above, as well as (re)reading Heddle's tweets. Winchester 327 ^Comlink » 19:04, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
  • I think you're the one who doesn't understand: it's all been retconned. You may not have come to terms with that, as many haven't, which is normal, but it's the truth. You're misinterpreting it all.Conner itsatrap (talk) 19:15, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
    • Nope. Let's move this disagreement elsewhere if we're both going to keep acting like we know everything. Winchester 327 ^Comlink » 20:59, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Everyone else, if you wanna see where we're taking this or get involved, it's in my talk.Conner itsatrap (talk) 22:15, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

• Of course character names from the EU will survive. Just about 100% of them, I bet. A stupendous amount of EU stuff will be canonized if you ask me. But the official line is very clear: "Apocryphal until proven canonical." Which means that most movie-related articles might just have to lose their names. Clarification about Visual Guides and novelizations would be helpful, of course, but if "the six films are the only thing that's canon" is all we keep hearing, that's what we should put on the "canon" tab. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 (talk) 01:45, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

• Considering that the entire Star Wars universe has essentially been turned upside down, I think that the best and only way to handle the situation right now is to use tabs to differentiate from "canon" and "legends" sources. Are there better solutions to the problem? Perhaps. But currently there are none better, and just getting rid of all of the EU information like some people are suggesting would be a huge waste. As for the debate as to whether we should put the "canon" first or the "legends" first in the tabs, I think having canon first would be more appropriate. Everyone who wanted to read about the EU could still do so, but since the Disney stuff is now "canon" it should probably be put first. JediMaster22 (talk) 03:30, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

• I for one foresaw this happening anyways. Not gonna rant like before but I've put my foot down and refuse to go on with the whole universe except on the EU itself. And so my favorite Legacy comics have been null along with MANY stuff from my kidhood like Dark Forces and Shadows of the Empire. I'm in a terrible nostalgic mood for this and I will not accept Rebels and even the new films as official canon. I propose we move to a dedicated Expanded Universe wiki and drop this heaping hellhole.-Boba fett 32 (talk) 13:21, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

I think the tabs system is the only logical way forward, the addition of another page for each subject (character, planet ect.) will make searching and reading content clunky at the best. The creation of another Wiki would be devastating. My proposal is that all non-real world pages have the tabs added to them, be that with or with out a bot. The current content on the page would be added to the "Legends" tab and an active effort would have to be made by the community to create "canon" articles for all necessary pages. Cameronfr (talk) 16:34, April 28, 2014 (UTC) I agree completely.Conner itsatrap (talk) 17:35, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

Hypothetical question: If we were to separate all articles into tabs ("Canon" and "Legends") today, how many articles would have tabs?--Richterbelmont10 ^{(come in R2!)} 19:58, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

• At a very rough estimate 98,000 (the number of articles which use the real-world era icon subtracted from the total on the wiki of 110,000) Cameronfr (talk) 20:18, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
  • This sounds like WAY too much. There are tons of subjects that haven't appeared in "New Canon" and will therefore not be needing tabs, from what I can see. 1358 ^(Talk) 20:29, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
    • Personally, I think that all non-real world articles should be tabbed, because they may become canonical or it should be noted that they are not canonical for clarity's sake. Cameronfr (talk) 20:42, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
      • There will be some kind of a template or some such thing to signal those articles that have only Legends material on them, but they do not necessarily need tabs to do that.--Dionne Jinn (Something to say?) 20:45, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
        • Could we use a banner similar to on Memory Bank Alpha. This would not be a replacement of the tabs, and would be present in articles with and without tabs (as highlighted in Dionne Jinn's post directly above) Cameronfr (talk) 21:48, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up question: Let's imagine we were to immediately separate the Anakin Skywalker article into 2 tabs today. One would be "Anakin Skywalker Canon" and the other "Anakin Skywalker Legends." Would the "Anakin Skywalker Legends" tab be missing all the Canon information? In other words, would there be a "gap" in the article where Anakin appears in the Clone Wars animated series and then again in the movies as Darth Vader (since all this information would be in the "Anakin Skywalker Canon" tab)?--Richterbelmont10 ^{(come in R2!)} 15:10, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

• No. The legends version would cover everything it does right now, but it would not cover the upcoming SWR or the six new episodes. On the other hand, the Canon version would only cover the six movies, TCW, and any upcoming content (as well as some other minor things). 1358 ^(Talk) 15:13, April 29, 2014 (UTC)
  • This sounds like the best way to handle it.--Richterbelmont10 ^{(come in R2!)} 15:23, April 29, 2014 (UTC)
  • I also agree. The legends information won't make as much sense without the "canon" content. Admiral James Kaizer (talk) 16:40, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

Here's yet another question: Will we be able to put links from the "Legends" tab that directs the reader to the "Canon" tab at appropriate places? For example, let's take Luke Skywalker, who is supposed to appear in Episode 7. When I'm reading his Legends article and get to the part where Luke's Canon story from Episode 7 diverges from his Legends story, can we put a link stating something to the effect of: "Luke Skywalker's canonical story continues here." Where "here" is a link to the Luke Skywalker "Canon" tab. That way the reader will know where Luke's story diverges from the Legends story. EDIT: The reader will then have a choice: click on the link to shift to Luke's canonical Episode 7 adventures, or continue reading his Legends story.--Richterbelmont10 ^{(come in R2!)} 15:34, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

• No; you don't seem to understand that the only thing linking the two continuities is the movies and TCW. Our coverage of the movie's events in the Legends article will be both Canon and Legends material. It will "diverge" in dozens of places. Cade Calrayn 16:14, April 29, 2014 (UTC)
  • I understand that. My question is: Can we alert the reader of the Legends tab when the story diverges at key points and place a link directing the reader to the alternate continuation of the story in the Canon tab?

For example, let's imagine that Episode 7 is telling the story from 40 ABY and rewriting that part of Legends. Let's say that Episode 7 is rewriting the Second Galactic Civil War to something else. Can we place a link in Luke Skywalker's Legends tab near Luke Skywalker - Second Galactic Civil War header stating that the story has an alternate continuation in Canon? The link would direct the reader to the new story in Luke Skywalker's Canon tab. The reader would then have the option of continuing to read Luke Skywalker's Legends story by simply staying on the same tab and continuing to read. Or he could click on the link, bringing him to the Canon tab to the exact point where the story continues in Canon.--Richterbelmont10 ^{(come in R2!)} 16:54, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

• • • That's just it, though - the new movies could establish that there NEVER WAS a New Republic, and Luke's story diverges right at the end of Return of the Jedi. Or, they might not touch on much of the past, leaving space to imagine some of the Legends could fit there, but mention that Luke returned to Obi-wan's hut once a year to meditate ... that would be a divergence every year. It's probably better just to treat the two biographies as two separate things, unified only by having identical text (but no need for crosslinks) regarding the existing canon material. jSarek (talk) 19:01, April 29, 2014 (UTC)
      • If the story diverges at the end of Return of the Jedi, then there could simply be one link at the appropriate place on the Legends tab that would indicate a continuation on the Canon tab. There's no need for excessive links, no matter how many divergences there are (such as in your example). As I said, only alert the reader at "key points" in the story.

If there's "identical text" on both tabs, then obviously there's no need to link to the other tab. However, there cannot be "identical text" if the story is completely changed. For example, let's say Episode 7 takes place in 40 ABY and it is established that Luke is somewhere else doing other things. He can't be doing the things he was doing in Legends at the same time, can he? To use a more dramatic example, let's say it is established in Episode 7 that Luke lived as a hermit on Tatooine for 10 years between 30 ABY and 40 ABY with absolutely no contact with the outside world. In this case, you can't have the Legends tab reading that Luke is in complete isolation while at the same time dealing with the Strife within the Jedi Order (30–40 ABY). This would be the key point in the story where we could place a link to the Canon tab, indicating to the reader the story changes dramatically.--Richterbelmont10 ^{(come in R2!)} 20:35, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

Again, you don't seem to understand that nothing from the EU happened in the new continuity. There's absolutely no reason to try and link them. The only shared events are those detailed in the movies and TCW. Cade Calrayn 03:25, April 30, 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any reason that Legends pages can't include links to Canon pages, and even vice versa, as long as such linking is made explicitly clear. Obviously we want to keep the differing canons as organized as possible, but we don't have to bury our heads in the sand. The characters live in separate universes; that doesn't mean the readers/viewers have to. Zegota (talk) 00:13, April 30, 2014 (UTC)

By "existing canon," I was referring to canon materials that already exist, i.e. the two existing trilogies and The Clone Wars. There's no reason to reinvent the wheel when describing what Luke was doing in Star Wars: Episode IV A New Hope, for instance, unless the new canon re-contextualizes that material in a different way from the EU. jSarek (talk) 03:06, April 30, 2014 (UTC)

• I personally dislike the tabs idea. Having to maintain, in essence, two articles for every in-universe subject? Seems very unwieldy. I would argue for something like simply adding a "Legends" section to the Layout Guide (for subjects that appear in both Canon and EU sources; exclusively EU subjects could simply be tagged with a "Legends" era tag), perhaps above Behind the scenes, and simply put all the relevant information from the former-EU there. This would also mirror the SW.com Databank, in that we would structure and separate our content as "Canon", "EU", and "Behind the scenes", but without the added hassle of having two articles for every subject. I would also argue for maybe compressing some of the Legends information if moved to such a system as I propose here, but I realize that is unpopular, and I won't push the issue. There is no reason we can't have comprehensive sections for canon, EU, and behind the scenes information. It's just three different classifications. --Imperialles 18:11, April 30, 2014 (UTC)
  • As I understand it, there would be no maintenance needed for the Legends tab. Legends continuity is over, and nothing new will be added to it. Essentially, every article we have now would be moved to the "Legends" tab, and only that which is established from the movies, TCW and future releases get put in the "Canon" tab. Updating current articles to jive with the new material is probably the least respectful thing we can do for the EU we all love. Moving current articles to a "Legends" tab (and only updating with previously printed material) would be the most useful form for it to take. Tainb'ocu'chulainn (talk) 02:39, May 1, 2014 (UTC)
    • That's like saying there's no maintenance required for Ewoks articles, since that show has ended and none of the characters are likely to show up in anything in the foreseeable future. Every single article can be improved, always. Relegating a huge chunk of information to behind a curtain takes it out of sight, which makes it a) easier to disregard (in the sense that, things that can be improved will be spotted less often), and b) doubles the workload of editors, as they now have to maintain two separate articles per subject (that appears in both Canon and Legends material). --Imperialles 09:54, May 1, 2014 (UTC)
      • The problem I see with relegating both facets of coverage to one article is that you're effectively working on two articles anyway. Yeah, it's on the same namespace technically (and in one article), but you're still shunting all of the different information into individual sectioning. I've made up an example using Green tentacle's test page here with what I think you mean with your reasoning, though I could have interpreted incorrectly. The problem with distilling it to three classifications means that you're still working with subclassifications - personality and traits/description is the one that most stands out, and it's one that can't migrate from Canon to Legends - meaning you're still at square one. You also have to have individual infoboxes for each section (unless, I suppose, you use tabs for the infobox, which then begs the question "why not just tab the article entirely"). Granted, the current number of affected articles would be very small, but they'd be huge articles. I'm not really a fan of tabs myself - I'd rather have the entire canon laid out in one article, assuming everything is canon, and in cases of contradiction, use an inline tab system. However, that suggestion would require javascript and more work than I know how to mock up, so I don't really know how to show it. ^Jorrel_Fraajic 10:50, May 1, 2014 (UTC)
        • The biggest issue with my suggestion is that it would likely require a change to the Layout Guide, to make the Legends section more akin to Behind the scenes, instead of just an article in the middle of another one. I realize this is very unpopular and unlikely to happen, so I suppose the tabs will have to do—for now. I am convinced that this is a band-aid solution, and that there is a better option out there. Thank you for the mock-up, it helped me realize several issues with my suggestion (or rather, how it would likely be implemented). --Imperialles 10:55, May 1, 2014 (UTC)
      • Note that I said "Moving current articles to a "Legends" tab (and only updating with previously printed material)". Yes, absolutely almost every current article could be made better/fuller based on Legends material, and should be. However, we should not be updating Legends material with Canon material, they are apples and oranges now. For example: Han and Leia get married in 8 ABY in Legends. Let's say in Episode VII they are said to get married in 15 ABY and don't have kids till 20 ABY. There is no reason to muck up the Legends information by trying to shoehorn in the new dates and circumstances. I don't want to see all the amazing over the years on this site Frankensteined into something unreadable. Perhaps there is a better solution somewhere, but tabbing would be a great way to keep current articles whole and sane under the Legends continuity. Tainb'ocu'chulainn (talk) 17:06, May 1, 2014 (UTC)
        • I don't think you quite understand what I am proposing. I am not saying we mix information. I am saying we could create a Legends section, same as Behind the scenes, where all Legends information would be contained. There would be no spillover. --Imperialles 17:23, May 1, 2014 (UTC)
          • I misunderstood slightly, but I was mainly trying to explain my point on "maintenance" and how tabbing wouldn't double the work load (after the initial split). Say I want to update "Ewok" with information from the TV show. I would just update the Legends tab. Likewise, if Ewoks appear in Ep VII, I would just update the Canon tab. It would be one(source)-to-one(article tab).
            Your point on Legends visibility is a good one, but it's inevitably going to happen. Legends material is going to increasingly take a backseat to Canon material going forward (excepting old info that is brought into new Canon). Besides, with separate Canon, Legends, BTS sections in each article, it's going to be difficult to see the Legends info anyways.
            I will support any solution that keeps the Legends info cohesive and distinct from Canon. Tabbing seems the cleanest suggestion as of yet. Tainb'ocu'chulainn (talk) 17:59, May 1, 2014 (UTC)

Legends

I was surprised to see that there is no page for the "Legends" label that all EU material is going to be assigned for continued publication. Given the magnitude of yesterday's news, which created the label, I figured such a page would already exist. Is there a reason why it doesn't? I was going to create one, but I don't want to run afoul of any wiki policy. — Eric Geller (talk to me) 17:50, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

• We're kind of in panic/damage control/chaos mode right now, but we are probably going to have one very soon. 1358 ^(Talk) 17:53, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
  • • Given that Legends is basically the entire EU, I imagine are Expanded Universe page will be renamed or redirected. The page will need some serious additions, but as there is still discussion as of how Wookieepedia is going to handle this entire thing I imagine it'll be a little while before they're made. Any Legends page created will be merged into that most likely so I wouldn't bother. Ayrehead02 (talk) 17:54, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
      • It says in the press release "While the universe that readers knew is changing, it is not being discarded." It isn't clear on whether the "Legends" thing is going to be for only post-ROTJ EU or everything. Adamwankenobi (talk) 17:59, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
        • Check out some of Jennifer Heddle's tweets here. It's not just the post-ROTJ EU. The dream is over, guys. Menkooroo (talk) 02:27, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
        • Yeah, Matt Martin wasn't very optimistic either. Stake black ^msg 14:37, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
  • The Expanded Universe page has been updated with the "Legends" info. "Legends" could get its own page, one that explains it's a publishing label for the EU superseding all other publishing labels, but the "EU" page should not be renamed/redirected. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 (talk) 18:15, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I feel like there's a clear difference between the EU as it existed and this new Legends thing. --Multiversity (talk) 11:08, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

• "to be clear, there is no "new EU." There is only the established EU--hereafter known as Star Wars Legends, and the main, canon storyline, which includes the films, The Clone Wars and Rebels television shows, and the new novels beginning this September with A NEW DAWN. It sounds like a minor thing to point out, but it's significant in the fact that even the term "EU" always meant it was outside the main, whereas now, all new material will be part of a unified whole." The Star Wars Books facebook pages just clarified this in a comment, the previous EU and Legends are one and the same. Ayrehead02 (talk) 14:06, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

Question are the Novelizations canon anymore? or are they part of legends? They did say that the only thing that is canon right now are the 6 movies and 2 tv series. When people asked what books are canon they said non of them are canon. I could honestly see it going either way as the novels do have a lot of extra information --DarthJon (talk) 19:05, April 30, 2014 (UTC)

• They are only canon for the scenes which are depicted in the movies. They may as well be non-canon. Admiral James Kaizer (talk) 12:39, May 1, 2014 (UTC)
  • No, they are canon when they align (as in, don't contradict) the movies. Alexrd (talk) 18:14, May 1, 2014 (UTC)

Two Wikis?

Discussion closed per Forum:CT:Legends and Canon coverage

This is a bold suggestion, and indeed one I'm not entirely sold on myself, but I thought it deserved throwing out. We now have what I'll call two distinct "eras" of Star Wars canon, for the sake of argument they will heretofore be referred to as "Lucas-era" (1977-2014) and "Disney-era" (2014- ). My personal interpretation here, which you're free to disagree with, is that the continuity changes are such that Disney-era Star Wars effectively constitutes the creation of a totally-new work of fiction, with Lucas-era Star Wars being now a finished work of fiction. So, given that every work of fiction ever seems to have a Wiki, is it really all that unreasonable that Disney-era Star Wars could have one, as well? For brevity's sake and in keeping with the theme of large furry things, I will call this hypothetical Wiki "Talzpedia."

So, suppose we were to launch Talzpedia, a new Wiki for a new work of fiction. We'd have to maintain it well, to make it every bit the reliable source Wookieepedia is. If the same crop of editors ran it, I'm not sure it'd give the impression of whining or exiling all the canon we don't like. We'd simply have two Star Wars Wikis - Wookieepedia, for the Lucas-era canon, a work of fiction we now know to be finite, and Talzpedia, a Wiki for an ongoing work of fiction. Two Wikis, valid unto themselves, for two works of fiction, valid unto themselves.

As I said, I'm not sold on this idea, and as a matter of fact I'm liking it less and less as I sit here and type, but I still think it's an option that needs presenting, so it might as well be me what presents it. Rod (talk) 04:10, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

• I believe the idea of splitting the wiki has been suggested during this conversation already. And the answer to that has been no. You see, Wookieepedia has a reputation of being a good source. Having competition is not really a good way to go.--Dionne Jinn (Something to say?) 04:54, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming if there was a lot of editor overlap it wouldn't really be competition, but I guess that's a fair point. Like I said I don't necessarily support this option, just wanted to draw attention to the fact it exists. Rod (talk) 05:02, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
  • And even if we did (which we aren't) we'd think of a better name than Talzpedia. Wampapedia, maybe? IFYLOFD ^{(Enter the Floydome)} 04:59, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
• No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no. That's what I think. Disney will not move forward on the assumption that the "Lucas era" is over. It will move forward on the assumption that nothing changed, except it has the power to pick and choose from the EU. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 (talk) 12:05, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

I am also very against this idea, but if we go with it, I prefer Wampapedia, just because I think it should be something in "New Canon."Conner itsatrap (talk) 17:31, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

• The Talz do appear, and are named as such, in TCW, so... But I also like Wampapedia better. Rod (talk) 17:41, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... I had read about this idea already and hadn't given much thought to it, but now that it's been logically explained in a non-rant format, I have to say I'm not entirely against the idea. I mean, I for one would likely end up only using this new wiki. Would it damage Wookieepedia? Maybe. I don't know. I just thought I would put my two cents into the matter. JediMaster22 (talk) 20:35, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

I would just like to correct my error. I believed Wookieepedia would be the one with new canon. So what I meant was that I would use Wookieepedia with all of the old information as opposed to the new one. It may seem like an insignificant correction but I felt I had to make myself clear that I am against the new canon. JediMaster22 (talk) 20:42, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

If we see Wookieepedia as a Wiki for a finished work of fiction, and if the same members staffed "Wampapedia" and it was treated as a sister site to the Wook, I don't think it would be that damaging. The only real difference I could see is that it would be theoretically possible for the Wook to be complete someday. Rod (talk) 22:21, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

• Guys, guys, you'd totally have to go with the alternate name Wicketpedia! (But yeah, we're not splitting.) -- Riffsyphon1024 11:03, May 6, 2014 (UTC)

Vote on new canon policy

• Everyone who's taken part in this discussion so far may be interested in the current vote on a new canon policy. Before voting, make sure that you meet the requirements for voting in the Consensus Track. You need to have edited actual site content (not forum pages like this one --- real articles) at least fifty times. And please heed the request made in the CT: "This proposal operates on the basic assumption that Wookieepedia is going to divide its articles, in some form, into "Canon" and "Legends." That is a forthcoming discussion, and I ask that everyone please refrain from going off on that discussion tangent here. Please reserve that discussion for that appropriate forum." That appropriate forum would be this very Senate Hall thread. Menkooroo (talk) 02:39, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

Clarification

I created this section specifically for anyone who needs to pose questions simply for the sake of clarification. I'll start:

"On April 25, 2014, Lucasfilm Ltd. announced that in preparation for the upcoming sequel trilogy, the Expanded Universe would not appear in any future Star Wars materials; past tales of the Expanded Universe will be printed under the Star Wars Legends banner, and a new continuity has been established that consists only of the original six films, the Star Wars: The Clone Wars television series and film, and all future material from that point onward."

So does this mean that the new books coming out are on the same level of canonicity as the films and television series, thus rendering the new Expanded Universe (not Legends) just as canonical as the films in the eyes of Disney and Lucas Film? Many modern franchises are doing this now (recognizing all other media on the just as canonical as the source material itself), though the only examples I can think of at the moment--Mass Effect, Halo, and God of War--are game franchises, not film. 71.195.87.84 16:40, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

• You're correct. In fact, as far as I'm aware the term "Expanded Universe" isn't even being used by the new canon. The films, TV shows, and new books are all the same. Cade Calrayn 16:45, April 29, 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, that's kinda cool. 71.195.87.84 17:04, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

I'd also like some clarification, specifically on two sources from the official website and whether they constitute canon or Legends.

The first are the endnotes for the episodes of The Clone Wars, which often explained contradictions between TCW and the EU, for instance, clarifying that Moraband is another name for Korriban (among many, it turns out) and that Raxus is intended to be a different planet from Raxus Prime. The episodes are obviously canon, but are the endnotes? If so, they'd being at least a good amount of names established in Legends into canon, if not the histories.

the second is the official blog. I really love the blog, which brings us a lot of what tv tropes calls "arc welding" from continuity maestros such as Pena, Veekhoven, and Wallace, often explaining contradictions between different sources. Everything indicates the blog will continue to run after the big announcement. My question relates to the fact that the blog frequently mentions EU topics, and now that "everything is equally canon," does that mean a blog entry made after the announcement that mentions a Legends character/planet/whatever brings that bit of Legends into continuity? An entry just a couple days before the announcement dropped mentioned Mara, for instance, so if she were to be mentioned again, even if no other source used her, would that canonize her?

Thanks ahead of time! Rod (talk) 17:58, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

• I would assume that the case with Mara Jade wouldn't be enough to cannonize her, unless the blog specifically said that. Chances are if Legends material is brought up by it, they'll specify that its legends. Admiral James Kaizer (talk) 18:29, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

SWtOR= Legends/Canon

I know the immediate reply is "Legends!" But SWTOR is the only bit of fiction out there that I cannot seem to find an answer regarding. Here is what I know:

- All EU is Legends right now, except for the new Darth Maul comic which is canon. This is from tweets from Jennifer Heddle, at Lucasfilm. - When asked about SWTOR, this was the only bit of the EU she could not answer due to it being ongoing. - SWTOR also has the first actual credit of the Lucasfilm Story Group. Per your wiki. This was starting with the Galactic Starfighter expansion. - KOTOR 1 and 2, and other media from the Old Republic era are confirmed as Legends. However, this does not mean that SWTOR is, as some canon media DO reference characters from Legends material. IE: Just because KOTOR 1 and 2 are Legends, does not mean SWTOR is. - As stated before, SWTOR is ongoing. I'm assuming the writing staff knew about the Legends switch before it was announced, and yet are still creating new story content. So either this game is the ONE bit of ongoing NEW Legends material, or its the one bit of EU being made Canon outside of that Darth Maul comic.

From what I can tell there is no definite confirmation on this anywhere, and I've been researching it a bit every day since the Legends announcement last Friday. Does anyone have any firm news or research on this? You guys have been my top reference for years, and seem to have a very mature non-emotional view on canon vs EU. So I appreciate your feedback.—Unsigned comment by 70.190.145.199 (talk • contribs).

• All we know now is that currently SWTOR is Legends, but I think this has the best chance of being restored to canon out of everything as its a huge project that's still functioning. Commander Code-8 ^{Felicitations malefactors!} 22:16, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

From what it seems right now its all non canon. Now they said all things moving forward would be canon. So eventually they will bring SWTOR back into the fold. I think they just wanted a clean slate and everyone to understand that's its all non canon. This way they aren't bombared with questions like "well is this book canon or how about this one"--DarthJon (talk) 02:16, April 30, 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I'm the original poster of the TOR question. Sorry I did not register. From all my research, it still seems to be that SWTOR may be the only piece of fiction that is neither confirmed as Legends nor as Canon. It still is up in the air. I know the "feeling" is that all of the EU is Legends now. But then we have the story group credit, mixed with the fact that we have upcoming story releases from them this year, mixed with the fact that Jennifer Heddle said "can't comment," when asked point blank about it. Just a point-- that to me it seems that SWTOR is one of the few pieces of the EU that still is completely up in the air. One possibility is that they make SWTOR version 1.0-2.7 Legends, and then 2.8 going forward is canon. Which seems crazy. But that'd follow their press releases holistically. Though I think that is unlikely. I wonder if there's any desire on their part to even specify it one way or the other.

The timeline you have now for Canon Star Wars seems perfect, and it would seem strange to have one piece of sole fiction right now like 3500 years before the others. I only mention that because I think maybe that is the story group's feeling as well. "Uh, we just put all of our fiction into a window of like 100 years or less. Why would we have one piece of fiction hovering there 3500 years in the past? Especially when right now we have a pretty set window of time to focus on and flesh out?" I feel that if SWTOR was canon (and truly what they envision as canon, which is a rough hunch to really hedge my bets on) then it would add more to the universe. But I could argue that about a lot of different pieces of the EU. That isn't my call to make, of course.

The story group credit is what bothers me. That indicates they had some input on it, compared to other pieces of fiction that do not.

And yet, they also may just be wrestling with some major contradictions in SWTOR that clash with the new movies and TV. Like if some plot point revolves around this period (around ANH, give or take 100 years) being the darkest period in time, than an Emperor who eats planets from 3000 years ago would not be wanted as canon. I could see that. My hunch is we won't know for awhile. I kind of wish they'd just go "Yeah its legends. In fact, it is the only actual work of Legends that will be outputting MORE Legends material. As we're not publishing anymore Legends stories, but SWTOR is ongoing for years to come. Its the only one." But I doubt we'll get that. I think more than likely they'll keep this in the gray area to keep subscribers to the game. Roysharpton (talk) 03:31, May 4, 2014 (UTC)

Oh, also, I've found a tweet from Charles Boyd (head writer now of SWTOR) where he hints that he doesn't actually know himself whether its canon or legends. "whether we're canon or "Legend", we'll be in damn good company. Proud to work on Star Wars, period :)" from April 25th. That could either mean even he doesn't know, or he's just being coy and is not at liberty to say.Roysharpton (talk) 06:08, May 4, 2014 (UTC)

• Per this article, it seems all but definite that TOR is Legends. Tainb'ocu'chulainn (talk) 13:07, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

List

I made a list here of the media I believe to be canon now, please correct me if there's anything I'm missing. They haven't really been clear on this, but I would say anything that Disney had a direct hand in after its purchase should be considered canon, and anything that was planned before the takeover and then subsequently released is still Legends. In other words, the children's books from Disney Press would be canon even though they are slated to come out before A New Dawn, as well as any mobile game developed by Disney Mobile/Disney Interactive. I still don't know about TOR. I wish they would come out and explicity make this stuff clear. -- Xell Khaar (talk) 07:08, May 1, 2014 (UTC)

• 1997 Special edition film versions?--Dionne Jinn (Something to say?) 07:29, May 1, 2014 (UTC)
  • I would consider those to be "updates" rather than separate pieces of media. Like you wouldn't list TCW episodes that have different (uncensored) scenes on the Blu-Rays separately. -- Xell Khaar (talk) 07:57, May 1, 2014 (UTC).
• Only thing is that, according to a more recent post on Twitter, the film novels are only canon when they depict scenes in the movies. I think that if this becomes an article at some point, it should be mentioned. Admiral James Kaizer (talk) 12:45, May 1, 2014 (UTC)
  • Didn't Del Rey just say they count for all parts that don't contradict the movies? I take that to mean the Anchorhead scenes are in since they don't contradict anything, but stuff like Yoda being blue is out. Otherwise why would they even bring it up? -- Xell Khaar (talk) 12:46, May 1, 2014 (UTC)
    • "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."[5]. I think it can be interpreted both ways... It is hard so say. It could mean whatever doesn't contradict the films counts, or only the stuff which specifically aligns with the on-screen content. Admiral James Kaizer (talk) 17:25, May 1, 2014 (UTC)
    • All of the stuff you've added beyond the films, TCW, film adaptions, Rebels, and future announced novels is utter and complete speculation. Cade Calrayn 15:59, May 1, 2014 (UTC)

Almost like everything else thats been talked about thus far.... —Unsigned comment by 173.58.76.188 (talk • contribs).

Most of the old Marvel Comics made it in, being pre-Return of the Jedi expanded universe. Huzzah! Also the radio dramas? - Starfield (talk) 23:46, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

• Besides films, TCW, Rebels, and very few other confirmed exceptions, everything else is considered Legends right now, regardless of what era it takes place in. Sorry. I'd be missing a lot more than just the radio dramas if that weren't the case >.> -- Xell Khaar (talk) 23:58, May 11, 2014 (UTC)
  • The wiki could use some citations then please—twitter feeds or whatever that may or may not contradict the official word that post-RotJ EU is non-canon. - Starfield (talk) 00:23, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
    • There's barely anything to cite really. Most of the curremt assumptions stem from Jennifer Heddle's twitter feed... What the original announcement probably meant was that every adult novel/video game/major thing going forward was G-canon, and everything else is C-canon like it has always been... It's not like they didn't constantly have continuity mishaps before anyway. I don't see why the wiki couldn't just keep everything in the main article and just override stuff as it gets contradicted, as they've has always done. Making strict policy based on the whims of someone's tweets at LucasBooks kind of sucks, but whatever, I don't make the rules. -- Xell Khaar (talk) 00:39, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
    • The Timeline of canon media has citations to all the confirmations that we have so far, and will be updated whenever more details are released. As an personal aside, of all the EU that I would want de-canonized, the Marvel Comics sit at the top of the list. They were very difficult to harmonize with the rest of the EU and were ridiculously campy for the most part. Telepathic rabbits, anyone? Tainb'ocu'chulainn (talk) 14:11, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
      • So it looks like the wiki is playing it safe and waiting for positive confirmation on every bit in case it was some kind of goof when they specified post-RotJedi material was non-canon? - Starfield (talk) 21:02, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
        • Tope has collected the sorts of Twitter citations you're looking for, and they clarify this is the whole EU that's been rendered non-canon, not just the post-RotJ EU. jSarek (talk) 22:16, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks!

Q: does this mean everything post Return of the Jedi is no longer cannon, but everything before is canon or is it all non-canon now?

JH: It's all non-canon, but it all exists as a resource that could be used down the line.

- Starfield (talk) 16:45, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

Come vote on the tabs system

Come vote on the tabs system here. Provided that you meet the requirements for voting in the Consensus Track, that is. Menkooroo (talk) 02:32, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

TCW

Let me start by saying that I like the new headings at the top. But something threw me. Why do original TCW things (e.g. Bo-Katan, Savage Oppress, Zillo Beast incident) have "Legends" headings. I was just wondering why? --Darth R2-D2, Dark Lord of the Droids (talk) 20:02, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

• Probably because this was a change made like yesterday, and this wiki has like 110,000 articles. Can't expect everything to be perfect in one day. Luke Skywalker doesn't even have a Canon page yet. -- Xell Khaar (talk) 20:06, May 10, 2014 (UTC)
  • On a similar note, wouldn't TCW be both canon and legends, since it was created under the old canon system and carried over to the new system? Adamwankenobi (talk) 20:09, May 10, 2014 (UTC)
    • What Xell Khaar and Adamwankenobi are saying is true. We're still working on implementing everything. However, most TCW articles you see right now are correctly Legends because they incorporate many Expanded Universe sources. Right now, as far as we understand it, none of the TCW supplementary source material (books, comics, video games, etc.) is canon anymore. Only the TCW film and episodes are. So we will end up having both Legends and Canon versions of most TCW subjects. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:12, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

I think that all things related to the Clone Wars Show are canon, meaning the Legends brand has no baring on it. Yes, it was created using Old Canon but was the start of the new canon. It makes sense to have anything that is from the TV show be Canon articles. Matt Seay (talk) 21:59, May 20, 2014 (UTC)

• TCW is completely canon, true, but Legends articles are still going to need to incorporate TCW materials because so much EU media depends and expands on things in the TV show. The Legends articles would make no sense without including the episodes' content. Canon articles can be created by extracting from the existing Legends articles, removing any Legends content from them. Tainb'ocu'chulainn (talk) 14:57, May 23, 2014 (UTC)

Total non-canon

Since we'll be having tabs with two versions of many articles anyway, why not add a third tab, with information that is neither canon, nor legends and was never meant to be taken seriously in the first place? I'm talking about LEGO Star Wars: The Padawan Menace, The Star Wars, Fett Club and other things like that - either parodies or stuff that does not fit into neither old nor new canon. This could end up on a third tab instead of Behind the Scenes section like now. --Darth Nospher (talk) 10:35, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

• Obviously Lego Star Wars Episode VII will be canon non-canon, and Lego Star Wars Episode I is Legends non-canon...... Okay maybe we should have an "Infinities" tab. -- Xell Khaar (talk) 10:51, May 11, 2014 (UTC)
  • An Infinities tab.... I LOVE this idea. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 (talk) 20:59, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

That is a good idea, I am all for that Matt Seay (talk) 22:03, May 20, 2014 (UTC)

Behind the scenes

So, where is this gonna go? I feel like this has been mentioned, but not actually addressed. Is it gonna be on the main tab? Or it's own tab? Thematically, it doesn't with Legends or Canon, since it is, you know, out-of-universe. SinisterSamurai (talk) 16:04, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

• Why can't it remain where it is currently? It's not like production histories have been deemed non-canon, or we can't look back at some concept art and say "Opes, no, new canon dictates Terryl Whitlatch didn't draw that... It's not even realy. It's fan art. Willed into existence. By the mind of... Of... shit." I don't see why both tabs couldn't have a Behind the Scenes section either. It's just that odds are, the Canon tab BtS would be expanding whereas the Legends BtS wouldn't. --Clonehunter^{(Report your W.M.D.)} 18:52, May 11, 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with this gentleman here. Wookieepedia has always been a great source for identifying complete continuity between the films and the EU, even as the attitudes toward the EU started to change at Lucas Film with comments coming down from the top (often from George Lucas itself) disowning its validity. I don't understand why we can't keep all new canon and Legends material together in one main article, treating all of it as valid, until the point where the two continuities part ways some time after Return of the Jedi. Perhaps, for example, Luke Skywalker's page could have three main tabs: one for his entire biography, from both new canon and Legends, up until the point of divergence; one with his everything that follows that point under the Legends continuity; and one from that point under the new canon. The end of the information within the first tab could even end with two side-by-side link boxes, one saying something to the effect of "Continued in Legends" and another "Continued in canon." 71.195.87.84 18:15, May 15, 2014 (UTC)
    • That really sounds a tad over-complicated. The validity has already been nullified, meaning that canon is canon and Legends is not. This whole thing more or less means that some old backstory elements can be completely redone. For example, Legends states that the Podracer Elan Mak was a guy whose real name is Kam Nale, and he is after his father's killer. New canon could instead dictate that Elan Mak was always his name, and maybe something like "A technical genius, Mak raced in the Boonta and crashed in lap three." Or at elast, that's what I think is going on or how this works. --Clonehunter^{(Report your W.M.D.)} 18:21, May 15, 2014 (UTC)
    • It sounds like you're operating under an incorrect assumption that pre-ROTJ material is still canon. Essentially everything that is not a film or TCW episode is Legends, so it makes no sense to have an article with "one for his entire biography, from both new canon and Legends, up until the point of divergence; one with his everything that follows that point under the Legends continuity". Think of canon and Legends as two parallel lines, and Legends dips down to intersect with canon only at the films and TCW. There is no singular "point of divergence" to make your suggestion feasible. Tainb'ocu'chulainn (talk) 19:13, May 15, 2014 (UTC)
      • Doesn't that depend on how the authors writing future material treat it? I doubt they're going to override EU just for the hell of it. I think people are assuming the worst when really, it won't be that bad. Aside from the movie of course, because you can't get in the way of Abrams' vision, otherwise he'll explain the inconsistencies with some time travel bullshit. -- Xell Khaar (talk) 19:45, May 15, 2014 (UTC)
        • It would be my hope that a lot of EU material is canonized, in which case my previous analogy would have more intersections b/t Legends and canon. However, what we know now is that EU is generally non-canon, so the "divergent" articles idea above is not valid. Elements of Legends that become canonized later can be added to the canon article, but the article can't say that Legends and canon share the same continuity before ROTJ. Tainb'ocu'chulainn (talk) 20:18, May 15, 2014 (UTC)

How to help

Hello. I'm relatively new on Wookieepedia. I've noticed in my short time that some articles are labeled canon and some film and TCW articles are labeled Legends. How can I and others who do not know where to start be of help in the tab-building system in getting all material up unto this point on a Legends tab and all canon content on a canon tab. Have a dark side-filled day! --You may call me Mr. Darth (talk) 00:03, May 18, 2014 (UTC)

• Great to hear you're interested in getting involved. As it is, we're virtually treating every existing article on the site to be Legends, even those that are technically both Canon and Legends. This means that essentially every existing article will stay as is, and the canon articles will have to be recreated. When proceeding to create Canon articles, I would advise you take a look at existing Canon articles, since they differ somewhat from Legends articles (for example the linking). In addition, joining our IRC channel is a great way to keep in touch with regulars and other users of the site. It's a great place to receive advice and ask any questions you might have. Cheers, 1358 ^(Talk) 00:07, May 18, 2014 (UTC)

Symantics

After reading this thread, I believe most confusion is caused by word choice. Before we had a multi-level canon. Basically our multileveled system meant that G-canon (aka the Gospel of George) did not have to adhere to anything that went on before in the Expanded Universe continuity (C-canon). But, any other writers were suppose to adhere to C-canon. Many of them including Lucas's daughter and other TCW writers didn't and eventually we had to establish that T-canon took precedence over C-canon. If we look at the current situation base on the multilevel canon, we basically have the Story Group and ANYONE they hirer operating at G/T-canon. They can choose to use or disregard any C-canon material. If they use it it becomes G-canon. If they contradict it, it becomes apocryphal. If they don't mention it, it still is C-canon (this is important if anyone wanted to write a sequel to a "Legends" story). Although our multi-leveled canon approach worked well, by definition, Canon is a binary system (it either is or isn't, it can't have levels). So you Could call G/T canon (or New Canon) simply "Canon." And C-canon, "Legends." This is in fact what Disney did, but it doesn't really change much. A legend is simply an unconfirmed story. Most legends have some truth to them and some fabrication. When new evidence comes it, more parts of the legend can be confirmed(canon) or ruled out (apocryphal). But it doesn't mean the legends did not happen, it just means that no one knows if the stories and details are accurate. I think the tab system is ok for now, but I bet it will change several times as did the way we handled things when the Prequels came out. But remember, regardless what you call it, the only thing that has changed is that future writers(Writers group) get to act like George. George's changes were annoying to many old EU fans, and these new changes will be too. But they are not telling you to completely disregard the old stories. They still make up one of the largest and longest running Shared literary universes in the history of man kind and they are still Canon within the Legends EU. IthinkIwannaLeia^WaddaUthink? 16:27, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

Except no. The old EU is all non canon now. there is no legalist wiggling around that --Mikael (talk) 03:58, May 23, 2014 (UTC)

Except, it was never canon, and nothing has really changed, was his point. Except, no, you didn't bother reading what he said before responding with a fallacy. -- Xell Khaar (talk) 04:16, May 23, 2014 (UTC)

At the end of the day, each person is going to decide for themselves what is canon, and what is not. As far as Wookieepedia is concerned, I think the tab system works nicely. I just have a lot of confusion when it comes to editing articles. For example, Sache was in the Phantom Menace, so she can be split into a canon article, but is her name still canon? Also things like Bestine, which were mentioned in the novelization, but didn't appear in any movie/clone wars show, would that deserve a canon article? This was all probably discussed and covered already, but this is new news to me, so I'm kind of curious myself. StarsiderSWG (talk) 01:38, May 24, 2014 (UTC)

Neither of those should get articles. We're currently debating whether to even include the novelizations, as their canon status is fuzzy, and any film/TCW character who was named in the EU doesn't get an article until they are named in the new continuity. Cade Calrayn 01:41, May 24, 2014 (UTC)

Understood. And has an official decision been reached regarding whether canon material should be included in the legends articles? StarsiderSWG (talk) 01:43, May 24, 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how often it shows up, but what about characters who receive names only in scripts? Of course, I believe that most of the Podracers have names only in the script, as only a portion are named onscreen during the film, and only three more receive names in the deleted scenes. The rest are only named in the script, I think (Although the current online Encyclopedia also lists all of the pilots on a poster, but I don't know if that really counts or not). --Clonehunter^{(Report your W.M.D.)} 15:37, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

Novels as canon

We were told in the last week of April that the novelizations of the theatrical films were canon when they did not interfere with the films themselves. That can be taken in two separate views. Nevertheless some canon articles have novelizations in the "Appearances" sections while others do not. I am here simply to ask "Why?" Have a dark side filled day! --You may call me Mr. Darth (talk) 15:47, June 2, 2014 (UTC)

The Force Collection

I was wondering if anyone knew about the Force Collection's 'canonocity,' right now. Story wise, there really is nothing, but it does have a library of EU names, as well as (assumingly) brand new art assets for canon characters such as Ventress, Tano, Commander Appo, and Chewbacca, among others. Also, it receives regular updates and new cards with new characters (Or rather, old characters first getting new cards) and is still an on going project. Has there been any word on it at all? Or is currently an unknown sorta ting right now? --Clonehunter^{(Report your W.M.D.)} 15:47, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

Don't divide the Wiki!

This whole Canon/Legends thing shouldn't be affecting this Wiki at all. Just let Star Wars be Star Wars, regardless of who owns it. Wookiepedia doesn't belong to Disney or Lucasfilm, so why do we have to follow their example by segregating the content like this? What was wrong with doing things the pre-Disney way? Do we really need to make two separate articles for every single thing? It doesn't seem at all right to just label every other article as either "Legends" or "Canon". It just makes it seem pointless to even bother reading the articles if 95% of them are going to be treated as non-canon by this very Wiki, anyway. You'd might as well replace "Legends" with "Pointless", because that's all I see whenever I look at those stupid tags.

We already had different levels of canon before Disney bought Lucasfilm, but we never had to make separate articles for content as it appeared in those different levels, so why's it any different now? You don't see the Harry Potter Wiki splitting articles by "Novel" and "Movie", so why's Star Wars any different? Sure, the Marvel Wiki splits articles like that, but that's because Marvel has dozens of different realities and universes that would be too lengthy to cover on one article, even if it's just for one character.

Here, it just seems like we're catering to people that are too stupid to differentiate the movies from the rest of the franchise. I mean, if you went to the Luke Skywalker article and asked yourself "Hey, did Luke Skywalker really blow up an AT-AT by cutting a hatch open with his lightsaber and throwing a explosive device into it, or did Rogue Squadron III just make that up?", you'd might as well leave this site and join another fandom. Jykale (talk) 19:20, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

• The old EU canon and the new Disney canon have been decreed to be fundamentally incompatible, and will only become more incompatible as time goes on. The old EU has been shut down—it's there, but it's not the 'official version' of the universe anymore. They have stated, clearly and unequivocally, that any new media produced from Apr 25 onward will be part of the 'new universe' and will not be beholden in any way shape or form to the old EU. This means they can write a book or shoot a movie about Corran Horn the Kuati greasemonkey, or Mara Jade the Wookiee, or have Solo's son Fred ride his coralskipper speeder across Lake Revan. The two versions of the universe will be completely irreconcilable moving forward, hence Legends/Canon. It's not ideal, it's certainly not what anyone here wanted, but it is what it is and it's done. Deal. — DigiFluid^{(Whine here)} 19:42, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
  • It's what I wanted! :) But yeah, I agree; of the options available, this was the best way forward. A lot of pages, especially film characters, often seem cluttered with a lot of templates as it is, so it would become pretty unwieldy if pages had to start getting filled with warning templates about which universe something was part of. This way, people who are looking for strictly canon information know where to look, as do people who are looking for strictly Legends information. - Brandon Rhea^(talk) 20:34, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
    • Then why don't you just make another Wiki? Oh, wait. You guys don't want "competition". Well, if you don't want to make another Wiki, you'll probably overload this Wiki with redundant articles, which will make things even more inconvenient. If differentiation is really that vital, can't you just make all text covering canon material a different color from the Legends/EU stuff? You know, like Canon=green, EU/Legends=purple?
      • 'Don't want competition'? Even as strawman arguments go, that's pretty sad. Wookieepedia is not Wikia, and does not set Wikia's broader policies. Others are free to create new Wikias as they please, and there's exactly zero that we can do to stop it. Hell, some already do exist. Off the top of my head there's the TOR Wiki, CW Wiki, SWG Wiki, FanPedia, and the SW Fanon Wiki. — DigiFluid^{(Whine here)} 22:19, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

Or better yet, keep everything normal, and if something's been explicitly retconned/ignored, then add a disclaimer or something that says "this article/section contains material that has been rendered non-canon or obsolete by a recently released work" and update accordingly. The only reason why entire articles should have to be made is for major reality-warping changes. For example, if the "canon" Darth Plagueis turns out to be a Rodian instead of a Muun like in the EU, then by all means, make another article for that Plagueis. If the "canon" Dantooine is a mountainous planet instead of a grassy one like the EU established, then make an article about the canon Dantooine.

When I have to read two separate articles just to learn all about the planet Tatooine, despite it being the same two-sunned, Tusken Raider-infested desert planet it has always been in the movies and the EU, that just ruins things for me.Jykale (talk) 21:30, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

• There hasn't really been any indication yet that things are going to become that incompatible as has been said above... all the announcement basically said was that everything going forward is G-canon and everything before isn't. For all we know nothing has really changed other than their promise to pay closer attention to what is getting published from now on. So the movies will probably be different, big deal. This is the biggest knee jerk over-reaction about anything I've ever seen, and I think it speaks to how broken Wookieepedia's policy-making process is, where everything gets decided on IRC in advance of the CT, and where there's no devil's advocate because all the admins are so used to agreeing with each other and ignoring everyone else. We need a policy like this. -- Xell Khaar (talk) 21:34, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

Deleted Scenes

Another question I didn't see addressed above, but originally, I thought, Deleted Scenes were canon unless contradicted by another source or event, such as Shaak Ti's death in RotS wasn't canon, because she wasn't kidnapped in the Clone Wars tv show, or because she was in TFU, etc... But, then there was stuff like Jerjorred's cut scenes being canon, or the extended Podrace scene from TPM, Ratts Tyerell's family, Luke and Biggs talking at Anchorhead or wherever (Although that was also in the novel, as anumber of cut scenes were, I think), were still all canon. For example, Kam Nale's header pic is from a deleted scene (Although, again, shots from the deleted scenes were used in the old Databnak, so maybe that would be confirmed deleted canon scene?) --Clonehunter^{(Report your W.M.D.)} 18:08, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

Change from Legends to Canon

Why is it that many of the TCW based articles have the Legends banner on them? Hasn't it been confirmed from these statements released a few months back that TCW would remain, along with the six films, as canon and everything else would fall under Legends and thus are non-canon. I think many of the TCW articles that have no information coming from the EU need to change to canon articles.--172.250.250.99 22:04, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

• All of those articles are about the Legends version of the subject. The articles on the canon versions haven't been created yet. And also, most of those articles do include EU information, as virtually every name of ships, characters, places, etc. not mentioned in dialogue is considered Legends. Cade Calrayn 22:07, June 13, 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh, so you're saying that only TCW episodes are canon. Are you sure that the visual guides and other material that ties into the series aren't canon?--172.250.250.99 22:12, June 13, 2014 (UTC)
    • You know that is a good question? what about the visual guides, and the tiny comics that connected the episodes? or the video game tie-ins? or the original 2D animated Clone Wars that it was directly based on? ralok (talk) 02:00, June 19, 2014 (UTC)
      • None of them are canon. Supreme Emperor (talk) 02:03, June 19, 2014 (UTC)
        • I am confused... how is the 2D clone wars not canon? its basically the same show? ugh... if anything it should be canon, BRB gonna badgr people on twitter about it... I feel like when they mention clone wars as canon they probably mean to include that too, that needs to be clarified with someone. ralok (talk) 02:26, June 19, 2014 (UTC)
          • They were specific about it, the old Clone Wars show isn't canon. Only the 6 movies, TCW, Rebels, and a very short list of recently released material such as Star Wars: Darth Maul—Son of Dathomir. Supreme Emperor (talk) 13:05, June 19, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah and that is what is confusing me... can you be 100% that they didnt intend the 2D animated clone wars and the 3D clone wars to be the same when they said that? How can you be sure they werent roping them together in the same category? They roped all the movies together into one category... ralok (talk) 05:31, June 20, 2014 (UTC)

• They are two different television shows. If Lucasfilm intended the 2D show to be canon, they would have said so. It is considered EU, and the EU is now Legends/non-canon. Wookieepedia will treat the 2D show as non-canon until such a time as Lucasfilm says it's canon (which very likely will never happen). - Brandon Rhea^(talk) 05:37, June 20, 2014 (UTC)
• 2D = "Clone Wars". 3D = "The Clone Wars" or "TCW". The 2D version is never referred to as "The Clone Wars", which is what was defined as canon, so we know they weren't roping them together. There are a lot of differences between the two, but the primary one is that Lucas was heavily involved with TCW, and not so much with Clone Wars. Tainb'ocu'chulainn (talk) 13:21, June 20, 2014 (UTC)

Ok we know that the original CW show is non-canon but my original question was in regards to the supplementary material to TCW. Are they canon or not? Jennifer Heddle didn't even know for sure.--24.205.189.29 16:12, July 3, 2014 (UTC)

• We do not know as well. All of our information comes directly from the story group's official statements. So far we know that: The six films (plus Episode VII in 2015), the spin offs movies, TCW, Rebels, the upcoming novels and the Darth Maul comic are canon. JangFett ^(Talk) 00:04, July 4, 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah but when they said that TCW is canon, could they have meant everything associated with the series too, not just necessarily the episodes?--Darth Pythonis ^(Talk) 18:47, July 5, 2014 (UTC)
    • We can't assume that. So until such time as Lucasfilm explicitly says that those supplemental materials are canon, we consider them Legends. - Brandon Rhea^(talk) 19:41, July 5, 2014 (UTC)
      • As a matter of fact, we do now know that Clone Wars Gambit: Stealth is Legends, so it's natural to assume the rest of the TCW novel series is Legends as well. And as everyone else is saying here, we err on the side of caution, based on what LFL people have said, by assuming all other TCW supplementary material is Legends too. If you're wondering why the entire TCW series isn't Canon, it's because George wasn't personally involved in the creation of the TCW spinoff material, whereas he was directly involved in the creation of the show. That's the difference. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:05, July 5, 2014 (UTC)
        • I can understand the TCW novels being under Legends, but what our sources like the visual guides and episode guides (like the ones from SW.com). The stuff that are not spinoffs, but are related to the actual episodes.--Darth Pythonis ^(Talk) 20:32, July 5, 2014 (UTC)
          • Wookieepedia has agreed to treat everything except the show itself as Legends, because that's what Lucasfilm has indicated their system to be. The only real exception to this are the TCW episode guides on SW.com Those are official because they're on SW.com. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:39, July 5, 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing Projects

I'm sure this has been addressed somewhere, but I cannot locate the answer: For the ongoing comics series--Dawn of the Jedi, Legacy, Star Wars, et al, whose existing issues released before the "Great Decanonization" of the entire EU are now within the "Legends" category: what of the issued released after that? They obviously continue the same stories, from a timeline where Jacen Solo and Ben Skywalker exist, but we have one major problem: It has been stated that "Legends" is as it is now, and will not be added to, yet these comics are obvious continuations of those continuities. And the problem with making these new issues canon is that it blurs the lines, and reconciling Cade Skywalker's era with the new canon era is just plain impossible.

I'm sure you know what I'm getting at. The question is, what will Lucas Film do with this issue? What, by extension, will Wookieepedia do? 71.61.96.27 03:34, July 13, 2014 (UTC)

• Dawn of the Jedi ended several months ago, and both Legacy and Dark Horse's Star Wars series are Legends, including their issues after April 25. Cade Calrayn 03:38, July 13, 2014 (UTC)
  • Per Cade. In the event that there are other comic series still ongoing, those are Legends as well. Any ongoing Dark Horse comic series from before April 25th are still Legends. Any new comic series published by Marvel after April 25th (though none have been announced yet) will be canon. - Brandon Rhea^(talk) 03:42, July 13, 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the clarification. So then "Legends" is still being added to, from a certain point of view. 71.61.96.27 03:50, July 13, 2014 (UTC)
      • From a certain point of view, yes. Since those are all ongoing stories then technically there are no new stories. Just the final few issues of stories that were already being published. - Brandon Rhea^(talk) 03:53, July 13, 2014 (UTC)