Talk:Expanded Universe

From Wookieepedia, the Star Wars wiki.

Contents 1 Redirect 2 Canon 3 The Expanded Universe in the rest of the Wookieepedia 4 I dispute parts of this article. 5 25,000 years? 6 Dark Empire intervention 7 Subjective

[edit] Redirect

Redirect for those that don't include the "(Star Wars)" Shadowtrooper 02:57, 15 Mar 2005 (GMT)

[edit] Canon

Where does starwars.com fall in the canon spectrum? --SparqMan 06:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• It states both the movies and the EU side of things. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• The official site itself does not fall within the canon hierarchy, I.E. it is non-canon. However, articles in the database are the canon level of their content. E.G. a description of the battle between Luke and Vader in ESB is G-Level canon, as it appears in the movies. Articles about RW production, what the actor's think their characters' motivation is, etc. are not canon. The current canon policy can be found here.--Eion 07:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • But, for example, if the website contradicts other sources, (like refering to a ship as the Dreadnought Heavy Cruiser rather than Dreadnought-class Heavy Cruiser), what should be done? --SparqMan 14:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • The website should only be referencing other sources, if they make a syntax error like that, it should be treated as such and discarded.--Eion 23:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Yet another of my two cents: I have long been a strong proponent of the EU. Yet every once in a blue moon I get one of those impulses... like when you stand at the edge of a cliff and you get the insane urge to take that extra step. It's the insane desire to vandalize the article with big bold text: "It's ALL $#!^" despite the fact that this is 180 degrees from my real beleifs. Has this ever happened to this article? 74.132.136.109 23:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Expanded Universe in the rest of the Wookieepedia

Not sure if this is the right place to bring it up, but I looked around and couldn't find it addressed in a more obvious place.

Should the entries in this Wiki descriminate between what is "G-Canon" and what isn't? Personally I am not a fan of just about everything created by Expanded Universe authors, so I don't particularly like seeing things about Palpatine's clone and the Yuuzhan Vong mentioned amongst material created by George Lucas.

I'm new here so I'm sure this has been discussed but I've missed out, so let me know if I'm out of line. --SeanR 08:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• Even the EU that covers clones and alien invaders, is recognized by LucasArts, unless Lucas makes a movie that contradicts it all. G-canon is just the movies. C-canon is everything else recognized. S-canon is accepted, but may be easily contradicted, such as stats for planets, names of systems, and locations. N-canon is Supershadow crap and other fanon. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:45, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, N-canon is everything that was at one time released as offical material from LFL, but later contridicted by a higher or more recent source, as SS has not released anything through LFL, he has no canon rating, at all, period, but I think everyone got the general point, and I'm just being a semantics whore.--Eion 23:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I understand all that, and I'm not suggesting we throw EU out of the Wookieepedia entirely. I just feel we should in some way separate those elements that were created by George Lucas or that at least support the events in the films (such as official classifications like AT-AT or events of the Clone Wars) from those that don't really have anything to do with Lucas' main story at all (such as the cloned Emperor or the Yuuzhan Vong). With this separation we can present a clearer view of Star Wars to the casual reader without cluttering it with a mish-mash of ideas from hundreds of differently-minded EU authors. --SeanR 12:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
    • No, it should be kept all together. If George Lucas explicitly approves of all licensed material. In fact, a good portion of the material he used to create the prequel trilogy was sourced in EU material that "differently-minded" EU authors created. While I understand the benefit of a movies-only section, it is probably what the first paragraph of an article should contain: a brief synopsis of the major role of the entry's topic (which for movie-involved issues, is usually the movies).
    • There is no distinction between official and unofficial material in the canon. ALL of it is approved by LFL, and therfore approved by George Lucas. The heirarchy is quite simple. I don't much care for the Glove of Darth Vader, but I damn sure know it ranks higher than my own fanfic on the canon chart, and I am comforted by the fact that it resides very lower on the canon heirchy itself. You can't just pick and choose what you like about SW, it all belongs in there so long as it is published through LFL.--Eion 23:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• If you wish to edit 99% of the articles on wookieepedia with a tag that says "this is not G-canon and is therefore crap according to SeanR" you can try that but I'm pretty sure it would be vandalism. —Unsigned comment by 69.205.234.209 (talk • contribs).
  • Um, dude, check the dates on the conversation you're posting to. This discussion was over last May, and the guy who brought it up hasn't edited here since the end of June. (I suspect that one day, man will invent a time-travel device for the sole purpose of joining interesting arguments throughout history. "Hey, Khrushchev, you're a jerk! Now put your shoe back on!") —Darth Culator (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I needed to vent from a different anti-EU argument I am curently having :-/ I figured it was a pretty dead argument but did not notice the dates or HOW dead it was... meh. It needed to be said.

[edit] I dispute parts of this article.

Actual cannon is ONLY the Movies, according to Lucasfilms in their 2003 statement.

This page doesn't reflect that statement.

• Incorrect. Movies are G-Level canon, the highest level. They override anything else - ie, C-Canon etc. So there are different levels of canon. And "cannon" is a big gun and thus irrelevant to this discussion. QuentinGeorge 02:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Plus this Star Wars Wiki would be pretty dry without the EU :D. -- Falmarin 02:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, most entries would be like "Shaak Ti was a Jedi". QuentinGeorge 02:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• PS. It should be noted that Lucasfilm has no canon policy as it doesn't need one. LucasLicensing does. There's a difference. QuentinGeorge 02:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 25,000 years?

While in the EU the Republic was established to be extant for 25,000 years, in Attack of the Clones Palpatine says that the Republic has stood for a thousand years. This almost deleted the majority of the EU. Authors invented the Ruusan Reformation, in which the Republic is reorganized following the defeat of the Sith, occurring a thousand years before the movies, in order to explain this statement.

Didn't *LUCAS* state 25,000 years in A New Hope? Thanos6 04:38, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, he forgot to check his old script. It happens. — Silly Dan 04:39, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, shouldn't we remove it? It's not an EU mistake then, is it? Thanos6 04:40, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• Actually, no, the film didn't state 25,000 years explictly. Obi-Wan states "a thousand generations", which the EU (well...Bill Slavicsek) took to mean 1000 x 25 years (what is usually considered a generation). But unless you're a mind reader, there's no way to know that it's actually what Lucas intended by that statement. QuentinGeorge 05:11, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • True, but you DON'T have to be a mind-reader to guess that "a thousand generations" is more than "a thousand years," unless between AOTC and ANH every single being in the galaxy was replaced with year-old clones... Thanos6 05:19, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dark Empire intervention

I remember reading somewhere that Tom Veitch originally intended to bring back Vader in his Dark Empire series, but Lucas vetoed that decision and suggested he use Palpatine instead. Can someone validate this or am I pulling this out of nowhere? If true, it should be included in the article. --Exor 02:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• I remember hearing that too, though I don't recall the source. jSarek 20:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subjective

This line is out of place and subjective: "Much of the early EU material from the early '80s contained analogies to the real world, rather than embracing the holistic fiction of the Star Wars films. Much of this material now seems rather detached from the rest of the EU." That's not an accurate statement at all. Han mentions "Hell" in The Empire Strikes Back; Tim Zahn gave the EU chocolate milk. Mike Stackpole's Rogue Squadron pilots (irregardless of race) act like contemporary US Air Force cadets, to the point of interspecies dating. And to say the early EU didn't embrace "the holistic fiction of the Star Wars films" is nonsense and an insult to the contributions of men like Archie Goodwin, Russ Manning and Brian Daley who created great space opera that in the minds of many perfectly captured the motifs and feel of the Classic Trilogy. How about utilizing less pejorative statements to characterize the early EU? —Unsigned comment by 72.68.228.9 (talk • contribs).

• Make it so. You'll hear no argument from me if you want to clean that statement up a bit. jSarek 08:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It does sound a bit subjective, I agree. I'm not sure if it was in fact changed and reverted or if the change itself never happened. Is this a quote or statement from somebody on the EU? If so it should be framed as such and cited. If not a rephrasing or removal altogether should be done. Jett Windar 00:39, 14 February 2008 (EST)